Human-caused Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions originate from a vast number of different sectors, and in total the task to eliminate them all is overwhelming. Collectively, we emit around 50 billion tonnes of CO₂e (carbon dioxide-equivalents) each year.

Rather than look at the overall picture, we need to break down the task per-sector, and even further into sub-sectors. For example, each could represent around 0.1-1% of emissions.

Imagine if every country around the world assigned 100-1000 of their own specialist teams to each work on 0.1-1% of emissions over the next decade. The goal of each team? To get their assigned percentage down to zero.

This way, the task of reaching zero emissions globally is far less daunting:

We can get started ourselves, right now, with our without support of governments. However, governments must also step up immedately.

Governments can vastly accelerate the process with extra funding and regulation. Some sectors may not be decarbonised in time, and will need regulation and restrictions, such as flights. If they don’t do what is necessary, and many governments are still not, at least we’re still making progress.

Currently I am working in a sector-focused team with the goal of helping to retrofit 26 million UK homes, which is one of the biggest challenges in decarbonisation. It’s also a 20% of total emissions in the UK.

Our team of 15 has made significant strides in making it easier for installers to retrofit homes, taking the equivilent of 10,000 fossil fuel cars off the road in just one year (estimated), with our sights set on multiplying that by 10 in the next couple of years.

It’s not just our team, however. We are connected to hundereds of independent renewable installer teams. We’re simply the glue that brings them together. This is anything from a sole trader, to a national company.

The point is that it doesn’t take a lot of people to make a huge difference, especially agile teams of highly effective people who focus relentlessly on decarbonising a sector.

Multiply this to thousands of such teams nationally, then again globally, and this is how large strides can be made towards reaching zero emissions.

The faster we decarbonise, the sooner we can leave fossil fuels in the ground for good. This could be one reason some governments are reluctant to move fast, by instead setting far-away targets such as 2050.

There are also other areas of climate action beyond just emissions reduction, such as system change, economics, and climate justice. The same team principle can be applied there too. For example, grassroots movements that effectively push for political change.

SOLVING climate change involves, at the very least, reaching net zero emissions. This cannot happen without impacting the high-carbon lifestyles of the 1%.

If wealthy celebrities are advocates for the planet reaching net zero emissions, they have to scrap their fossil-powered private jets and megayachts. In a system changed world, these high carbon vehicles would be the first to be regulated.

Wealthy celebrities should instead invest the money into something that will make a difference, for example building 100% electric or hydrogen planes and boats, afforestation, carbon dioxide removal, batteries, wind and solar power.

It will be a lot more fun to figure out new low carbon ways of travel. Why not get creative and replicate a sailboat used by the likes of Captain Cook and hook it up to some batteries and solar panels?

If they subsequently manage to pull off inventing a zero emission plane or boat with their alternative investment, they might even be given the benefit of the doubt for owning them.

So until the rich and famous act like the system has changed, they continue to be part of the problem. As long as they continue super high carbon activities, no one is going to believe that they really care about climate change.

There is research that proves individual action makes a difference, and that leaders who set an example will encourage others to follow. Action speaks louder than words, and the more celebrities that lead by example the better. [Westlake. 2018]

The super rich are in the lucky position to have a choice in how they live their lifestyles. Even taking the train is a luxury for most, since they are often more expensive than economy flights.

It’s all about whether they have a choice. People who take an economy flight because they can’t afford to take the train – that’s not their fault – such a case is why we need system change.

So – a couple of commercial economy flights a year? Fair enough. The system needs changing to make trains more affordable, and the rail infrastructure is poor in some countries.

Jetsetting everywhere in commercial and ignoring train travel completely? Not ideal, that’s a choice. If they can afford tonnes of flights, they can afford to take the train.

Fossil-powered private jet and megayacht? No way. Owning and travelling by those is most certainly a choice.

Choosing to take a zero carbon sailboat and not a flight? Perfect, because this is a choice to be low carbon, and celebrities who do this prove to the general population that alternatives are possible.

Many left-wing outlets argue against such critisisms of individuals, and that we should focus on system change. True, but celebrities who advocate system change should at least try to live as if they are in the system changed world they are advocating for, because such lifestyle changes will be required anyway.

Right-wing outlets take it way too far and critisise everything climate activists do regardless of how low carbon their footprint is. This is not helpful, and is often done out of spite than to be constructive.

All in all, walking the talk and making better choices will help save celebrities from being branded as hypocrites, and inspire thousands or even milllions to join in.