capital comments on What if Everyone Did Something to Slow Climate Change? Researchers are looking at the impact that individuals’ actions can have on reducing carbon emissions

[–] capital@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

Notice this response isn’t “that’s wrong and here’s why” it’s “someone else also said this”.

Even if it were true that I was repeating BP taking points, that’s not a good reason to discount it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

To help drive the point home, how many widgets will a company make if no one is buying them anymore?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

What’s more realistic to change? A few dozen companies or billions of people?

Obviously it is easier to change the companies. That is why fossil fuel companies pay marketing companies to shift the responsibility onto billions of people. Because they know it will never succeed.

So whether you are a fossil fuel shill or not, you are doing the work of a fossil fuel shill.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] capital@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

What’s more realistic to change? A few dozen companies or billions of people?

My comment was meant to encourage the readers of the thread to make a change. So I think I'll switch around your question.

What's more realistic to change? YOUR own consumption habits or corporations?

What's ironic is your argument is perfect for discouraging individuals from making changes in their own lives which would improve climate change. Who is the shill?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

1 persons individual change is not enough to matter. For individual carbon footprint changes to matter you need 100% participation across the planet to fix a small part of the problem.

To make systemic change you need the majority of voters. So around 25% participation to fix 100% of the problem.

I provided my source showing BP hired a marketing firm to get the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

So to answer your question of who the shill is: I’d say the person repeating the fossil fuel talking points.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] capital@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

I’d say the person repeating the fossil fuel talking points.

I'd say it's the one discouraging people from changing their habits, thereby continuing to give money to fossil fuel companies and big ag.

Yes, also vote. But discouraging people from changing is so obviously in favor of the groups you purport to be against.

I provided my source showing BP hired a marketing firm to get the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

I find that comments like these seem to give the person making it license to continue doing things counter to their stated goals of reducing the affects of climate change. I'm sure it makes you feel better about doing it but I'm here to say, you can certainly make a change on your own, every single day and do not have to wait to act twice a year (in the US example) to vote to improve things.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago*

I’m not discouraging anyone from changing their habits.

I am pointing out why the fossil fuel industry is paying marketing firms to come into threads like this and say the same things you are saying:

Because focusing on individual carbon footprint requires 100% of the world to just do the right thing in order to fix a small part of the problem.

While focusing on systemic change requires the voting majority, which is closer to 25% of the population. To fix 100% of the problem.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent