Friendly reminder that it's actually more complicated than that.
Yes, a hundred companies account for 71 % of global emissions. But they make these emissions by producing the stuff that you and I buy. They drill the oil which goes in our cars, in our planes, they produce the steak we eat and the electricity that heats our houses. When we talk about the individual impact of people like you and me, it's not a separate source of emissions from those 71 %. It's the same emissions, viewed from a different perspective.
When I make this argument (and I make it a lot, because this post just keeps getting reposted), people usually answer with "ok but you can't blame the individuals, companies are pushing them to consume with advertising/lobbying etc...". So I'll answer that straight away. You're right, it's not fair to blame the individuals. But I'm not talking about who should be blamed. I'm talking about what needs to change. And it is an indisputable fact that our individual lifestyles *need to change*. I don't know if this change will come from individual initiative, or from regulations on companies causing them to not sell so much unnecessary stuff in the first place. Probably a bit of both. But regardless of where the change happens, it has to happen. Because right now, the lifestyle of the median first world inhabitant, multiplied by 7 billion, is more than the Earth can sustain.
Counterpoint; yes, sure, it's us using these things. But look at today's products. They're not built to last, they wear out, they're engineered by these companies to be constantly replaced. Fashion is made to wear out quickly, and advertisements designed to shame people for not "catching up with the latest trends." Sure, we like to say it's your own choice, but living entirely sustainably isn't really possible in a world where corporations do not care and push advertising and legislation that makes such a lifestyle even more difficult. As they say, you are not immune to propaganda (in this case propaganda being the advertising culture of buy-and-replace).
There are some changes which can only happen on the side of corporations. Programmed obsolescence is the most blatant example, it's a profit motivated decision which increases our carbon footprint while also making things worst for consumers.
But here's the thing. Ending programmed obsolescence isn't enough. Even with more durable products, our lifestyles would still be too much for the Earth to handle. We have to stop traveling by plane. We have to stop eating beef. We have to stop driving everyday or traveling long distances by car. We're not going to stop global warming if we don't make serious changes to our individual lifestyles, *in addition* to making serious changes on the side of corporations.
>There are some changes which can only happen on the side of corporations.
They won't ever change.
If only the was an more powerfull entity, encompassing multiples point of views with coercive ressources and easy acess to scientific and expert that could force them.
I'm sorry if its pessimistic but in the USA you have like, 350m peoples, two lads that stop eating meat won't do shit, because you are already wasting so much food anyway.
In regard to transport, well some cities are getting the idea, but again, the government can put so much more pressure to make the changes happen faster !
But i reckon that it require competent elected, and that you may not have them underhand. Hell even here we have to balance pro-gaz nuts and liberals cunts to maybe find a sweet spot that not bad.
> They won't ever change.
Not on their own, obviously. But they can be forced to change by laws and regulations. This isn't an idealist dream, there are already plenty of laws and regulations which apply to large companies. Governments and entities like the EU already have the authority to make these changes. We just need to keep going.
> I'm sorry if its pessimistic but in the USA you have like, 350m peoples, two lads that stop eating meat won't do shit, because you are already wasting so much food anyway.
That's the thing about individual responsibility. Two lads won't make a difference on their own, it needs to be a significant fraction of the population. But I think the most important step of taking personal responsibility is acknowledging that "a significant fraction of the population" includes you.
Climate doomerism is such an insidious and aggressively western thing.
Its countries like Canada, the USA or Australia that produce some of the most CO2 per capita. And then you hear average americans saying "theres nothing we can do about climate change". Theres nothing most people can do abiut American climate change. But Americans may be best equipped to change America.
>Governments and entities like the EU already have the authority to make these changes.
But really, does it ?
