That doesn’t mean we can’t do anything though. We can pressure governments for green policies and try to live a less consumerist lifestyle.
Totally! Living a less consumerist lifestyle is excellent if that’s your preference - and I think there are serious mental and emotional benefits from trying to live a life aligned with your values. But to build a climate movement, making people feel guilty for individual choices isn’t a winning strategy. People need hope to sustain themselves for the long battle. We need to keep the pressure on governments that can make the policies and regulations that will hold the real sources of emissions - massive businesses - accountable for the harm they’ve done and force them to make the kind of systemic changes we need to draw down emissions as fast as possible.
But… Being more green requires buying and using less things, which is bad for the economy. Unfortunately we cannot just switch to green energy, we have to drive less, consume less, etc.
And who do you think is going to push back on that? How about the people who sell us stuff…
And how much money do you have to donate to politicians? Because it’s probably not billions of dollars… but they have it, and they will use it.
I am not saying we should not try, but I am saying that we shouldn’t ask, we should demand, that things change. But when politicians won’t listen to you because of the fat stacks of cash stuffed in their ears… We will inevitably be closer to step 3, and if that happens, we’d better be organized and ready to build something better.
Sometimes when you suggest to people that they should consume less that look at your like took food out of their kids mouth…
We should feel guilty, but not exclusively. This is just swinging from one extrem to another. Our lifestyle choices have a huge effect on the climate and our emissions. Especially our eating habits & how we move around. But also exporting our emissions to other countries is kinda greenwashing our own emissions. Everyone blames the big corporations, but ends up using whatever they produce. Their emissions aren’t coming from nowhere, they’re there to fulfill a demand. People need to stop pretending they cannot do anything just to feel better about themselves, especially when they throw their weekly or even daily steak onto the platter, drive their fat ass SUV or even truck or whatever other city tank they have, and then go shopping at Alibaba while voting for non climate friendly parties, presidents, ministers, etc. that actually bring change.
If you’re actually serious about this topic, do your part AND hold companies accountable. Vote for actual green parties and politicians. Don’t point fingers to continue living a bad lifestyle, that’s the same thing the climate denying boomers do.
People can’t just choose not to participate. People need to eat. That doesn’t mean that corporations need to burn down the rainforest to create farmland. Me needing to eat doesn’t justify the corporate decision to maximize profits at all costs. That’s a singular example, but it extends to every category outside of luxury goods. You need a smartphone to participate in modern society, you need a computer, in most US cities you need a car, you need clothes. Telling people to opt-out of the society that everyone else is participating in isn’t an adequate solution. Sure, you can choose the most sustainable and eco-friendly options for those things, assuming you can afford it, but for a lot of categories there are no options. The major corps own the entire industry and they’re all run similarly. We need changes at social, corporate, and governmental levels since an individual’s power is limited to 1 out of 8 billion. Of course it’s just my opinion, but an individual shouldn’t have to pay eight times what regular soybeans cost just to get soybeans that weren’t fertilized with the future of humanity.
Yes you need to eat, but you dont have to eat meat for every single meal. Yes, you need a car but you don’t need the new giant SUV, a 5 seater sedan will work perfectly fine for most cases (unless you have more than 4 children), especially for cities where there isn’t room to accommodate your vehicular ego machine. You can make these choices while also doing it within your financial means. You can walk more instead of driving. You can ride a bike or scooter instead of driving. But most people don’t because that’s not convenient to them, myself included in this btw. Our choice may be a bit limited but we absolutely do have the power to choose.
You can walk more instead of driving. You can ride a bike or scooter instead of driving.
Unfortunately this is not the case in many US cities. I saw a post on Reddit a few weeks ago about how small European refrigerators are and someone asked how often they go grocery shopping. Someone said “Every day. The grocery store is only a half kilometer walk down the street”. In many US cities there’s nothing within a half kilometer, not even the next street intersection. I think many parts of the world massively underestimate how large and spread out the United States is. The single state of Texas covers half of Europe. Texas and California combined cover almost the entire continent. In most major cities with conservative governments, there’s inadequate public transportation too. So you can’t walk, biking takes forever & it’s 110 degrees outside, and there’s little to no public transportation.
I’m fortunate that I live in a city with both good public transportation, and good bike lanes. When I reported to the office every day I’d take the bus half the way there, and then bike the other half. But I had coworkers that commuted 50 miles by car each way, each day. There’s no public transportation or bicycle that can handle that sort of commute, except for possibly the subway in NYC. Yes, people can choose smaller cars if commuting is their only need, but like you pointed out, some families are large and need larger vehicles.
The large family situation is honestly another area where we can improve for the future of our planet and species, but people treat you like the devil if you talk about it. The global population has more than doubled since I was born. There are 8 billion people on the planet and that number continues to grow exponentially. Our planet cannot continue to sustain the human population and its insatiable desires if we do not reduce our numbers. There’s no need for huge families anymore in most parts of the world. Infant mortality is at an all time low, we have modern medicine, and we have security nets for catastrophe. Nobody needs 10 kids anymore, but for some reason it’s still considered faux pas to say that.
Addressing your last paragraph, people get nervous about that because eugenics, my dude. But really what would actually help with this would be comprehensive sexual education and affordable, easy access to birth control methods. That’s an easy fix but the religious groups are holding us all back on that one.
As for your other points, you’re right. Cities should be more walkable and public transit should be more reliable. But that will never happen if people don’t try to fight for it (if Musk would just drop dead/shut the fuck up anytime something is being proposed). But in all the different cities I’ve lived in, there are little pockets of places that could feasibly walk/bike/scooter to places, but they don’t. Because they don’t want to. A friend of mine and her family went camping and invited us once. At the campsite, the showers were maybe a 7 minute walk away amd guess what they did? They drove. The store was 15 minutes away and they drove. They do this for the 7/11 that’s a block away from their apartment. We live in SoCal which means the weather is almost always perfect. They are not the only people who do this. One of my friends drives and SUV. They’re single with no children. My mom drives an SUV. Her children are grown and out of the house, what the fuck do they need those cars for?
You make very very good points, and cities and public transit are places that should be improved to lead to more walking and better, safer public transit. But there is room for personal improvement despite the shit conditions we are currently working with.
I agree with the idea of voting for parties with strong green agendas… in principle. In practice, I find it hard to make it work because, at least in my country, pretty much every political party (even the conservatives) have environment policies in their agenda/manifesto and they all make sure to promise loads in this area to get your vote.
Everybody knows that’s not how it works: they will promise grand green initiatives and then deliver 10% of that at the end of their tenure, passing the buck to someone else. So yeah, you could punish them by voting someone else at the next election but they’ll do exactly the same (if they manage to get elected, that is).
Voting for “The Green Party” is not really an option either as these kinds of political organisation centred around a single problem rarely aim to run for government, so voting for them is a bit useless as the rest of their political agenda (education, health, economy…) is weak, nonexistent or batshit crazy (again, speaking for my country).
So, how does one solve this conundrum?
Depending on where you live, they don’t have to be the entire government. If they’d hold the majority they could easily work on environmental issues while leaving the rest of the government to their coalition partners. Some crazy people are, in the grand scheme of things, a lesser issue compared to climate change, which is way too much of a priority to let some of those stop you. It’s rougher in countries like the US and their two party system, because of how much they engage in contrarian bullshit.
It’s not our fault. It’s just the governments we vote in and the businesses we buy from.
“Why does Coca Cola keep making all those single-use plastic bottles? Sure can’t be anything to do with me and all the Coke I drink”. This attitude really isn’t helped by articles like the one OP linked.
You’re missing the forest for the trees. Why do people drink Coke products? Well once upon a time they were filled with cocaine! But now they’re only filled with tons of sugar and caffeine, those are only the two most addictive legal substances besides tobacco and alcohol, which are simply more regulated than sugar and caffeine.
I’m not saying that people should not try to self-regulate drinking Coke. But I am saying that you will never, ever fix this problem by convincing individuals to drink less Coke. Especially since it’s not just about Cola, it’s about literally everything you do.
If you live in the suburbs, you absolutely have to use a car to get around. If you aren’t rich you cannot afford and ev, and if you want a cheap ev you won’t get much range or convenience (thought that is changing painfully slowly).
