An analysis of “friendly forces” via a “tribal discourse” activity found that although many of humanity’s smaller and less powerful tribes are engaged in minor operations against the hyperthreat, its most powerful tribes often abet the hyperthreat (figure 2). If humanity’s tribes could be united against the hyperthreat, the current balance of probabilities, which currently lie with a hyperthreat victory and a Hothouse Earth outcome, could be recast.

But it turns out there isn’t such a hard-line distinction on where individual action ends, because even individual actions can have network effects. In between, there are schools, counties, cities, professions, and peer groups that can push for climate action. The IPCC calls these “middle actors.”

So the bottom line of the IPCC’s first look at individual action is this: By reexamining the way we live, move around, and eat, the world has the potential to slash up to 70 percent of end-use emissions by 2050. Change is even possible in the very short term. And while hard data and peer-reviewed science show individual actions do matter, ultimately, the world has to think beyond the individual carbon footprint in addressing the climate crisis, including thinking about how individuals can bring about structural change.