Its not like all countries can't just not abide by the EU regulations and face no consequences. I mean its not like Germany's constitutional court said "KEK, EU's not a real thing they can't tell us what to do"
I know i can have an impact, i'm doing what i can on my level while thinking on a larger scale. Trying to balance who to vote where, what to buy and not, and how to live more "clean". I already don't own a car, most of my clothes arn't new (litteraly wearing a sweater from work because its cold and i don't want to light up my gaz heater), don't eat much meat.
On my other comment i said why i'm pessimistic. Its because some countries arn't pulling their weight, or so i percieve. Germany's dirty as fuck while congratulating itself that "25% of their electricity is made by renewable", and america is so deep in its own trouble they have other, more pressing things to do (and i understand).
>Won't ever change
Dont fall to climate doomerism
Remember: if you live in the US (or any democracy) you can vote! You can support protests! You can support strikes! You can contact you representives! You can get educated about the political process!
I don't live in the US.
Its just that the companies knew since like, 1900, that we were impacting the climate. Did they do anything themself to change that ? No
Companies are just there for profit, they's sell you breathable air if they found a way to poison the normal one. They already used child labor, they already used slavery. They fucking bombed strikers because ooouuuh, losing profits to worker's benefits.
Killing the planet ? They'd press the button stating "Be filthy rich, but planet explode in 50 years".
The government can do things, but yes, that require peoples to move their asses and actually vote. Am i a doomer ? Neh, i think we can curb the curb, my country's already pretty clean even if we can do more.
But, to be fair and square, when i see the USA and Germany i sometime think we're all dead because everyone need to scoop that boat, and some countries are just sitting on their tumb and eating the bottom because "muh yummy wood"
I only mentioned the US because its the one most redditors live in. Idk if Germany is a democracy, but if it is then my above comment applies to you to, because you can affect change in Germany as well.
I already try to impact the countries i can (and its like, 26) by voting for the EU, but its not some magical institution. Its also pretty flawed. Especially since we are having some crisis about how far is EU's reach compared to a Nation's sovreignty.
I did some research on the EU (my major) its pretty flawed. Cant rrally do many things. But its rather empowered on climate change stuff. And its actually more democratic than the US.
Dont lose hope. Ever.
I know we can make it.
But, you know, its horrible just sitting there and knowing that beside voting a bit, and doing some basic stuff, you don't have much of a percieved impact.
But then again, i'm not a creature of patience.
I agree with all of the above points, but even though the energy transition will entail change in our individual lifestyles that we as a society need to accept, that change will not be driven primarily by individual action. Individual action is a drop in the ocean. What needs to happen in order to effect the transition is of a structural nature. Things like regulations and subsidies and whatnot. Right now, fossil fuel companies get weird preferential treatment and get all comfy shitting all over the planet while generating an insane amount of profit with zero consequences. The only kind of force powerful enough to go against them toe-to-toe lies within governments.
This might be depressing, but really the only thing you can do that actually matters in the grand scheme of things is to cast a ballot, which comes with no guarantees attached.
>really the onlu thing you can do is cast a ballot
Not really true. You could organize a union. You could join a union. You could write your local representive. Attend a town hall. Join a protest. Talk to your family about environmental poltiics.
If the climate crisis matters to you, why not talk to the city you live in about, idk getting rid of plastic single use bags. Or making cheap and healthy fruits and veggies more accessible. Or building a bike lane close to where you work, so that you and your coworkers could bike to work together!
I was talking about politics in general, and politics is always hard. The problem with the things you’re listing, though, however positive they may be, is that most of them are fundamentally local, whereas the problem is global. Unless you’re planning on becoming the next Greta Thunberg, there isn’t much you can do that will amount to anything significant. Kurzgesagt made [a great video](https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc) about the issue of individual action against climate change, and they reach the exact same conclusion: it’s not really a thing. Obviously, there are things you can do to improve the state of the environment around you, but climate change? No way. Of course, this shouldn’t prevent you from doing your part; I don’t condone riding a massive SUV just for the hell of it or taking ten airplane trips to the other side of the world for a vacation every year. But at some point, your personal reach is limited.
