72
Yes, Actually, Individual Responsibility Is Essential to Solving the Climate Crisis (www.sierraclub.org)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/solarpunk@slrpnk.net
91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A fixation on system change alone opens the door to a kind of cynical self-absolution that divorces personal commitment from political belief. This is its own kind of false consciousness, one that threatens to create a cheapened climate politics incommensurate with this urgent moment.

[...]

Because here’s the thing: When you choose to eat less meat or take the bus instead of driving or have fewer children, you are making a statement that your actions matter, that it’s not too late to avert climate catastrophe, that you have power. To take a measure of personal responsibility for climate change doesn’t have to distract from your political activism—if anything, it amplifies it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (10 children)

You don’t know that people use cars to get to work? And get food?

If I were to stop using fuel I would have no way to get to work and earn money. Which means no house or food or anything.

Why does that need to be explained to you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    I have both been able to work and get food without using a car.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (8 children)

    Congrats. Now get 100% of the worlds population to do the same.

    Then you will have reduced less than 14% of the emissions needed.

    That’s why BP paid a marketing firm to get the public focused on their individual carbon footprint. So you waste your time trying to get 100% of the worlds population to change their individual carbon footprint.

    Instead of focusing on getting the majority of voters to protest and vote.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    So you waste your time trying to get 100% of the worlds population to change their individual carbon footprint.

    That is the plan. How else are you going to get to zero, but to change the everybodies carbon footprint.

    Instead of focusing on getting the majority of voters to protest and vote.

    To do what? Ban combustion engines to force everybody to change their individual carbon footprint? Any sort of actually massive climate legislation is going to impact a lot of peoples life directly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    To do what? Ban combustion engines to force everybody to change their individual carbon footprint? Any sort of actually massive climate legislation is going to impact a lot of peoples life directly.

    You’re arguing that we shouldn’t vote for legislation to prevent climate change because it is going to impact people’s lives?

    And instead we should just hope that 100% of the worlds population just does the right thing?

    Remember when we tried to get people to wear masks during the pandemic?

    That appoach doesn’t work. That’s why the fossil fuel industry is paying marketing firms to convince the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    What I am trying to say, is that to fight climate change lifestyle changes are required. To get those changes done in a demicratic fashion, you need to convince a majority of people to actually make those changes. Part of that is making them without the actual law, to show that it is possible.

    Just take you as an example. You want I presume a combustionengine ban. However that ban would cause you massive problems, as you can not get to work or buy food without a car. I would say that, if true, those would be amazing arguments against such a ban. For me the argument is much easies, as I would do more or less fine with that law, as my lifestyle is already pretty low car.

    Remember when we tried to get people to wear masks during the pandemic?

    Remeber the US president refusing to wear a mask in public? Johnsons parties during covid? There was a lot of that bs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    For me the argument is much easies, as I would do more or less fine with that law, as my lifestyle is already pretty low car.

    This is my point. If we try to fix climate change by improving individual carbon footprint, there are some that can do it but many that can not, so it only reduces the greenhouse gas emissions for consumers that can afford it.

    Because it is a systemic problem. Not a problem caused by consumer choice.

    Consumers don’t care if they use a gas car or an EV as long as it does what they need it to do and it is affordable.

    If we just focus on voting and protesting we can create a solution that reduces all emissions, industrial emissions, commercial emissions, consumer emissions, all reduced.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    The top 10% globally emit almost half of global emissions That group is also the one, which can afford the alternatives, like for example EVs.

    You also ignore that actually living the change, is what builts up the alternatives. Lets take EVs as an example. Economies of scale bring down prices and more EVs means more reason to expand charging infrastructure. We can in fact see both of those in action. That kind of stuff also works socially. The more EVs are around, the more normal they become. It also lowers oil sales, which hurt oil companies, which makes them weaker.

    Aligning you politics and your lifestyle, also makes you more effective politically. Somebody who rudes their bike in everyday life as trandport,, will call for very different things, then somebody who only drives everywhere. That can just be knowing the worst parts in the cycling network. Also again, it makes it more believable, when you lobby for something, which makes your life better.

    So I will continue to try to live a life, which aligns with my values, and not pretend I gave up all my agency to Wallstreet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    This is why we can’t fix climate change by reducing individual carbon footprint. Because it requires 100% of the population taking it upon themselves to do the right thing and many individuals: -don’t care -don’t have the option

    The reason we are getting affordable EVs now at all is because governments are intervening to develop the technology and infrastructure. That’s not due to individual action.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is why we can’t fix climate change by reducing individual carbon footprint. Because it requires 100% of the population taking it upon themselves to do the right thing and many individuals: -don’t care -don’t have the option

    No, it just requires everybody who is not living in a sustainable fashion to change their lifestyle. Prending otherwise like you do is just not helpful. People will not be able to drive a combustion engine car, fly on a jet, take diesel ship cruises, eat even close to as much beef and a lot of other things, which are going to change their lifes. Without changing that, you just can not solve the climate crisis.

    People like you, who only want to lobby governments to take action, ignore that this is going to create a counter movement. That already happened a few times. Yellow west and farmer protests come to mind. This is very easily capable of stoping climate action in total and has lead to some truely nasty parties gaining in power. This idea of being able to ignore those effects, is just plain and simply dumb. We need to convince most people to take climate change seriously enough to be willing to change their lifes. Otherwise your climate idea of just lobbying works once and is very quickly reversed.

    Keep in mind a society is made up of individuals. That means no society will be willing to take climate action, when the individuals in the society are not willing to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    The individual carbon footprint approach does not force anyone to do anything. So those that do not want to will not make changes. That is why it won’t work. It requires 100% of the worlds population to just do the right thing.

    If there is not political/legal action to force change, most people will not change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent