Sorry for the long quote but this point is so, so important. In most articles and discussions online when the subject turns to "what can we do?" the answer is, usually, one of personal...
So what can we do? And by the way, who’s “we”? The size of the threat from climate change means that organization is necessary at every level — communities, states, nations and international agreements that coordinate action among them. But most of us don’t live in the halls of the United Nations or the boardrooms in which the Paris climate agreement was negotiated.
Instead we live in a consumer culture that tells us we can make our political mark on the world through where we shop, what we wear, how we eat. This is how we get things like The Lancet’s recent dietary recommendations for those who want to eat to mitigate climate change — less meat for some, more vegetables — or suggestions like those published in The Washington Post, around the time of New Year’s resolutions. For instance: “Be smart about your air-conditioner.”
But conscious consumption is a cop-out, a neoliberal diversion from collective action, which is what is necessary. People should try to live by their own values, about climate as with everything else, but the effects of individual lifestyle choices are ultimately trivial compared with what politics can achieve.
Buying an electric car is a drop in the bucket compared with raising fuel-efficiency standards sharply. Conscientiously flying less is a lot easier if there’s more high-speed rail around. And if I eat fewer hamburgers a year, so what? But if cattle farmers were required to feed their cattle seaweed, which might reduce methane emissions by nearly 60 percent according to one study, that would make an enormous difference.
That is what is meant when politics is called a “moral multiplier.” It is also an exit from the personal, emotional burden of climate change and from what can feel like hypocrisy about living in the world as it is and simultaneously worrying about its future. We don’t ask people who pay taxes to support a social safety net to also demonstrate that commitment through philanthropic action, and similarly we shouldn’t ask anyone — and certainly not everyone — to manage his or her own carbon footprint before we even really try to enact laws and policies that would reduce all of our emissions.
That is the purpose of politics: that we can be and do better together than we might manage as individuals.
Sorry for the long quote but this point is so, so important. In most articles and discussions online when the subject turns to "what can we do?" the answer is, usually, one of personal responsibility. Though many of us would balk to hear a "personal responsibility" solution put forward for other societal problems like crime and poverty this is, somehow, the default when it comes to climate change. Want to fix the climate? Eat less meat, use LED bulbs, buy efficient appliances. If you push back against this you're told that, worst case, it's better than nothing. Perhaps there was someone following that same logic who tried to bail water from the Titanic.
Personally I think that attitude can even be harmful. When the conversation on how to fight climate change turns to personal sacrifice and consuming less our impetus to act is turned collectively inward rather than towards the politicians and ultra-wealthy who are in a position to impose the necessary societal changes. If this problem is to be solved by consuming less, well, make a law about it. If a different solution is better, do that instead. As the article says this is what politics is for. If this fight were a literal war of survival we wouldn't depend on the public founding and funding their own volunteer militias; we'd be directing this fight from the top and directing our whole society towards it.
None of this exactly answers the question of "what can I do?" (that would be a whole other post) but it at least gives us a target.
While the politicians and businessmen/women of our era certainly need to pass laws and push solutions, we also can't dismiss or ignore the importance of culture and personal action. If people are...
While the politicians and businessmen/women of our era certainly need to pass laws and push solutions, we also can't dismiss or ignore the importance of culture and personal action. If people are compelled to do something without understanding why it's necessary, they're more likely to ignore it or vote differently in the next election and remove from office the people who made that change in the first place. Take, for example, the backlash against the planned fuel tax in France, which, while not well executed, would have been a great way to encourage EVs in combination with tax breaks. The public didn't understand why it was being implemented, and reacted violently. In addition to encouraging political action here, we can't underestimate the power of buyers' preferences and public opinion. If creating carbon waste is more stigmatized in society, it could go a long way towards reducing the impact of climate change in conjunction with legislative action.
I don't think you have that quite right. According to [The Atlantic] (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/france-yellow-vest-climate-action/577642/), the protesters feel that...