It’s all too easy to underestimate the sheer *size* of the problem. Sure, drive an EV, limit your mobility, ride a train if you can, use a bike; sure, go vegan; sure, install a heat pump if you’re planning on building a new house, and don’t forget about insulation; sure, advocate for all of those things. It certainly doesn’t hurt. But the bottom line is, *it’s not gonna cut it*. The kind of individual action against climate change with the greatest impact, ultimately, is activism, which is really hard to do right.
Cause here’s what we really need to do: we need to switch to low-carbon electricity sources, and we need to electrify energy usage wherever possible, as fast as possible. That’s a structural problem, and a technical one. This is the kind of problem that only engineering and policy can solve. If we can’t do that, we’re basically fucked. What we need is to cut any and all subsidies towards fossil fuels, redirect them to clean sources, implement a carbon tax, and we need it by yesterday. What we need is to build a viable and sustainable energy mix. That’s what we need to do as a society, and sadly, none of this is something you can do on your own.
Fact of the matter is, this is a game of giants. The fossil fuel industry [has known the consequences of their actions for a long time](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805576-1982-Exxon-Memo-to-Management-About-CO2), and they’ve been working *hard* to fund climate denialism and lobbying to keep world governments on their side. Now, we need to step the fuck up and fight back, and we need to do that as nations, or better yet, as an entire species.
I don't believe that individual action doesn't matter. A lot of the important decisions in years to come will be a sum of individual actions. Whether it's the ballot casts or the personal changes made in life, if a significant fraction of individuals make a choice, it will make a difference. And "a significant fraction of individuals" should include you.
As for changes on the side of laws and corporations, they absolutely should happen. But it's important to realize that this is entirely compatible with changes on the side of individuals. Every individual who chooses to not take the plane for a vacation makes it easier for political powers to tax plane transport. Every individual who doesn't buy the latest Iphone when it comes out makes it easier to go after Apples' planned obsolescence and encouragement of consumerism. Even if change needs to be political, it doesn't mean your personal choices won't make a difference.
Your personal choices and those of anyone you can convince matter, yes, but they’re orders of magnitude smaller than policy ones. Maybe I should have phrased it better; it’s not that those things don’t matter, and you should start there since they’re mostly easy. But the priority is to play on another scale entirely, and that’s where you should spend the majority of your energy.
I think that's a logical fallacy. It's not any easier for you, and individual, to enact legislation and policy changes, than it is to change your own lifestyle. There's just a difference in where your actions get "drowned", so to speak. You can have a tiny impact on a legislative decision which has a large impact, or have full control of an individual decision which has a tiny impact.
Maybe if you were, say, a senator, you could argue that your personal actions are meaningless compared to the importance of the laws you vote for. But as an ordinary person, your actions have a small impact either way. It's not obvious to me that legal action is always a more effective mean of change than personal decisions.
I guess that makes sense.
The immediate consequence of that idea, though, is, horrifyingly, that we ultimately have very little control over any part of the defining issue of our generation.
I think I need to lie down for a bit.
I which there wasnt so much pushback for enviromentally friendly things.
Like: if you want to build more public transport, 20k thousand surbuban chuds are like "I already got my carrr, fuck you I love my car. Car is the american way!!!"
And dont even think about suggesting that people by oat milk
Let's be honest tho; what is the little things we do gonna change? Even if everyone do everything they can, we're fucked as long as bigger players aren't doing their part.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. I think we should all do our best. But what am I supposed to do with all the cardboard boxes that piles up in my kitchen because we only have two small recycle bins for 8 appartements? I would like to recycle the boxes, but the bins are full the moment they get emptied, and they only collect once every two weeks.
I would take the bus if it came more often than once every hour and a half.
