The carbon footprint became one of the most successful concepts in modern climate discourse. For years, the message was clear: turn off the lights, recycle, use less plastic, eat less meat, drive less. The planet’s climate future seemed to depend, above all else, on the individual choices of millions of people.
The recently published People and Climate Change 2026 report by Ipsos shows a major shift in that perception. Between 2021 and 2026, the countries analyzed saw a decline in the number of people who believe that if individuals don’t act now, they will fail future generations.
Colombia is among the countries where this perception dropped the most. This doesn’t mean Colombians don’t believe in climate change; rather, we’ve started to question the burden placed on us as individuals within a crisis involving actors with far greater responsibility and power to act.
In fact, 61% of people still state that failing to act on climate change would be failing future generations. Furthermore, in 29 of the 31 countries studied, the majority rejects the idea that it is “already too late” to do anything about it. In other words, the concern is still there and people still see a window for action—but it is no longer a guilt that the individual should have to shoulder alone.
The report also notes that 74% of people are worried about rising energy prices, and 50% believe governments should prioritize keeping energy costs low, even if emissions increase. Consequently, the climate conversation has ceased to be strictly environmental; it has become economic, geopolitical, and social.
War, inflation, and energy uncertainty have shifted the priorities of millions. 63% of respondents believe their country is too dependent on foreign energy sources. Meanwhile, only 27% consider their country to be a true leader in the fight against climate change.
All of this leads to the conclusion that the “carbon footprint” is starting to reach its limits. For years, a narrative was built in which citizens had to carry much of the moral responsibility for the problem, while energy, industrial, and political systems moved much slower. A collective crisis was individualized. The reality is more complex: the energy transition depends on infrastructure, energy security, technological innovation, public investment, political stability, and institutional trust.
These figures should force us to rethink how we communicate the energy transition. People do not respond to abstract speeches about carbon neutrality or “Net Zero by 2050” when they are feeling the pressure of the cost of living, electricity bills, or fuel prices. The report concludes that consumers react more to messages associated with immediate, human benefits—savings, health, energy security, or stability—than to technical or guilt-based narratives.
The climate discussion has become more pragmatic. People remain concerned about the planet and still believe there is time to act, but what has changed is how responsibility is understood. The energy transition can no longer be presented solely as a collection of individual sacrifices; it must be a collective, credible project capable of better distributing the costs and responsibilities of change.