The smartest thing the fossil fuel lobby ever did was push the narrative that we need to fight a collective problem like climate change as individuals. Even if we all put in the maximum personal...
The smartest thing the fossil fuel lobby ever did was push the narrative that we need to fight a collective problem like climate change as individuals. Even if we all put in the maximum personal effort, as you said, there's only so much you can do when you live under a market framework that disincentivizes sustainability to the extent that most goods simply can't be sourced from companies producing them in environmentally friendly ways. Voting with your wallet doesn't mean shit if nobody's making what you want to buy.
As we all know individual steps are far from sufficient to address the coming catastrophe. What we need is urgent, radical political action. What can we do as individuals to get the political...
As we all know individual steps are far from sufficient to address the coming catastrophe. What we need is urgent, radical political action.
What can we do as individuals to get the political change we need? Not much, except making it a political issue. And it will only be a political issue if we start talking about it.
Side note:
And beyond that, aren't corporations the real drive behind climate change?
Can we stop using that broken argument? Corporations' actions are dictated by economic demand and political regulations. As customers, we can do our best to reduce demand from the worst offenders. And as citizens, we can demand tough regulations. It's just too easy to cast the blame upon others when we all have a shared responsibility in this.
This is just bullshit because 1.) Corporations like Exxon and Shell knew about global warming science in the 1980s and did everything in their power to cast doubt on it. 2.) Corporations do...
Can we stop using that broken argument? Corporations' actions are dictated by economic demand and political regulations. As customers, we can do our best to reduce demand from the worst offenders. And as citizens, we can demand tough regulations. It's just too easy to cast the blame upon others when we all have a shared responsibility in this.
This is just bullshit because
1.) Corporations like Exxon and Shell knew about global warming science in the 1980s and did everything in their power to cast doubt on it.
2.) Corporations do everything in their power to hide their role in climate change.
3.) The illusion of choice - corporations can own each other so even making eco-friendly purchases is still likely to benefit a polluting company.
4.) Modern life is built on fossil fuels and dirty products. You'd have to be a subsistence-farming hermit to avoid feeding into the system, and that's not an option for most people. This is a failure of the system.
"Free market" solutions like what you're proposing - don't buy from the worst offenders - require knowledge on behalf of the consumer and the ability to make changes, both of which are actively thwarted by these offenders. Don't think that humanity sleepwalked into this. People with the power to change knew what was coming and did nothing because doing nothing was the easy option. Their grandchildren will pay the price.
Yes, corporations will do anything in their power to preserve the status quo. That doesn't mean it can't change. Take the example of tobacco companies: a few years ago, it seemed like nothing...
1.) Corporations like Exxon and Shell knew about global warming science in the 1980s and did everything in their power to cast doubt on it.
2.) Corporations do everything in their power to hide their role in climate change.
Yes, corporations will do anything in their power to preserve the status quo. That doesn't mean it can't change. Take the example of tobacco companies: a few years ago, it seemed like nothing could change. Nowadays, at least in my country (France), we have neutral packs, a total ban on advertising, steep taxes, and people are actually giving up smoking.
I don't see why the same couldn't happen for carbon emissions, which is a far more important issue.
3.) The illusion of choice - corporations can own each other so even making eco-friendly purchases is still likely to benefit a polluting company.
4.) Modern life is built on fossil fuels and dirty products. You'd have to be a subsistence-farming hermit to avoid feeding into the system
You can absolutely reduce your implication in the system without becoming a "subsistence-farming hermit". For example, I get most of my produce from a local, non-profit association with a direct contract with a local farmer. Another good way to reduce your participation is to buy used stuff or repair instead of buying from said companies.
But in any case, as I said, we need tough regulations. And that comes through political action. Not sitting in the back blaming "corporations".
Who said anything about voting? Yes, voting is a form of political action, but as you have pointed out, it certainly isn't sufficient. So yeah, the political system is corrupt, and voting alone...
Who said anything about voting? Yes, voting is a form of political action, but as you have pointed out, it certainly isn't sufficient.
So yeah, the political system is corrupt, and voting alone won't do much. But it is possible to change things, with sufficient effort and public opinion support. And that will come, when disasters start occurring on a regular basis. The issue is that it will probably be too late...
There is a pretty sizable body of research (among whom, my favorite is Elizabeth Loftus' work on eyewitness testimony) suggesting that people's memories are dogshit and heavily impacted by recency...