And you can’t live downtown if you have kids, or if you can’t afford the high rents or condo prices… so if you don’t have a lot of money, you then have to live in the poor run-down suburban neighborhood, which is a food desert. Now your only choices for food are Dollar general, Wallmart, or corner stores that have bars on the window because they are broken into so often.
Those people do not have a choice, they have to live in the world that they live in. In fact, we all do. Even having a choice to buy high quality products is a luxury.
The politicians on the ballot have all been given vast sums of money by organizations that sell you stuff. Politicians don’t have to listen to you, they have other priorities.
Can you find a company that is not greenwashing? But is actually trying to make sustainable change?
And does that company eventually get bought by one of these larger corporations that don’t give a shit?
Good luck voting with your wallet, you can spend a dozens and dozens of hours trying to find a clothing company that isn’t using child slavery… only for their use of child slavery to just be covered up really well, and actually they are the same as everyone else…
Could you completely avoid buying Coke products? Sure. But then again, you can’t control all of the restaurants that provide it by default, and it’s such a cheap product that it doesn’t require a lot of sales to be worth it.
Do you know what business idea doesn’t work so well? Creating products that cost more but are no better than any other products, but at least you aren’t using child slavery and environmentally destroying tactics! But then again, nobody can actually afford your product because most people are actually quite poor. Even if they wanted to, they couldn’t by your stuff. So since your prices are going to be high anyway, you market to only rich people. But then again, most of those rich people don’t have the time or energy or even care about how green your product is, therefore it’s just bad business to spend more caring about how green your product is. Once you become a public company, nobody cares about anything except for your profits and stock price (usually based on your current or projected profits…). So… You ditch the green thing… There’s no incentive to be green, at all.
Trust me I’m trying, and it takes those dozens of hours to figure out that there’s even a problem like this, let along finding even 1 company or politician that isn’t contributing to the problem…
deleted by creator
Excellent points, and good examples! Reminds me of the old zero waste adage: “We don’t need a handful of people doing zero waste perfectly. We need millions of people doing it imperfectly.” Every step in the right direction helps.
This might work at the higher end with tech brands and expensive products. People near the poverty line or people with no savings (most people) simply can’t afford to do any of this. Sustainable, green, locally sourced = expensive.
It’s a good thing to do if you can. But this won’t change the world or the corporations generating most pollution. Everyone needs heat and food. Everyone needs power. And most of us, wealthy and poor, don’t get to choose who creates our electricity or supplies us with water.
Sustainable, green, locally sourced = expensive.
There are economic policies that can greatly mitigate this. Carbon taxes that subsidize sustainable projects, for one example.
And most of us, wealthy and poor, don’t get to choose who creates our electricity
For what it’s worth, this often isn’t true. Here in NYC, for instance, electricity generation and transportation are somewhat independent markets. Any NYC resident can choose to change who actually supplies their electricity, and there are companies that guarantee renewable sources. It does, of course, cost more.
There are economic policies that can greatly mitigate this. Carbon taxes that subsidize sustainable projects, for one example.
But those are not things individuals can choose directly. Those are regulations and laws that require organization.
Of course, that’s a political aim, but individuals can prioritize pro-environment policies in their own voting decisions and personal political advocacy.
There are economic policies that can greatly mitigate this. Carbon taxes that subsidize sustainable projects, for one example.
No, there aren’t. Cheap stuff is cheap because it’s mass produced using techniques and materials that combine cost savings and externalized environmental effects with the deprivation of global trade.
The point is that carbon taxes can price those environmental externalities into the actual cost of the product, and that money can be invested into climate-friendly projects.
Does everyone get a raise too?
Shouldn’t the carbon tax be paid out to the places with the mines and factories?
Shifting towards environmentally friendly practices does cost money, yes, and that money will have to come from somewhere. Directly imposing it on companies will naturally cause it to be passed on to the consumer in higher prices.
You seem to be suggesting that we should somehow magically eliminate climate-harmful processes while preserving the cheap costs, the demand for which being exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. The world doesn’t work that way.
But, again, the money raised can be used towards investing into and subsidizing climate-friendly processes, which can result in those products being cost-competitive.