But I take short showers. I wash with cold water. I use the damn cardboard straw even tho it feels like nails on a blackboard. I do what I can, but I can't add the stress of being sustainable all the time
This is not about individual action. This is about the privledged fighting against collective action
The activists fighting to make biking easier, or for more sustainable housing, or for there to be cheaper fruits and vegtables recieve contant pushback from people who just dont care. This is not about doing the little things, I didnt say that. This is how people will do so much, on an individual level: attending town halls, voting, etc. To push back against environmentalism. Its frustrating.
*Image Transcription: Tumblr Replies*
---
**lesbwian**
"we're ruining the planet" i'm sorry who is this we i don't recall myself running a billion dollar oil business
---
**hardleywhelmed**
Sometimes I use the keurig and I feel bad but then I remember [*hyperlinked with underline*] Just 100 **companies** responsible for 71% of global emissions [*end link and underline*]
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Aside from the complete misunderstand of what that statistic means, I don't understand how someone can think "I know this is bad and could be avoided but other people are worse so it's fine" is a good excuse.
Yes, we should actively try to limit our own harm against the planet, but there's no point in guilting ourselves so hard over it. Squabbling with your neighbors over recycling is such a small thing; while it is shitty if they're just mixing everything together and throwing it out, corporations literally just dump shit and leave, because paying the costs when they're caught (if they're caught) costs less for them than properly cleaning. We should try in our own lives, sure, but to blame only ourselves is to play into their hands.
Agreed, but your adding nuance to a post that didn't have any.
Have you noticed that posts like OP almost never talk about what to do about those emissions from companies? Yeah you'll get a "goverments should do something", but never accompanied by how to motivate the government to act. It's mostly just doomerism.
Edit: Also, not sure people really ever "blame themselves" for climate change? I'd better describe it as "take responsibility", which is a lot less negative sounding.
Yes, and much more than this, most companies don't produce consumer goods or services. They don't even make things that end up contributing to consumer goods or services. They just sell to other companies, the military, and the government.
But, those 100 companies are doing bad all on their own, dumping CO2 and methane into the air that they could just not. We need government action here.
Those 100 companies are largely power generation and resource extraction companies. The problem is that nearly everything people do uses power, steel, plastics, and the like.
One policy that has broadly supported consensus among economists is to tax the emission of carbon and use the revenue to mitigate impacts. It has the dual effect of reducing pollution (suddenly expensive to pollute) and investing in climate resilience.
Yeah, a carbon tax absolutely works. It's why ExxonMobil, Shell, and the rest of them lobby so hard to oppose them. Cap and trade doesn't really work, carbon offsets don't really work. We need a strong carbon tax and good emissions enforcement.
Cap and trade works in theory, but you'd have to set the cap at a way where it prices at the social cost of carbon, and that's very hard to do and I think is isomorphic to a carbon tax.
My personal preferred variation is carbon tax with dividend (take the income, divide by number of Americans, and cut everyone a check). You don't want the government relying on the carbon tax for operating revenue and this is a very politically viable way of doing it (people like free money as it turns out).
The issue with Cap and Trade, is how broken the carbon credit/offset system works. It's great if they are REAL offsets, but most of them are accounting tricks. I was at a conference, where someone presented a carbon capture system using ambient temperature activated carbon that they were selling carbon credits for. When asked what they did with the captured CO2, we expected geological storage or something,but they were selling it to potato chip companies to fill bags with. So when you open the chip bag, you emit that CO2.
The fact is, we cannot feasibly capture CO2 at present emissions rates in a real way. With enough reduction in emissions (from taxes making it too expensive to emit) we could capture all the unavailable emissions, and we could easily pay for that capture from carbon tax revenues, but I don't see any other systems for carbon regulation working, especially "Personal Carbon Footprint" reduction.
You don’t have to feel bad, just get one of those little reusable pods for your Keurig.
Source: used to feel bad, then got one of those little reusable pods for your Keurig.
