DOING LESS BAD vs DOING MORE GOOD
Dec 01, 2025
Solving climate change is for governments …
or, is it not
?
Let’s begin with defining who exactly the government is. The government of any country is a tiny percentage of people (a.k.a. human beings just like anybody else) who make decisions for [govern] the enormous masses of people. Even in democratically elected governments, those few who govern are still just that:
people
, with strengths and weaknesses … like anybody else among the governed. They are obligated to represent the masses, but if the masses of people don’t stand up for themselves and make their representatives actually represent them, the influence of large polluter companies will make those people’s representatives represent the large polluter companies, instead.
So, where do we stand with whose responsibility it is to act, and how the practice of ‘doing less bad versus doing more good’ applies to individuals?
↑
THE ESSENCE
THE DETAILS
↓
Of course, many people do ‘their own part on their own level’ to mitigate through such actions as recycling or being mindful about waste. But, is that enough? This is where the so‑called single action bias* takes its place, implying that “I am already doing my part.” And so, they see no need or option to do more, but to leave the rest to corporations to do their part—on a global scale that extends much beyond the everyday person’s ability to have a say in what happens to our planet. But, will the large polluters do their part against their own interests without our standing up to them for the benefit of the whole planet?
⚉⚉⚉
the nitty‑gritty
Individuals joining together
in (or joining already‑existing) groups with a specific focus, and exerting sizeable influence over government and organizations is perhaps the most effective way to enact laws and policies against large polluters’ reckless practices.
EXPAND ALL COLLAPSE ALL
THE EFFECTS OF DOING LESS BAD and DOING MORE GOOD
  • IMMUTABLE LAW:
    The higher growth rate (of anything) always outpaces the lower growth rate (of another thing),
    THEREFORE
    , the higher growth of industrial‑scale polluting outpaces the lower growth of mitigating damage,
    THEREFORE
    , a time will come when mitigating damage will cease to have any positive effect,
    UNLESS
    the large industrial‑scale pollution is stopped. For this reason, distinguishing between doing less bad and doing more good is of utmost importance.
  • DOING LESS BAD
    (mitigating damage that has already been done)
    • EXAMPLES
      • Recycling
      • Reducing food waste (but not eliminating it)
      • and other everyday individual or household activities
    • Mitigates SOME harmful effects + Leaves MOST harmful effects existent, further damaging the environment + Allows MORE harmful effects to be produced
    • Provides a sense of self‑satisfaction that the individual is already doing his/her part ⟹ Single Action Bias* develops⟶ Individuals don’t think that they can do anything more, or anything at all on a larger scale
    • Makes a little bit of a dent in the environmental harm that’s already been done, but has no chance of eliminating the harm—let alone reversing the effects the harm has already caused
    • We recycle (some) plastic bottles
      [mitigate the damage]
      only after their production
      [when damage has already been made]
      , then we demand more drinks in plastic bottles so manufacturers produce more,
      then we mitigate (recycle) some of the newly created damage
      … resting in satisfaction that we did ‘our part’ in the climate action, as we continue to repeat this process.
    • Sooner or later, an end to any positive effects of mitigation will come BECAUSE:
      • The harm is being produced at a much higher rate than any amount of mitigation can ever change
      • Mitigation doesn’t make the harm go away. It only lessens the harm to a small extent, but cannot nullify harm that’s already been made.
  • DOING MORE GOOD
    (preventing damage from being done, in the first place)
    • Creates the ability to effect real change:

      Individuals joining or organizing groups ⟶ Becoming and being climate‑informed ⟶ Standing up to representatives (equipped with climate‑informed knowledge) and demanding specific changes to be enacted by laws and regulations ⟹ Large‑scale polluters (companies) will have no choice but to obey ⟹ Pollution can be stopped (with positive effects still in our lifetime), and climate change be stopped and reversed in some time (to ensure that the next generations will, in fact, have a chance at a healthy life).
      BUT, enacting new laws and regulations cannot be the end in order to counter large‑scale pollution.
      The very reason that regulations exist is to rein in already‑existing wrongdoings. Regulations don’t effectively prevent the arisal of wrongdoings or new damage, in the first place—instead, they regulate the ‘allowed’ amount of newly‑created damage already being made.
      The next step must be to regenerate: the environment, the species, the Earth, and all living things. For life to continue in a meaningful way, a change in mindset is an absolute necessity: from the mindset of mitigating and preventing to a mindset of restoring and regenerating. Ultimately, it will rejuvenate us, humans.
    • Doing more good creates the sense of standing for something greater than just one’s own life
    • The benefits of doing more good exponentially multiply:
      • On a global level, by making the essential changes to counter, stop, and reverse climate change, and to regenerate our environment
      • On a personal level, by being enriched through other people who come into our lives during this process
      • ⟶ next
      • ⟵ back
      • ⟹ consequently
      • ⟸ as said before
    EXPAND ALL COLLAPSE ALL
WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT?
↓
JOIN TOGETHER TO FORM
or
JOIN AN ALREADY EXISTING GROUP
The only thing that can alter the activities of large polluters is the power of individuals grouped together in specific goals, with a resolve.
On a personal‑ or family level (and even on a small‑business level), we can mitigate some effects of the damage that’s causing and exacerbating climate change.

But, on those levels, we can not stop it or reverse it.

We must change our mindset to have our focus first on preventing industrial‑level pollution, then on regenerating the the environment, the species, and all living things.
THE MINDSET:
MITIGATION vs PREVENTION vs REGENERATION
YET, DON’T ABANDON MITIGATION
Still, don’t abandon recycling and the such … because what would that do to your mindset, and the resulting outcome?

Do the basics (mitigation), but FOCUS on large scale prevention (by deterring large polluters’ actions).
Remember that almost all production and delivery of consumer goods (from fast fashion to the endless online orders) require the use of fossil fuels. But we, the consumers, can effect significant change in that.
REMEMBER
AND, REMEMBER
… that all large‑scale polluting activities are done in the interest of SOME people—BUT, not in the interest of MOST people.
CITE THIS PIECE
You may use the
text
content of this piece under the Creative Commons
CC BY‑NC‑ND 4.0
 license. That means, you may copy and distribute it in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to GlobeMentum.
Everything else is copyright protected.
AP:
COPY
This is the AP
APA:
COPY
This is the APA
MLA:
COPY
This is the MLA
SOURCES and * DEFINITIONS
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
As the analogy states (often attributed to William McDonough, author of the book Cradle to Cradle; or to Dave Crockett, city councilor of Chattanooga), if our goal is to head North, but we are driving South at 100 miles per hour [causing damage], and eventually we slow down to 20 miles per hour [mitigating], we are still going in the wrong direction instead of accomplishing our goal [in fact, doing the exact opposite].


SOURCES USED FOR INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE:
⚉⚉⚉
☷
While we believe that climate change is real, the related information is not an exact science in every instance. Therefore, some data or statistics might differ in different sources, even as they point to the same phenomenon of a changing climate. While we make sufficient effort to collect valid information, GlobeMentum is not responsible for the precision (or lack thereof) of data or information published on this site. You are encouraged to do your own research.
USE OF THIS SITE CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THE
TERMS & CONDITIONS
 AND THE
PRIVACY POLICY
.