Okay no one gets a raise to pay for this stuff, loud and clear.
Is the carbon tax money at least going to go to the places with the extractive and intensive industries the carbon comes from?
No, we cannot be the solution. Individual consumer behavior cannot change systemic issues. The only viable solution to Climate Change is at the ballot box. Out of control billionaires and vested fossil fuel interests cannot be swayed by asking people to pretty please go into massive debt to buy a Tesla instead of a sub 10k beater they can afford.
Nothing of what you’re suggesting is sufficient or even realistic for most people. You want someone earning 30k a year to buy solar panels!? Are you mad?
We don’t need a handful of people doing zero waste perfectly, we need millions to EAT THE RICH.
deleted by creator
Oh I’m familiar with the demographic, I just don’t see them changing because their “weirdo libtard” neighbor bought a used Prius or something. At this point I feel like you’re either onboard with the whole “climate change is real and bad and something should be done” agenda or else living in clown world mainlining alternative “facts.” And how do you even discuss these issues with someone who disputes the nature of reality itself? If you’ve got that one figured out please share because it’ll be useful in talking to my parents.
deleted by creator
You noted that the ballot box is the best way to do this, but that we also have to eat the rich. The big problem is that the ballot box is controlled by the rich. Both sides of the I’ll are paid off by corporate interests… And they don’t care about climate change…
The ONLY solution is to EAT THE RICH… The ballot box will actually be taken care of when corporations can’t pay off politicians anymore.
I earn less than 30K, and spent a few hundred here, a few hundred there, over the years, in renewable energy co-ops in my region. In total, my share of those installations now produces more than I consume. Our next project: charging stations for EVs, although I don’t even have a car.
I don’t have to have my own panels or windmills or chargers.
Yes, ballot box. Of course ballot box! And at least new combustion engine cars, for example, will be a thing of the past in a few years, here in Europe, thanks to ballot box. But I don’t want people to buy a Tesla. I want people to buy no car at all. And I want countries to tax the crap out of fuel for both surface and air transport. But how realistic is this ballot box solution?
We need both. Individual behaviour and ballot box.
That’s nice and all, but we can’t be the solution by spending decisions and word of mouth of positive experiences with sustainable consumption. You semi-acknowledge that, but that’s dangerous. The time for positive gradual change was 20 years ago, it’s time to get nonviolently angry and demand change.
We need everyone to realize that it’s far from enough to stop using plastic straws or eating less meat. We need fundamental societal and economic change that requires far more than simply adjusting consumption patterns.
Right, but this “carbon footprint was invented by BP” argument is most often used by people who outright refuse to do their part. Yes, we do need to get angry and demand change. While at the same time reducing our own impact as much as possible.
Main reason: if our demands will someday be heard, there will no longer be any meat or plastic straws available anyway. Why not get used to living without, now?
It isn’t about getting used to anything or doing your part. Meat and plastic straws are the tip of the iceberg. By focusing on these factors we are constantly failing to address the issue substantially. They are convenient ways to make the problem seem like something that can by solved by a series of small adjustments. As everyone should know by now, that is wrong.
Of course it’s about getting used to things. I just picked your meat and straw examples but I know there are bigger and more substantial issues. Don’t underestimate the damage done by meat production though: it’s huge.
Transport is a biggie. Air travel will probably never be sustainable. Time to say good bye. Simply don’t fly unless it’s a question of life and death. Electric cars? No. Those don’t address the right problems. A niche product for niche uses. Pressure for better infrastructure, better zoning, but also buy a bicycle and at least try to not drive everywhere.
And don’t get me started on fashion.
There are about 327 more issues. Don’t worry: I am well aware of that.
Saying there are countless issues is another one of those convenient distractions. Of course its complex and there are many factors, but we have one basic issue: greenhouse gases.
We will not get to carbon neutral(or a global net negative) by slowly getting used to things by word of mouth. Not by signalling through market forces that we are willing to pay for pea protein instead of meat. It has to be political, it has to decisive and radical action at this point. A carbon tax that makes meat much more expensive instead of being subsidized. Completely changing the funding of transportation from being car focused to public transportation focused. And, perhaps most important of all, government oversight and enforcement with teeth that does not shy away from nuking a company with fines if it steps out of line too often.