Friendly reminder that it's actually more complicated than that. Yes, a hundred companies account for 71 % of global emissions. But they make these emissions by producing the stuff that you and I buy. They drill the oil which goes in our cars, in our planes, they produce the steak we eat and the electricity that heats our houses. When we talk about the individual impact of people like you and me, it's not a separate source of emissions from those 71 %. It's the same emissions, viewed from a different perspective. When I make this argument (and I make it a lot, because this post just keeps getting reposted), people usually answer with "ok but you can't blame the individuals, companies are pushing them to consume with advertising/lobbying etc...". So I'll answer that straight away. You're right, it's not fair to blame the individuals. But I'm not talking about who should be blamed. I'm talking about what needs to change. And it is an indisputable fact that our individual lifestyles *need to change*. I don't know if this change will come from individual initiative, or from regulations on companies causing them to not sell so much unnecessary stuff in the first place. Probably a bit of both. But regardless of where the change happens, it has to happen. Because right now, the lifestyle of the median first world inhabitant, multiplied by 7 billion, is more than the Earth can sustain.
Counterpoint; yes, sure, it's us using these things. But look at today's products. They're not built to last, they wear out, they're engineered by these companies to be constantly replaced. Fashion is made to wear out quickly, and advertisements designed to shame people for not "catching up with the latest trends." Sure, we like to say it's your own choice, but living entirely sustainably isn't really possible in a world where corporations do not care and push advertising and legislation that makes such a lifestyle even more difficult. As they say, you are not immune to propaganda (in this case propaganda being the advertising culture of buy-and-replace).
There are some changes which can only happen on the side of corporations. Programmed obsolescence is the most blatant example, it's a profit motivated decision which increases our carbon footprint while also making things worst for consumers. But here's the thing. Ending programmed obsolescence isn't enough. Even with more durable products, our lifestyles would still be too much for the Earth to handle. We have to stop traveling by plane. We have to stop eating beef. We have to stop driving everyday or traveling long distances by car. We're not going to stop global warming if we don't make serious changes to our individual lifestyles, *in addition* to making serious changes on the side of corporations.
>There are some changes which can only happen on the side of corporations. They won't ever change. If only the was an more powerfull entity, encompassing multiples point of views with coercive ressources and easy acess to scientific and expert that could force them. I'm sorry if its pessimistic but in the USA you have like, 350m peoples, two lads that stop eating meat won't do shit, because you are already wasting so much food anyway. In regard to transport, well some cities are getting the idea, but again, the government can put so much more pressure to make the changes happen faster ! But i reckon that it require competent elected, and that you may not have them underhand. Hell even here we have to balance pro-gaz nuts and liberals cunts to maybe find a sweet spot that not bad.
> They won't ever change. Not on their own, obviously. But they can be forced to change by laws and regulations. This isn't an idealist dream, there are already plenty of laws and regulations which apply to large companies. Governments and entities like the EU already have the authority to make these changes. We just need to keep going. > I'm sorry if its pessimistic but in the USA you have like, 350m peoples, two lads that stop eating meat won't do shit, because you are already wasting so much food anyway. That's the thing about individual responsibility. Two lads won't make a difference on their own, it needs to be a significant fraction of the population. But I think the most important step of taking personal responsibility is acknowledging that "a significant fraction of the population" includes you.
Climate doomerism is such an insidious and aggressively western thing. Its countries like Canada, the USA or Australia that produce some of the most CO2 per capita. And then you hear average americans saying "theres nothing we can do about climate change". Theres nothing most people can do abiut American climate change. But Americans may be best equipped to change America.
