Feeling guilty every time we can’t be perfect environmentalists isn’t sustainable. For a safer climate, we don't need to get every action right, but we do need to understand the greater scope of the crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you can find a politically acceptable policy that makes money for raises to everyone suddenly appear, lots of people would be very interested in that.
You cannot demand that we stop using cheap processes and then simultaneously be surprised that the alternatives are less cheap, but for the final time - and I’m afraid I’ll be checking out here - revenue can be used to subsidize those alternatives and make them more affordable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are economic policies that can greatly mitigate this. Carbon taxes that subsidize sustainable projects, for one example.
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.
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.
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?
If you can find a politically acceptable policy that makes money for raises to everyone suddenly appear, lots of people would be very interested in that.
You cannot demand that we stop using cheap processes and then simultaneously be surprised that the alternatives are less cheap, but for the final time - and I’m afraid I’ll be checking out here - revenue can be used to subsidize those alternatives and make them more affordable.
Cheers.
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
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.
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.
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.