All these what YOU can do talk carries the danger of obscuring what needs to be done at a societal and global level.
Somehow I have the feeling that we are, in fact, on the same page.
Yes, we need big political and societal changes (how often do I have to repeat that?). But the result will be the abscence of meat and straws and cars and airplanes. And the transition will be much smoother for the individual if he already learned how to not use them even while they are still available and affordable. Affordable in a solely monetary way, don’t get me wrong! They are far from affordable from a ecological point of view.
By no means I want to obscure any issues or distract from them. On the contrary!
In q wq all this is distracting, because there are many, many people who cling to thinking that just doing this or that is already enough. That’s why I call this focus on individual lifestyle choices dangerous. It gives you a psychological out. “I’ve done something, so the problem is out if my hands now,” is a form of complacency I see quite often.
Saying there are countless issues is another one of those convenient distractions. Of course its complex and there are many factors, but we have one basic issue: greenhouse gases.
We will not get to carbon neutral(or a global net negative) by slowly getting used to things by word of mouth. Not by signalling through market forces that we are willing to pay for pea protein instead of meat. It has to be political, it has to decisive and radical action at this point. A carbon tax that makes meat much more expensive instead of being subsidized. Completely changing the funding of transportation from being car focused to public transportation focused. And, perhaps most important of all, government oversight and enforcement with teeth that does not shy away from nuking a company with fines if it steps out of line too often.
All these what YOU can do talk carries the danger of obscuring what needs to be done at a societal and global level.
deleted by creator
The issue is that going electric already is a convenient lie we tell ourselves. We can’t just replace all cars with electric ones and rhinkbthat we’ve solved it. We need to realize that the level of individual mobility by personal vehicle we have today is not sustainable.
Going electrical helps your individual emissions, sure, but we should be mindful that these are the pseudo solutions sold by people who would rather change nothing.
I honestly didn’t have the energy today to unpack that, you did a great job summing my thoughts up.
A green future is a future where our lives are significantly different to what they are now. Yes the largest polluters are massive companies, but they are massive companies who are producing things based on demand. If we demand bigger and less efficient cars, then they will produce them. Obviously they can shape what we demand through advertising, but I hate the way that personal responsibility is totally overlooked.
Sorry for the wall, I see a lot of misconceptions about this stuff…
I’m not convinced this is true for most people.
YOU may be conscious enough to understand not to buy a large vehicle because of emissions, bust MOST people do fall for marketing after a long enough period of time of being exposed. Think about ALL the F-150’s you see (In my area they are everywhere) that have NOTHING in the back. NOTHING. Not towing ANYTHING. I have an EV hatchback & a wagon with a mid-sized trailer. I’ve done WAY more backyard projects than the vast majority of the people in suburbia. We’ve used excavators, built multiple 30 ft retaining walls, a 12x12 shed, and we plan on doing more. I will never need a truck because I can tow 2000 lbs in my wagon, which is more than 99.9% of people need.
Most “normal” people that I talk to, and that’s all we have if we’re not looking for people who are on the internet a lot, most of them think their truck is really convenient. They get a full sized cab that holds their whole family, they get that truck bed that they throw a toolbox and once in a while, and the truck can tow 10,000 lbs even though they literally don’t even own a trailer hitch and don’t know how it works.
Trucks are just the replacement SUVs, oversized cars that marketing has determined is the “american car”. You can do anything in a truck! Or you can do the vast majority of things in a Toyota Corolla too, but those aren’t “cool”.
Marketing works dam well, Apple owns the high and computer market even though we know that they screw over customers by making their products impossible to repair (literally, there’s software preventing it). Ford sells the most vehicles and america through the F-150, which I already established is something most people don’t need but buy anyway. The vast majority of people do not even need a single family home. How many backyards go completely un-maintained? How many older couples live in a 4 bedroom house because… That’s just what they are used too… We could have more middle housing for people who want space, but not a backyard, but they don’t exist. You literally can’t vote with your wallet to buy the housing you want if you don’t want a single family home (Or a crazy expensive condo downtown, or to rent the rest of your life…)
And lastly, when your driving on the road in a little ev hatchback like me, you become painfully aware about how gigantic all of the trucks and suvs are around you. You realize that at any moment if somebody takes a wrong turn you are probably dead. Most people become very uncomfortable with that, and they get a bigger car, as big as they can afford, to prevent that feeling.
