Yes, Actually, Individual Responsibility Is Essential to Solving the Climate Crisis : solarpunk

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I have been on this hill for years, ever since the whole "recycling does nothing" attitude became popular.

People who make these individual lifestyle changes are more likely to advocate for holistic change. Meanwhile those who adopt a cynical take on environmentalism are more likely to disengage entirely. This seems incredibly obvious to me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

I love the "nascar doesn't hurt the environment, big companies do! f1 doesn't hurt the environment, it's big oil's fault! racing my shitcrate down the road doesn't hurt the environment, even though I've modified the carb so unburnt fuel spews out the back because VROOOM VROOM makes me sound like a real man, no, it's uh, all those datacenters fault!"

whatever their fetish is, they'll die on that hill defending it instead of changing.

Think about it: their own children will pick up the tab, be the ones who suffer the worst for these silly fucking games, and they literally don't care. THEIR OWN KIDS. Zero fucks given. When they don't even care about the future shitshow their own kids will have to suffer, what leverage can be found?

[–] [email protected] 49 points 6 days ago (2 children)

the corporations will not save us. be very wary of any "solution" that allows you to continue unchanged and to shift all responsibility to someone else, there's a reason that perspective is so pervasive

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Like I'm all for that we need to hold a fire under corporations. But we also need to change too. Just because they do like, 70% of it doesn't mean we're off the hook. We're buying those products that they pollute for. We drive the cars that are polluting. We buy the cheap clothes that they shamelessly pollute. We each have to change.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago

Corporations have absolutely no incentive to change, consumers need to vote with their wallets if they want something to happen. But no, everytime someone points out this blindingly obvious fact we get the "uhm actually corporations need to change, it's not my fault they're feeding off my unsustainable habits."

We have to work together, we only have power to effect change when we work together, solidarity is our strength.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago

Yep. Who did Dasani bottle all that water for? Paying humans with mouths

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

File under "green washing."

If a company offers a more expensive "choice" of a greener option, rather than just being ecologically responsible by default, then you are being sold a product. That is, you get to express your superior "green" ethics by identifying with your purchase.

The company doesn't actually care about the environment. They're just doing the minimum to capture extra $$$

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm not completely sure of what point you're making. Would you buy the cheaper product even if you could afford the more expensive green one?

Because if the answer is "no", then you are still agreeing with OP; and if the answer is "yes" then you are saying you want to knowingly buy something that is harmful for the environment and encourage a company to make more of it, while deflecting responsibly and saying that corpos and govs are the ones who have to do something.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I am agreeing with op. Corpos and govs are the ones who have to do something. We individually and collectively also have to do something. Nothing changes for the better unless we have buy-in from individuals. The binary you're presenting is one I didn't intend with my comment. I was saying we should watch out for green washing, when functioning as a consumer.

That is, If you can avoid doing business with companies which are harming the environment then you should. The same goes for doing business with companies which are half-assed or insincere in their efforts (though these are naturally preferable).

So if you can't avoid a purchase, and there isn't a good choice, then obviously you should pick the most ecologically sound option available to you.

My main point is no one should feel virtuous for picking, like, "eco green Coca Cola" just because 5% of the proceeds go to saving the rainforest. They're a reprehensible company, so far better to just not fuck with Coke in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Ah, I see, I definitely agree with everything you're saying; I just got a bit confused. When you talked about "green option", I was thinking something like fast fashion vs clothes that will last, for example.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Oh I can see how the word "option" could read like that. Glad you brought it up, to give me the chance to clarify

[–] [email protected] 45 points 6 days ago (3 children)

In 2005, fossil fuel company BP hired the large advertising campaign Ogilvy to popularize the idea of a carbon footprint for individuals.

BP oil company pushed the idea that our individual carbon footprints matter so that everyone can share the blame of what the fossil fuel industry has done.

Don’t fall for it. Only corporations pollute enough to matter. Only corporations can provide alternatives to fossil fuels. Only corporations can make a meaningful reduction to greenhouse gas emissions.

The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Why not vote and protest and consume less?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 days ago (12 children)

I didn’t say “don’t consume less”.

Just pointing out that the fossil fuel industry paid a marketing team to push the idea of individual carbon footprints for a reason.

100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That means that the remaining 29% of emissions are shared by all the other companies and consumers. Even if you split that remainder evenly between all other companies and consumers, that’s only 14% all emissions being caused by consumers and it’s probably more likely in the single digits.

This is why the fossil fuel industry pays a marketing team to get the public focused on their individual carbon footprint. So you’re focused on the less than 14% of the total emissions instead of the other 86%

load more comments (12 replies)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days ago

Exactly. They're right, but it's just a way to not feel guilty about driving a gas guzzler or using a gas furnace. No the corporations are more guilty, but that doesn't make you innocent for just shifting the blame, the same tactic they did. We ALL need to change our ways.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.

