IIRC the study that the “X% of companies are responsible for X% emissions” is somewhat misleading. For example they use the combined output of everyone’s car exhaust and attribute that to the major oil companies since they provide the gas. Not saying that large corporations and the wealthy in general contributing to climate change exponentially more than the average person, but its misleading to say that as an individual it doesn’t matter if we try to use less energy.
This exactly! We need to go after the corporations with policy changes but that doesn’t mean that we, as individuals, are completely blameless or that individually actions are inconsequential. If nobody chooses to drive less or to take the bus then collectively we’re telling the major oil companies to continue with business as usual at if nothing’s wrong. The corporations are to blame but we’re all active participants!
For a big majority of people, there isn’t simply a lot of options, or any options at all, to take the car less, or buy less over packaged items, or reduce the pollution footprint.
The corporations won’t offer any alternative unless legislations make these alternatives the right choice business wise.
So toothless legislation is a problem and the governing bodies absolutely have the lion share of responsibilities and the personal efforts are worthless without the support of the governing bodies.
Well I myself have a problem with this blaming game going on. Big corporations say they do their best and try to make people feel guilty about their lifestyle choices. People say they have no alternative and that anyway it’s mostly big corporations who are responsible. Politics say whatever they need to get elected. As long as everyone keeps doing what they do, blaming someone else and finding excuses for not changing how they run their household, corporation ou party, nothing will change. Everyone is responsible. How much I am responsible compared to you, or compared to ExxonMobil’s CEO, is becoming more and more irrelevant.
On the topic of what we do though, campaigning for actually effective legislation 1) actually works, and 2) has a far greater effect than trying to micro-optimize our individual lives. Optimization problems are solved by gathering data and focusing on the largest contributor, not just picking shit randomly.
Also, make no mistake, enacting a carbon tax, for example, would make all of our lives harder, we simply wouldn’t be able to afford as much stuff as we do now. But it would align the market forces to find efficient, low-carbon solutions, as opposed to find efficient solutions despite carbon emissions. Trickle-down economics is bullshit when it comes to rewards, but no company (that stays in business) ever shied away from passing along operating costs. (A similar thing happened to nutrient labeling, the food industry fought tooth and nail against it because it would be a downturn in the business, but it was ratified anyway and since then options across the board got a lot healthier, because there was simply an incentive for the corpos to fix their shit to some degree where there previously wasn’t. And that was just about informing consumers, not fully ) So don’t make this out as if we’re just pointing the blame so you can sit back and let the big companies do all the work, because that’s not what this is about, it’s simply about the fact that capitalism doesn’t run on morals (as it is so clearly apparent in its results) so we need a little more than that to force the corpos to work along with the rest of us. Because if they don’t, all our efforts will be in vain.
The point is, regulation would actually work. We tried to make climate change the individual’s responsibility for decades and we’re still barreling straight towards the climate apocalypse, so it’s time to add some other measures too, not just try to slightly increase individual contributions and see if that solves it. Spoiler: it won’t, but it’s comfy to some high-ranking execs if we waste valuable quarters trying that again and again and again. And I guess it gives us a comfy delusion of control too.
I’d use my ebike, but that shit will get stolen as soon as I leave it anywhere, and I cannot afford the $3,000 to replace it. So if I am actually going places, I have to drive my vehicle.
There are different kinds of ebikes but many don’t eliminate your effort, they just multiple it. They can be particularly helpful when going uphill to make it feel a bit more like you’re peddling up flat ground. The fact that they’re overall quieter and lighter weight means you can access bicycle lanes and multi-use pathways. Operating costs are also drastically lower than motorcycles.
It gets you from point A to B, costs nearly nothing to charge, and is environmentally friendly.
Why waste money on a electric alternative of a transportation device that was made to both make you do excercise AND to get you places?
It gets you there faster and without sweating. My eBike goes 50KPH. I arrive at my destination with no sweat.
If you want to get places faster, or just showoff on two wheels, that’s what motorbikes are for.
I’m sorry, but you’re being very ignorant. A motorbike is thousands of dollars, requires hundreds of dollars per month in insurance, requires licenses, maintenance, fuel, etc.
Not to mention not everyone can ride a standard bike. Older people, people with chronic illnesses, etc. I personally had a double lung transplant. I’m not pedal biking, nor am I paying $750/month for motorbike insurance in my province.