And we’ve just talked about cars and living situations, how do you vote with your wallet when every single product is made by child labor in a country being exploited by america? Can you trust when a company tells you that it doesn’t do that? How much greenwashing exists?
No, car companies marketed big cars that are less efficient. They did this because using more gas is good for the “economy”. It is good for business to spend a lot of money on big cars that take a lot of gas. There has absolutely been times in our history where our energy regulations were higher and our cars were more efficient and everyone was happy with it.
Think about it, why do marketing departments even exist if people are going to theoretically buy and demand what they want anyway? I’m too young to remember when commercials basically just explained what a product was and what it does. Nowadays, commercials are trying to get you to feel something, not explain something. Advertisement online are trying to be splashy and catch your attention, not be useful and tell you what you’re going to get.
Any marketing department should be able to explain that they try to get people to by their products for reasons other than customer demand.
How do we demand it exactly? I’ve been exercising my choices as a consumer for decades and it’s gotten me nowhere. Personal responsibility only goes so far, the companies choose what you’re able to buy and you make the choice after the fact.
Build, don’t buy.
This is why groups like Extinction Rebellion are so important. They use non-violent protests to get massive participation and awareness, which in turn gives the politicians an issue they have to take a side on.
But I wonder how long this can last until violent protests, or even revolutions start?
There are 3 stages of protest. 1 is non violent protest rally and spreading awareness. 2 is direct Action. 3 is violent uprising. Stage 1 is done. Everyone is aware. Everyone knows everyone is aware. We are now in stage 2. If governments do not act, stage 3 is inevitable. It’s not a threat, just a logical outcome.
We have to get to 3 at some point… right?
I feel like most people just do not GAF and won’t do anything until it’s too late (wait it already is) we should all be freaking out about climate change, I mean the planet we are living on is going to be completely fucked and most people seem to be like “eehhh”
Agreed. #3 doesn’t happen until enough people’s lives are impacted. That’s why the riots of 2020 happened - people were unemployed and had nothing left to lose in a lot of cases
I just do whatever I can. If everyone makes an effort it will be better than doing nothing. Guilt shmilt… who cares. Don’t pollute.
Poor people aren’ the problem. They don’t use resources.
It’s the top 10% that are the problem. 3 people living in a 10,000 sq ft home is a huge waste of resources.
Not to go all “Land value tax solves literally all problems”, but boy would it really help a lot of things, including ludicrously inefficient land usage.
That doesn’t mean you’re not obliged to take any steps, unfortunately. We’ve all been given a shit sandwich and it’s not fair, but that behoves us to spit it out in disgust.
Is that the more people that are willing to act on an individual level to address Climate Change, the more we can force change at a policy level.
We can’t afford to dismiss our own role in this until/unless big government or big industry acts.
deleted by creator
Climate guilt and greenwashing is just big companies making you at fault for their problem
My cousin was a big environmentalist. Then she got educated on the world. She gave up and works for Chevron.
She says unless people stop buying garbage products, it’s not going to change.
As a minimalist, I agree. They stop making things you don’t buy.
But ironically, being minimalist means I am privileged to do so because I can afford to avoid things of low quality.
But when you’re poor, you have no choices.
What a world.
When you’re poor, then you already have a very low co2 footprint. Your cousin is kind of an idiot to be honest. Giving up is one thing, but then she decides to actively work for someone who makes the world worse.
Accelerationism. Purposely make the world as bad a place as possible until enough people are fed up that the violent uprising finally occurs and the system gets torn down.
To fight climate change, we must defeat and regulate corporations. As long as conservatives have any say in the matter, coprorate interests will continue to kill us for profit.
Do your part to fight climate change by fighting conservatism. Exclude conservatives from your daily life wherever possible. Do not conduct business with them or engage in oersonal telationships with them. Conservatism must be mocked, marginalized and suppressed or it will continue to spread and kill.