The public didn't understand why it was being implemented
“This is not the yellow vests against climate-change policies. It’s the yellow vests against the cost of living, the way politics are done, and how decision makers are doing policy,” says Pierre Cannet, the head of climate and energy at the French offices of the WWF, an environmental nonprofit organization."
The protestors may be acting in the way Sahasrahla would prefer, trying to make those in power make larger changes instead of nickle-and-diming the lower class.
Exactly - they felt it was targeting them, as though it were some sort of punishment enacted on people in rural areas by the Parisian elites, when it absolutely wasn't. If the government had more...
Exactly - they felt it was targeting them, as though it were some sort of punishment enacted on people in rural areas by the Parisian elites, when it absolutely wasn't. If the government had more clearly described plans to make EVs affordable and explain that the tax was one part of a larger strategy to transition the nation to renewables, the backlash might not have been so fierce. They believed that the fuel tax was part of a larger exploitation of the working classes rather than a green initiative. As that article states, the French aren't against green measures.
Honestly, I hope people get terrified. It's about time that the human's basic instinct for survival kicked in. What I hope is that people get so terrified that even the big heads of corporations...
Honestly, I hope people get terrified. It's about time that the human's basic instinct for survival kicked in. What I hope is that people get so terrified that even the big heads of corporations realize it's time to change. I certainly hope so. I feel like history has too many examples of us not getting ahead of bad things and then having to go through huge ordeals which lead to too many people dying.
I remember hearing a speech, where the speaker called this era of one of the most pivotal points in human history, which I thought was interesting because for some reason it doesn't feel like that. Nobody ever emphasizes that future historians will look at this time period as being pivotal, and yet they will. I guess this is the time where we either royally fuck up and we will judged by shame, or it's where we get our heads out our asses, learn from our mistakes, and move forward. Where we rise up as a people and make the necessary changes we need to make. Either way, I just hope we choose the right path, as it seems so far we have not.
This reminds me of the WaitButWhy article on procrastination: the procrastinator's brain is controlled by the "instant gratification monkey" until the "panic monster" shows up to scare it off so...
This reminds me of the WaitButWhy article on procrastination: the procrastinator's brain is controlled by the "instant gratification monkey" until the "panic monster" shows up to scare it off so the procrastinator can get to work. (My description doesn't do its beautiful MS Paint cartoon explanation justice). Maybe now that things are getting noticeably bad our own Panic Monster can spur us to useful action. At the very least maybe climate change denialism will die.
I agree with you that this is a pivotal moment that history will look back upon. The sooner we're all on the same page that something needs to be done the better.
Exactly! Honestly, but I have idea how to get people on the same page. It seems people are too tied up to their screens to even look up and chat with someone from the other side, get their...
Exactly! Honestly, but I have idea how to get people on the same page. It seems people are too tied up to their screens to even look up and chat with someone from the other side, get their viewpoint, try to understand where they come from and what points they may be right on, or perspectives that they haven't considered before.
but see, the real question is: how exactly do you do that? because there are plenty of interests who say climate change isn't an issue and who may even benefit from it occurring, some political...
The sooner we're all on the same page that something needs to be done the better.
but see, the real question is: how exactly do you do that? because there are plenty of interests who say climate change isn't an issue and who may even benefit from it occurring, some political parties and people who deny climate change exists entirely, people who disagree on how best to even approach it (a socialist might tell you we need to upend capitalism, a capitalist the opposite), etc.
Sorry for the long quote but this point is so, so important. In most articles and discussions online when the subject turns to "what can we do?" the answer is, usually, one of personal responsibility. Though many of us would balk to hear a "personal responsibility" solution put forward for other societal problems like crime and poverty this is, somehow, the default when it comes to climate change. Want to fix the climate? Eat less meat, use LED bulbs, buy efficient appliances. If you push back against this you're told that, worst case, it's better than nothing. Perhaps there was someone following that same logic who tried to bail water from the Titanic.