I'm sorry but telling people not to is a stupid and futile plan. At least here in the US (idk if anywhere else does this) I say we need to regulate the airlines to run those "unprofitable" flights as they do now, but without the subsidy money. The airlines, being unable to change the frequency or cost of those flights, will turn to the obvious solution: make flying more expensive across the board to subsidize those actually unprofitable but regulated routes. I put unprofitable in quotes earlier because that's the excuse the corps will cry with; their cries mean nothing though. Raising the cost of air travel will reduce demand and will also free up lots of tax dollars for better causes, at least one hopes lmao. Same thing for meat; telling people to go vegan/vegetarian won't work. Ceasing subsidization and increasing regulations (e.g. forcing more humane living standards for the animals) will raise prices letting the market do it's thing which is the best we can really do given the current economic structure of our society. This myth of "personal responsibility" in cases like this is harmful because people's actions are defined by systems, institutions and society at large.
I agree with the general prescription, but cultivating a sense of personal responsibility is useful for the moment when harsh regulations are going to be set in place. Voters are far more likely to agree with high carbon taxes if they have already started to try reducing their emissions.
I’m definitely not defending the stance of liberal media on this: climate change isn’t an issue of personal responsibility, but personal responsibility should be promoted on top of systemic change. I’m not telling anyone to live the life of a Tibetan monk, but to put some effort into having virtuous decisions and habits, leading by example, and also use that to claim: “We are doing our part already, but capitalism cannot fix the problem”.
Reducing the discussion to “actually, it’s corporations only which should change how they work” is going to lead to a pretty large reactionary backslash when people find out that a sustainable economy does also, in fact, require to change our relation with the economy.
Do you think people use planes for fun? Only way I can see my family is by plane. Well, I can go by ferry but that means I will have to spend about 20x money and it'll take about 48 hours on the ferry, instead of 1.5 hours on the plane.
"We should use planes less" is not "you mustn't use planes ever". Not every plane journey can easily be replaced. That's okay. Near me there's a flight that takes off to go a few hundred miles to the country's capital each morning, and there are similar ones going much shorter distances all over the country. That journey could and should be a high speed train journey with suitable infrastructure
You always get this kind of outrage when you tell people to do anything less. Eat less meat: How dare you tell me I cannot eat meat! I work hard every day at the blue collar job and all I want to do is to come home to a nice steak!
The amount of mental gymnastics people go through to not even consider veganism is so astounding. Morality aside, cutting all animal products would do so much good for the environment.
Can you imagine what would happen if you... stopped buying those products that those companies are selling that are responsible for the emissions? Nah, that's crazy talk.
Nothing is ever anybody’s fault and nobody has any agency and if we just get rid of the top 100 polluting companies that wont impact our lives in any way and nobody will get mad about it
Please remember that the corporations are polluting to provide services to the populace at large. You might as well accuse your pizza delivery driver for polluting after he gives you your order.
I mean, in a city it shows up on a bike or scooter. I think Amazon is a better example. They provide a great service that is nothing but fast delivery and wasteful packing because that’s what we want. My answer is that it should be regulated and taxed to show the real cost this convenience has on the world. Another instance is single use utensils. They should not be so cheap to produce that they are being practically thrown away with takeout. Major polluting items need to be artificially made more expensive so that culturally it makes sense to carry our own for or chopsticks with us. That’s what regulation is for, creating parameters that companies need to work within, because their motivations are to give us what we want as cheaply as possible to gain market share
Let’s start on pushing for thermally neutral building materials and reducing food waste. If buildings weren’t concrete heat sinks it wouldn’t take so much energy to keep them cool and food waste is a large contributor to pollution and spreads disease.
Thing is, it’s not like consumers choose to use plastic packaging. It’s not like we choose to release forever chemicals into the water supply instead of dealing with them responsibly.
I mean… I’ll contribute and do my part because I do care, and that’s the type of person I am, but we do need regulation in place for the top contributors to global warming and pollution, which are corporations and celebrities.
Plus, it’s bullshit to say that you should take a bus or train or bike or whatever instead of a car when you have disgusting car-centric infrastructure that forces you to drive.
I’d be happy to switch to a smart thermostat if they weren’t all so privacy-invading. Nest, the most popular one, is owned by Google, and there’s no Google in my home. I’m completely deGoogled and will keep it that way.
I live in a city where the train passes once every 55 minutes, and the bus has a very high chance of skipping runs and feel like its going to dismantle with a breath of air.
Finger pointing at corporations while doing nothing may not be as bad as corps finger pointing at us while doing nothing. But it’s still bad.
Everyone needs to make an effort on this.
Hoping corporations will somehow grow a conscience isn’t accomplishing anything.
Imagine if nearly everyone was using public transit instead of voting out politicians because gas prices got a little too high. That might make the corps think there was more money in green energy than drilling up more oil.
Corporations are not going to fix the problem out of the goodness of their hearts no matter how much people whine about it. It’s only going to happen when voters (and consumers) demand it.
Add comment