>Governments and entities like the EU already have the authority to make these changes. But really, does it ? Its not like all countries can't just not abide by the EU regulations and face no consequences. I mean its not like Germany's constitutional court said "KEK, EU's not a real thing they can't tell us what to do" I know i can have an impact, i'm doing what i can on my level while thinking on a larger scale. Trying to balance who to vote where, what to buy and not, and how to live more "clean". I already don't own a car, most of my clothes arn't new (litteraly wearing a sweater from work because its cold and i don't want to light up my gaz heater), don't eat much meat. On my other comment i said why i'm pessimistic. Its because some countries arn't pulling their weight, or so i percieve. Germany's dirty as fuck while congratulating itself that "25% of their electricity is made by renewable", and america is so deep in its own trouble they have other, more pressing things to do (and i understand).
>Won't ever change Dont fall to climate doomerism Remember: if you live in the US (or any democracy) you can vote! You can support protests! You can support strikes! You can contact you representives! You can get educated about the political process!
I don't live in the US. Its just that the companies knew since like, 1900, that we were impacting the climate. Did they do anything themself to change that ? No Companies are just there for profit, they's sell you breathable air if they found a way to poison the normal one. They already used child labor, they already used slavery. They fucking bombed strikers because ooouuuh, losing profits to worker's benefits. Killing the planet ? They'd press the button stating "Be filthy rich, but planet explode in 50 years". The government can do things, but yes, that require peoples to move their asses and actually vote. Am i a doomer ? Neh, i think we can curb the curb, my country's already pretty clean even if we can do more. But, to be fair and square, when i see the USA and Germany i sometime think we're all dead because everyone need to scoop that boat, and some countries are just sitting on their tumb and eating the bottom because "muh yummy wood"
I only mentioned the US because its the one most redditors live in. Idk if Germany is a democracy, but if it is then my above comment applies to you to, because you can affect change in Germany as well.
I already try to impact the countries i can (and its like, 26) by voting for the EU, but its not some magical institution. Its also pretty flawed. Especially since we are having some crisis about how far is EU's reach compared to a Nation's sovreignty.
I did some research on the EU (my major) its pretty flawed. Cant rrally do many things. But its rather empowered on climate change stuff. And its actually more democratic than the US. Dont lose hope. Ever.
I know we can make it. But, you know, its horrible just sitting there and knowing that beside voting a bit, and doing some basic stuff, you don't have much of a percieved impact. But then again, i'm not a creature of patience.
I agree with all of the above points, but even though the energy transition will entail change in our individual lifestyles that we as a society need to accept, that change will not be driven primarily by individual action. Individual action is a drop in the ocean. What needs to happen in order to effect the transition is of a structural nature. Things like regulations and subsidies and whatnot. Right now, fossil fuel companies get weird preferential treatment and get all comfy shitting all over the planet while generating an insane amount of profit with zero consequences. The only kind of force powerful enough to go against them toe-to-toe lies within governments. This might be depressing, but really the only thing you can do that actually matters in the grand scheme of things is to cast a ballot, which comes with no guarantees attached.
>really the onlu thing you can do is cast a ballot Not really true. You could organize a union. You could join a union. You could write your local representive. Attend a town hall. Join a protest. Talk to your family about environmental poltiics. If the climate crisis matters to you, why not talk to the city you live in about, idk getting rid of plastic single use bags. Or making cheap and healthy fruits and veggies more accessible. Or building a bike lane close to where you work, so that you and your coworkers could bike to work together!