Well can also stop giving them our money. Reduce consumption of their products through alternatives and overall reduction. We can also divest our investments away from funds that include their shares.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 days ago (12 children)

I’m not saying to do nothing as individuals.

Just pointing out that the fossil fuel industry paid a marketing team to push the idea of individual carbon footprints for a reason.

100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That means that the remaining 29% of emissions are shared by all the other companies and consumers. Even if you split that remainder evenly between all other companies and consumers, that’s only 14% all emissions being caused by consumers and it’s probably more likely in the single digits.

This is why the fossil fuel industry pays a marketing team to get the public focused on their individual carbon footprint. So you’re focused on the less than 14% of the total emissions instead of the other 86%

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago (13 children)

That includes downstream emissions. So if your car runs on BP oil, those emissions would be part of BPs emissions.

There is a reason BP is not advertising people to drop their cars. BP wants two things in its campaign. First of all to make clear that it is your lifestyles fault and secondly that besides munor changes you do not have to change that at all.

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

While this is basically true, what it ignores is the impact personal decisions make on the ethos around us to build support for legal pressure. I have family that doesn't disbelieve climate change but isn't motivated by it, and by us going mostly meatless and buying and EV they've started meatless Mondays and Thursdays and are considering an EV for their next car. Our individual actions ripple out, and create a public normalization for these types of changes so that it isnt an uphill battle to get uninformed laypeople to care about climate policy at the polling stations

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I’m vegan, I drive an EV and I’m saving money for solar and a heat pump.

Just pointing out that the fossil fuel industry paid a marketing team to push the idea of individual carbon footprints for a reason.

100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That means that the remaining 29% of emissions are shared by all the other companies and consumers. Even if you split that remainder evenly between all other companies and consumers, that’s only 14% all emissions being caused by consumers and it’s probably more likely in the single digits.

This is why the fossil fuel industry pays a marketing team to get the public focused on their individual carbon footprint. So you’re focused on the less than 14% of the total emissions instead of the other 86%

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 days ago

Every person is individually responsible for burning down at least one billionaire-owned property.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You can say this, but you can't make it happen. What is more realistic, changing the attitudes and habits of billions of individuals quickly enough to reverse climate change, or enforcing restrictions on thousands of companies?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Why not try to do both?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's fine, but the focus should be on the thing with 99% leverage and not on the thing with 1% leverage.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The thing with 99% leverage sadly has only a chance of 1% to happen while the 1% leverage thing you can just make happen. And if you make the 1% thing happen in more people the votes for the 99% thing start to go up as well. And eating less meat does have an impact. For years now i read headlines that year n had less pig meat being eaten in total than year n-1 (pork being the focus as my country afaik does not have a big beef industry so it's not as relevant to report about it)

We have very little influence on the industry as a whole but if you buy less meat, the meat industry actually becomes smaller over time. The alternative products also become more and more. Super markets over here all have a vegan shelf at least and there's more vegan only restaurants opening up in my city that even made my meat eater colleagues go there to eat from time to time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

if you buy less meat, the meat industry actually becomes smaller over time.

that has never happened.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=~DEU I'm talking over here where our meat industry has become smaller each year for 8 years now

or here the whole of EU if you want https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-production-tonnes?tab=chart&country=OWID_EU27~OWID_EUR~DEU

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

your local decline can be explained by any number of factors, and there is not enough evidence to conclude it is due to you or your whole town reducing meat consumption.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

if the industry continues to grow, the location of the farms doesn't seem to matter.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Wait, we actually have to do something? /s

Change has to come from both sides, from companies as well as from consumers. Yes, Your actions don't really matter when you try to reduce waste, but the oil tanker spills millions of liters into the ocean, or when you use electricity from renewable sources while there is coal extracted and burned to fulfill the need of energy.