Personally I think that attitude can even be harmful. When the conversation on how to fight climate change turns to personal sacrifice and consuming less our impetus to act is turned collectively inward rather than towards the politicians and ultra-wealthy who are in a position to impose the necessary societal changes. If this problem is to be solved by consuming less, well, make a law about it. If a different solution is better, do that instead. As the article says this is what politics is for. If this fight were a literal war of survival we wouldn't depend on the public founding and funding their own volunteer militias; we'd be directing this fight from the top and directing our whole society towards it.
None of this exactly answers the question of "what can I do?" (that would be a whole other post) but it at least gives us a target.
While the politicians and businessmen/women of our era certainly need to pass laws and push solutions, we also can't dismiss or ignore the importance of culture and personal action. If people are compelled to do something without understanding why it's necessary, they're more likely to ignore it or vote differently in the next election and remove from office the people who made that change in the first place. Take, for example, the backlash against the planned fuel tax in France, which, while not well executed, would have been a great way to encourage EVs in combination with tax breaks. The public didn't understand why it was being implemented, and reacted violently. In addition to encouraging political action here, we can't underestimate the power of buyers' preferences and public opinion. If creating carbon waste is more stigmatized in society, it could go a long way towards reducing the impact of climate change in conjunction with legislative action.
I don't think you have that quite right. According to [The Atlantic] (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/12/france-yellow-vest-climate-action/577642/), the protesters feel that the fuel tax is unfairly targeting them:
“This is not the yellow vests against climate-change policies. It’s the yellow vests against the cost of living, the way politics are done, and how decision makers are doing policy,” says Pierre Cannet, the head of climate and energy at the French offices of the WWF, an environmental nonprofit organization."
The protestors may be acting in the way Sahasrahla would prefer, trying to make those in power make larger changes instead of nickle-and-diming the lower class.
Exactly - they felt it was targeting them, as though it were some sort of punishment enacted on people in rural areas by the Parisian elites, when it absolutely wasn't. If the government had more clearly described plans to make EVs affordable and explain that the tax was one part of a larger strategy to transition the nation to renewables, the backlash might not have been so fierce. They believed that the fuel tax was part of a larger exploitation of the working classes rather than a green initiative. As that article states, the French aren't against green measures.
Honestly, I hope people get terrified. It's about time that the human's basic instinct for survival kicked in. What I hope is that people get so terrified that even the big heads of corporations realize it's time to change. I certainly hope so. I feel like history has too many examples of us not getting ahead of bad things and then having to go through huge ordeals which lead to too many people dying.
I remember hearing a speech, where the speaker called this era of one of the most pivotal points in human history, which I thought was interesting because for some reason it doesn't feel like that. Nobody ever emphasizes that future historians will look at this time period as being pivotal, and yet they will. I guess this is the time where we either royally fuck up and we will judged by shame, or it's where we get our heads out our asses, learn from our mistakes, and move forward. Where we rise up as a people and make the necessary changes we need to make. Either way, I just hope we choose the right path, as it seems so far we have not.
This reminds me of the WaitButWhy article on procrastination: the procrastinator's brain is controlled by the "instant gratification monkey" until the "panic monster" shows up to scare it off so the procrastinator can get to work. (My description doesn't do its beautiful MS Paint cartoon explanation justice). Maybe now that things are getting noticeably bad our own Panic Monster can spur us to useful action. At the very least maybe climate change denialism will die.
I agree with you that this is a pivotal moment that history will look back upon. The sooner we're all on the same page that something needs to be done the better.
Exactly! Honestly, but I have idea how to get people on the same page. It seems people are too tied up to their screens to even look up and chat with someone from the other side, get their viewpoint, try to understand where they come from and what points they may be right on, or perspectives that they haven't considered before.
but see, the real question is: how exactly do you do that? because there are plenty of interests who say climate change isn't an issue and who may even benefit from it occurring, some political parties and people who deny climate change exists entirely, people who disagree on how best to even approach it (a socialist might tell you we need to upend capitalism, a capitalist the opposite), etc.