There is a pretty sizable body of research (among whom, my favorite is Elizabeth Loftus' work on eyewitness testimony) suggesting that people's memories are dogshit and heavily impacted by recency bias. All survey results have to take human biases into consideration to weigh their results appropriately, and I saw nothing in this article to suggest any attempt to control for this notorious human weakness.
How often does the average (American, I'm assuming) person talk about any political issue, climate change or otherwise? What issues are they most likely to talk about: those that have been in the news this week or those more long term, incremental shifts? How often were people talking about climate change when the US was talking about and announcing its intent to withdraw from the Paris Accord?
If the point of this article is that people aren't talking enough about global warming, they can be less ham-fisted about trying to hide that point behind statistic. Of course people aren't talking enough about global warming. But be honest about your intent. Don't try to bamboozle people with shitty statistics that come without context.
The smartest thing the fossil fuel lobby ever did was push the narrative that we need to fight a collective problem like climate change as individuals. Even if we all put in the maximum personal effort, as you said, there's only so much you can do when you live under a market framework that disincentivizes sustainability to the extent that most goods simply can't be sourced from companies producing them in environmentally friendly ways. Voting with your wallet doesn't mean shit if nobody's making what you want to buy.
As we all know individual steps are far from sufficient to address the coming catastrophe. What we need is urgent, radical political action.
What can we do as individuals to get the political change we need? Not much, except making it a political issue. And it will only be a political issue if we start talking about it.
Side note:
Can we stop using that broken argument? Corporations' actions are dictated by economic demand and political regulations. As customers, we can do our best to reduce demand from the worst offenders. And as citizens, we can demand tough regulations. It's just too easy to cast the blame upon others when we all have a shared responsibility in this.
This is just bullshit because
1.) Corporations like Exxon and Shell knew about global warming science in the 1980s and did everything in their power to cast doubt on it.
2.) Corporations do everything in their power to hide their role in climate change.
3.) The illusion of choice - corporations can own each other so even making eco-friendly purchases is still likely to benefit a polluting company.
4.) Modern life is built on fossil fuels and dirty products. You'd have to be a subsistence-farming hermit to avoid feeding into the system, and that's not an option for most people. This is a failure of the system.
"Free market" solutions like what you're proposing - don't buy from the worst offenders - require knowledge on behalf of the consumer and the ability to make changes, both of which are actively thwarted by these offenders. Don't think that humanity sleepwalked into this. People with the power to change knew what was coming and did nothing because doing nothing was the easy option. Their grandchildren will pay the price.
Yes, corporations will do anything in their power to preserve the status quo. That doesn't mean it can't change. Take the example of tobacco companies: a few years ago, it seemed like nothing could change. Nowadays, at least in my country (France), we have neutral packs, a total ban on advertising, steep taxes, and people are actually giving up smoking.
I don't see why the same couldn't happen for carbon emissions, which is a far more important issue.
You can absolutely reduce your implication in the system without becoming a "subsistence-farming hermit". For example, I get most of my produce from a local, non-profit association with a direct contract with a local farmer. Another good way to reduce your participation is to buy used stuff or repair instead of buying from said companies.
But in any case, as I said, we need tough regulations. And that comes through political action. Not sitting in the back blaming "corporations".
Who said anything about voting? Yes, voting is a form of political action, but as you have pointed out, it certainly isn't sufficient.
So yeah, the political system is corrupt, and voting alone won't do much. But it is possible to change things, with sufficient effort and public opinion support. And that will come, when disasters start occurring on a regular basis. The issue is that it will probably be too late...
There is a pretty sizable body of research (among whom, my favorite is Elizabeth Loftus' work on eyewitness testimony) suggesting that people's memories are dogshit and heavily impacted by recency bias. All survey results have to take human biases into consideration to weigh their results appropriately, and I saw nothing in this article to suggest any attempt to control for this notorious human weakness.
How often does the average (American, I'm assuming) person talk about any political issue, climate change or otherwise? What issues are they most likely to talk about: those that have been in the news this week or those more long term, incremental shifts? How often were people talking about climate change when the US was talking about and announcing its intent to withdraw from the Paris Accord?
If the point of this article is that people aren't talking enough about global warming, they can be less ham-fisted about trying to hide that point behind statistic. Of course people aren't talking enough about global warming. But be honest about your intent. Don't try to bamboozle people with shitty statistics that come without context.