But as a consumer you can change the perspective about it by observing it from the personal economic side. This way, doing something in favour of reducing waste or doing something to lessen the effect of the climate catastrophe is merely a side effect of your actions:

I don't have children, because I don't want to take responisbility for them. Also, I don't like children. This saves me a lot of money, which I don't have.
I am relying on a car. But instead of driving a truck-like 5l-gas guzzler, I drive a small economic car. 90% of the time I drive alone anyway. A small car means less fuel consumption, less tax, cheaper repairs. Also, there are more parking spots availiable for me in the city, since the car is shorter than other vehicles (at least for parallel parking).
When running errands, I combine them with using the car. For instance, I do my grocery shopping on the way back from work, and I can make use of my car's storage capabilities. This saves me precious time, since I'm on the road anyway.
When buying clothes, I don't buy the cheapest clothes availiable. Mid-price ranged clothes are more durable, and they can be worn longer and are cheaper in the long run. Also, I don't use fabric softener. Not only does it contribute to polluting the enviroment - fabric softener reduces the capability for towels to dry things (which defeats the purpose of a towel), because it hinders the fabrics' capillar effect for storing water in the fibers. Additional to that, I don't use an electric dryer. I hang my clothes to dry. This measurement extends your clothes lifetime, which is saving money.
Although I am a meat eater, I am open-minded to vegan food - in the last decade it came a long way and there are good substitutes. Some of them are trial and error though (some taste like a stack of hay smells), but the alternatives are out there. It doesn't have to taste exactly like meat. The worst thing that can happen is, that you expand the list of things you can eat.
And the most important thing of all: DON'T BUY USELESS CRAP! Sure, the cloud-based app-operated thing is appealing, but what happens, when the company that produces it goes bankrupt? The cloud service gets shut down! You have a paper weight now. I don't buy such things, because I don't want my home cluttered with stuff I don't need eventually. When I buy new stuff (mostly to replace broken stuff that I can't repair) I do research first and evaluate what features of the desired thing really benefit my needs. I rather buy expensive stuff that is more durable an has a longer lifetime over all. In the long run it turns out to be less expensive.

In my opinion it makes more sense to analyse your actions with the affect of personal economic impact in mind than to view it in the sense of reducing the impact of the climate catastrophe. Because since your neighbor isn't, you can easily feel helpless and de-motivated.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

you might add to your list : choose a bank and insurance company that use your money for ecological/local/social projects

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Bullshit, straight up bullshit. It makes a difference at scale, but at scale it is miniscule when compared to even small mass polluters.

That's not to say you should live as pollution-causing as possible, but spare me the pearl clutching over my paper plate usage.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Did nobody here read the article? Manifesting holistic change starts at home, precisely because it creates an appetite for change over status quo. A person who puts in individual effort is far more likely to tolerate and advocate for collective effort. The idea that top down change will not impact individuals is as ridiculous as the notion that resistance to top down change isn't rooted in anxiety over individual impacts.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Other quotes I found compelling from the article were these:

Ultimately, a personal action versus political action binary is unhelpful. The environmental movement needs to sustain a way to do both: agitate and organize for systemic change while also still encouraging individual behavior changes.
[...]
Which is to say that personal action and collective, political action are self-reinforcing. Individual lifestyle changes can act as a kind of alloy that strengthens political activism. To do the difficult work of walking more lightly on the planet is to bind commitment to conviction.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago

Exactly, also systemic change will have individual consequences. By bearing them early we demonstrate that these burdens are smaller than often imagined.

I love the taste of meat. I struggled to imagine a life without it. I have been a pescatarian now for nearly 3 years. It’s inconvenient at times, but not as much as it once was. Seafood is a treat for me, and I imagine many people can live with meat like that. I am healthier, and I am happy with my choice. By making systemic changes to food people will eat less meat, but while the transition will be uncomfortable, the end result won’t be nearly as bad as they fear.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The issue is, the "wisdom" isn't "don't worry about personal emissions", it's "take voting extremely seriously. Become a single issue voter, that issue should be climate"

But there's a psychological thing where people take the discount today and the payment later.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Voting isn't going to do shit.

Get involved. Protest. Refuse to work for terrible companies. Convince the people around you to protest and vote.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Voting isn’t going to do shit.

Voting can buy us time and keep us a situation more conducive to making changes outside the electoral system. Protesting under a fascist regime is a good way to get a life sentence, get deported, or put on a blacklist.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

I would amend the quote to say "voting alone isn't going to do shit." IMO without direct action it's just a slower slide into fascism.

Agreeing with both of you basically. I just don't want anyone thinking that voting on its own is sufficient to address the problems we're seeing

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Voting isn’t going to do shit.

Convince the people around you to protest and vote.

Which is it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

Voting by itself doesn't do shit. Organizing and convincing people to vote based on an issue does.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

Exactly! We can't blame these companies and then buy their stuff and deflect all responsibility.

It's sort of a cycle that runs on apathy, ignorance, and lack of empathy.

Powerful groups manipulate and coerce people and markets

Manipulated, coerced people buy more of what they are pushed to

Consumer votes in leaders that support this exploitative cycle making laws facilitating companies manipulating and coercing their behavior

We need to break out of this cycle by conscientiously rejecting this manipulation, buying less, voting, running for office, etc. (i.e. degrowth)

Solarpunk