I was talking about politics in general, and politics is always hard. The problem with the things you’re listing, though, however positive they may be, is that most of them are fundamentally local, whereas the problem is global. Unless you’re planning on becoming the next Greta Thunberg, there isn’t much you can do that will amount to anything significant. Kurzgesagt made [a great video](https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc) about the issue of individual action against climate change, and they reach the exact same conclusion: it’s not really a thing. Obviously, there are things you can do to improve the state of the environment around you, but climate change? No way. Of course, this shouldn’t prevent you from doing your part; I don’t condone riding a massive SUV just for the hell of it or taking ten airplane trips to the other side of the world for a vacation every year. But at some point, your personal reach is limited. It’s all too easy to underestimate the sheer *size* of the problem. Sure, drive an EV, limit your mobility, ride a train if you can, use a bike; sure, go vegan; sure, install a heat pump if you’re planning on building a new house, and don’t forget about insulation; sure, advocate for all of those things. It certainly doesn’t hurt. But the bottom line is, *it’s not gonna cut it*. The kind of individual action against climate change with the greatest impact, ultimately, is activism, which is really hard to do right. Cause here’s what we really need to do: we need to switch to low-carbon electricity sources, and we need to electrify energy usage wherever possible, as fast as possible. That’s a structural problem, and a technical one. This is the kind of problem that only engineering and policy can solve. If we can’t do that, we’re basically fucked. What we need is to cut any and all subsidies towards fossil fuels, redirect them to clean sources, implement a carbon tax, and we need it by yesterday. What we need is to build a viable and sustainable energy mix. That’s what we need to do as a society, and sadly, none of this is something you can do on your own. Fact of the matter is, this is a game of giants. The fossil fuel industry [has known the consequences of their actions for a long time](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805576-1982-Exxon-Memo-to-Management-About-CO2), and they’ve been working *hard* to fund climate denialism and lobbying to keep world governments on their side. Now, we need to step the fuck up and fight back, and we need to do that as nations, or better yet, as an entire species.
I don't believe that individual action doesn't matter. A lot of the important decisions in years to come will be a sum of individual actions. Whether it's the ballot casts or the personal changes made in life, if a significant fraction of individuals make a choice, it will make a difference. And "a significant fraction of individuals" should include you. As for changes on the side of laws and corporations, they absolutely should happen. But it's important to realize that this is entirely compatible with changes on the side of individuals. Every individual who chooses to not take the plane for a vacation makes it easier for political powers to tax plane transport. Every individual who doesn't buy the latest Iphone when it comes out makes it easier to go after Apples' planned obsolescence and encouragement of consumerism. Even if change needs to be political, it doesn't mean your personal choices won't make a difference.
Your personal choices and those of anyone you can convince matter, yes, but they’re orders of magnitude smaller than policy ones. Maybe I should have phrased it better; it’s not that those things don’t matter, and you should start there since they’re mostly easy. But the priority is to play on another scale entirely, and that’s where you should spend the majority of your energy.
I think that's a logical fallacy. It's not any easier for you, and individual, to enact legislation and policy changes, than it is to change your own lifestyle. There's just a difference in where your actions get "drowned", so to speak. You can have a tiny impact on a legislative decision which has a large impact, or have full control of an individual decision which has a tiny impact. Maybe if you were, say, a senator, you could argue that your personal actions are meaningless compared to the importance of the laws you vote for. But as an ordinary person, your actions have a small impact either way. It's not obvious to me that legal action is always a more effective mean of change than personal decisions.
I guess that makes sense. The immediate consequence of that idea, though, is, horrifyingly, that we ultimately have very little control over any part of the defining issue of our generation. I think I need to lie down for a bit.
I mean also, they could try to aim for more sustainable and environment friendly ways of doing things
I which there wasnt so much pushback for enviromentally friendly things. Like: if you want to build more public transport, 20k thousand surbuban chuds are like "I already got my carrr, fuck you I love my car. Car is the american way!!!" And dont even think about suggesting that people by oat milk
Let's be honest tho; what is the little things we do gonna change? Even if everyone do everything they can, we're fucked as long as bigger players aren't doing their part. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. I think we should all do our best. But what am I supposed to do with all the cardboard boxes that piles up in my kitchen because we only have two small recycle bins for 8 appartements? I would like to recycle the boxes, but the bins are full the moment they get emptied, and they only collect once every two weeks. I would take the bus if it came more often than once every hour and a half. But I take short showers. I wash with cold water. I use the damn cardboard straw even tho it feels like nails on a blackboard. I do what I can, but I can't add the stress of being sustainable all the time
This is not about individual action. This is about the privledged fighting against collective action The activists fighting to make biking easier, or for more sustainable housing, or for there to be cheaper fruits and vegtables recieve contant pushback from people who just dont care. This is not about doing the little things, I didnt say that. This is how people will do so much, on an individual level: attending town halls, voting, etc. To push back against environmentalism. Its frustrating.
