"Working Around The Margins"
Collective action for sustainability requires individual choices, individual actions.
Yesterday, a group of nations known as BRICS concluded it’s 17th summit with a diplomatic declaration that included what the group termed a “historic commitment… for more inclusive and sustainable governance.”
In response, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened new tariffs: "Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy.”
But there’s no mention of which policies are “Anti-American.”
BRICS stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, the original* five members of a forum for international cooperation among countries from the “Global South.” That term does not refer to geography, but rather to the “wider context of globalization – or global capitalism,” so “Global South” replaces the hierarchical “Third World” and evolutionary “Developing World.”
*BRICS started out as BRIC in 2009. South Africa joined in 2010. BRICS now includes Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates. and Indonesia. Saudi Arabia attended the conference, but hasn’t formally joined and so “sits on fence over BRICS with eye on vital ties with US” (Reuters).
Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, and Uzbekistan are currently partner countries
Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Laos, Kuwait, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, Senegal, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe are interested in joining.
The political tensions surrounding what BRICS terms “inclusive and sustainable governance” concern funding climate action and sustainable development. Their stance is in contrast to the Trump Administration’s agenda of energy dominance, which prioritizes oil and gas production and rolls back environmental and sustainability regulations. All together, the Trump Administration’s efforts could start a race to the bottom, in which even more countries rollback environmental and sustainability regulations in an effort to compete economically. But the Administrations actions are not representative of what most Americans think about climate change, as yet another survey shows (7 July 2025, first survey conducted by same organization in 2008). In particular, the latest survey shows the majority of Americans understand that global warming is mostly human-caused, think global warming will harm future generations, and now half (48%) of respondents think people in the U.S. are being harmed by global warming “right now.”
The Trump Administration’s actions are not representative of what most Americans think about climate change.
But as much as climate-change policy decisions made at the national and international level discourage those interested in a sustainable future, there’s still plenty of opportunity for individuals to make impactful choices (and already three in ten Americans say they have engaged in consumer activism on global warming). The more people who engage with actions for a healthy planet will push businesses, markets and governments toward more “inclusive and sustainable governance” (BRICS term). Such efforts may be considered only “working around the margins,” as psychologist Dan Gilbert put it — a problem with climate change communications — but collective action does not just happen on its own. It requires individual action.
Couched in the language of diplomacy, the BRICS’s formal declaration did not name the U.S.:
“We condemn and reject unilateral, punitive and discriminatory protectionist measures that are not in line with international law.... We also oppose unilateral protectionist measures which deliberately disrupt the global supply and production chains and distort competition. We express concern that such measures, as well as unilateral economic and financial sanctions, may undermine BRICS countries' capacities to invest in their own just transitions and development priorities and risk diverting away critical resources at a time when developing countries face a financial gap to pursue climate action and sustainable development. We emphasize the importance of non-discriminatory access to trade and to climate finance for all countries and the need to address existing barriers.”
-- Leaders’ Framework Declaration on Climate Finance, published 7 July 2025 (related press release)But it is easy to understand why the recent trade, tariff, and sanctioning practices of the Trump Administration look “unilateral, punitive and discriminatory” especially to those countries who are feeling economically pinched. As previously reported on SustainLab, it looks that way to a lot of businesses, too.
Also as previously reported on SustainLab, a reporter in February asked President Trump about the prospect of BRICS using a currency other than the U.S. dollar. Trump replied that “BRICS is dead” the moment they mentioned that possibility. If BRICS were to do so, Trump warned, then he would apply a “100% tariff” on BRICS countries selling goods into the United States.
“Why is Donald Trump so afraid of BRICS?” ran today’s headline in DW, Germany’s international broadcaster.
One reason may be because BRICS has grown to represent nearly half of the world’s population and a quarter of the global economy, though most of BRICS’s economic growth is in China.
Another reason may be that out of the US$ 33 trillion in global trade conducted in 2024, intra-BRICS trade — often conducted without relying on the U.S. dollar — was around $1 trillion and growing.
Overall, though, “de-dollarization” is a distant threat, with DW reporting that “US currency is used in 90% of global transactions and 59% of foreign exchange reserves,” so economists think “any BRICS alternative will be hampered by the yuan’s capital controls, the ruble’s volatility and some members' reluctance to abandon the greenback.”
Now, although:
frustration mounts with wealthy countries—like the U.S.—backsliding on climate promises,
civil society and Indigenous peoples’ groups call for urgent reforms to the United Nations’s climate negotiations,
the Vatican released new liturgy last Thursday for Mass “reflecting concern for the environment, offering prayers, readings and hymns that highlight the church’s responsibility to protect the Earth,”
there’s nothing stopping individuals with sufficient resources residing in “the land of the free and the home of the brave” from making impactful choices for sustainability. There’s even “an app for that.” Just don’t expect all the choices to be easy.
Among the low effort choices listed in the United Nations’ Environmental Programme policy brief:
know your monthly energy consumption (even knowing it will prompt change, and you may discover energy leakages that will save money);
eat more vegetables and less meat, particularly beef (cattle generate lots of methane, a potent greenhouse gas);
throw away less food, and reduce, reuse, recycle clothing (food and clothing in landfills degrade via anaerobic processes, generating methane, a potent greenhouse gas).
Requiring low-to-medium effort:
make your money count by choosing products from companies who use resources responsibly, are committed to cutting emissions, and invest only in environmentally sustainable businesses;
consider shared modes of transportation (share access to a car, motorcycle, bicycle, scooter, etc.);
walk, bike, take public transit, carpool;
save energy wherever possible (e.g., reduce heating and cooling, wash on cold, air dry clothes, dishes, hair, etc.).
Requiring medium-to-high effort:
be mindful of flying, reduce trips and choose ground transportation (e.g., bus, train) for shorter trips;
use a hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or all-electric vehicle.
Whether national leaders call for a “historic commitment… for more inclusive and sustainable governance” or indiscriminately label policies as “Anti-American,” it’s our daily decisions that matter more than summits or sanctions. That’s especially true for those of us with the resources to change our lifestyle and energy-consumption habits, as we’re the ones contributing most to carbon dioxide emissions (top 1% income > US$109,000; top 10% > US$38,000 in 2015 dollars (UN source above)… converted to 2025 dollars top 1% > US$150,000; top 10% > US$52,000).
In your habitat, what prevents you from changing your daily energy-consumption decisions and habits?
We just went through a six-month process to put solar panels on our house. Now we're waiting for the utility (Duke Power) to turn them on.
Thanks for the information about the app. I'm going to give it a try.