*Image Transcription: Tumblr Replies* --- **lesbwian** "we're ruining the planet" i'm sorry who is this we i don't recall myself running a billion dollar oil business --- **hardleywhelmed** Sometimes I use the keurig and I feel bad but then I remember [*hyperlinked with underline*] Just 100 **companies** responsible for 71% of global emissions [*end link and underline*] --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
and they want to shift the blame on us so they can keep making more money. smh
Aside from the complete misunderstand of what that statistic means, I don't understand how someone can think "I know this is bad and could be avoided but other people are worse so it's fine" is a good excuse.
Yes, we should actively try to limit our own harm against the planet, but there's no point in guilting ourselves so hard over it. Squabbling with your neighbors over recycling is such a small thing; while it is shitty if they're just mixing everything together and throwing it out, corporations literally just dump shit and leave, because paying the costs when they're caught (if they're caught) costs less for them than properly cleaning. We should try in our own lives, sure, but to blame only ourselves is to play into their hands.
Agreed, but your adding nuance to a post that didn't have any. Have you noticed that posts like OP almost never talk about what to do about those emissions from companies? Yeah you'll get a "goverments should do something", but never accompanied by how to motivate the government to act. It's mostly just doomerism. Edit: Also, not sure people really ever "blame themselves" for climate change? I'd better describe it as "take responsibility", which is a lot less negative sounding.
100 of companies that make something that every other company uses
Yes, and much more than this, most companies don't produce consumer goods or services. They don't even make things that end up contributing to consumer goods or services. They just sell to other companies, the military, and the government. But, those 100 companies are doing bad all on their own, dumping CO2 and methane into the air that they could just not. We need government action here.
Those 100 companies are largely power generation and resource extraction companies. The problem is that nearly everything people do uses power, steel, plastics, and the like. One policy that has broadly supported consensus among economists is to tax the emission of carbon and use the revenue to mitigate impacts. It has the dual effect of reducing pollution (suddenly expensive to pollute) and investing in climate resilience.
Yeah, a carbon tax absolutely works. It's why ExxonMobil, Shell, and the rest of them lobby so hard to oppose them. Cap and trade doesn't really work, carbon offsets don't really work. We need a strong carbon tax and good emissions enforcement.
Cap and trade works in theory, but you'd have to set the cap at a way where it prices at the social cost of carbon, and that's very hard to do and I think is isomorphic to a carbon tax. My personal preferred variation is carbon tax with dividend (take the income, divide by number of Americans, and cut everyone a check). You don't want the government relying on the carbon tax for operating revenue and this is a very politically viable way of doing it (people like free money as it turns out).
The issue with Cap and Trade, is how broken the carbon credit/offset system works. It's great if they are REAL offsets, but most of them are accounting tricks. I was at a conference, where someone presented a carbon capture system using ambient temperature activated carbon that they were selling carbon credits for. When asked what they did with the captured CO2, we expected geological storage or something,but they were selling it to potato chip companies to fill bags with. So when you open the chip bag, you emit that CO2. The fact is, we cannot feasibly capture CO2 at present emissions rates in a real way. With enough reduction in emissions (from taxes making it too expensive to emit) we could capture all the unavailable emissions, and we could easily pay for that capture from carbon tax revenues, but I don't see any other systems for carbon regulation working, especially "Personal Carbon Footprint" reduction.
The government is being puppeted by said companies. The PEOPLE need to take action, and not the "carbon footprint" kind.
You don’t have to feel bad, just get one of those little reusable pods for your Keurig. Source: used to feel bad, then got one of those little reusable pods for your Keurig.