72
Yes, Actually, Individual Responsibility Is Essential to Solving the Climate Crisis
(www.sierraclub.org)
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
72 points (69.8% liked)
Solarpunk
5518 readers
8 users here now
The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.
Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well can also stop giving them our money. Reduce consumption of their products through alternatives and overall reduction. We can also divest our investments away from funds that include their shares.
I’m not saying to do nothing as individuals.
Just pointing out that the fossil fuel industry paid a marketing team to push the idea of individual carbon footprints for a reason.
100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That means that the remaining 29% of emissions are shared by all the other companies and consumers. Even if you split that remainder evenly between all other companies and consumers, that’s only 14% all emissions being caused by consumers and it’s probably more likely in the single digits.
This is why the fossil fuel industry pays a marketing team to get the public focused on their individual carbon footprint. So you’re focused on the less than 14% of the total emissions instead of the other 86%
That includes downstream emissions. So if your car runs on BP oil, those emissions would be part of BPs emissions.
There is a reason BP is not advertising people to drop their cars. BP wants two things in its campaign. First of all to make clear that it is your lifestyles fault and secondly that besides munor changes you do not have to change that at all.
They are responsible for those downstream emissions because they entrenched themselves and made it so the majority of people don’t have a choice. Even going so far as to influence how our cities are built to make us dependent on them.
Most people cannot afford to get a car let alone an EV. The only reason we are seeing EVs in the first place is because of government intervention.
If the individual doesn’t have a choice because of choices made by the fossil fuel industry then the individual isn’t responsible for those emissions.
How do people die from not having a car? It must be a lot of them, given that most can not afford them, but depend on them...
You don’t know that people use cars to get to work? And get food?
If I were to stop using fuel I would have no way to get to work and earn money. Which means no house or food or anything.
Why does that need to be explained to you?
I have both been able to work and get food without using a car.
Congrats. Now get 100% of the worlds population to do the same.
Then you will have reduced less than 14% of the emissions needed.
That’s why BP paid a marketing firm to get the public focused on their individual carbon footprint. So you waste your time trying to get 100% of the worlds population to change their individual carbon footprint.
Instead of focusing on getting the majority of voters to protest and vote.
That is the plan. How else are you going to get to zero, but to change the everybodies carbon footprint.
To do what? Ban combustion engines to force everybody to change their individual carbon footprint? Any sort of actually massive climate legislation is going to impact a lot of peoples life directly.
You’re arguing that we shouldn’t vote for legislation to prevent climate change because it is going to impact people’s lives?
And instead we should just hope that 100% of the worlds population just does the right thing?
Remember when we tried to get people to wear masks during the pandemic?
That appoach doesn’t work. That’s why the fossil fuel industry is paying marketing firms to convince the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.
What I am trying to say, is that to fight climate change lifestyle changes are required. To get those changes done in a demicratic fashion, you need to convince a majority of people to actually make those changes. Part of that is making them without the actual law, to show that it is possible.
Just take you as an example. You want I presume a combustionengine ban. However that ban would cause you massive problems, as you can not get to work or buy food without a car. I would say that, if true, those would be amazing arguments against such a ban. For me the argument is much easies, as I would do more or less fine with that law, as my lifestyle is already pretty low car.
Remeber the US president refusing to wear a mask in public? Johnsons parties during covid? There was a lot of that bs.
This is my point. If we try to fix climate change by improving individual carbon footprint, there are some that can do it but many that can not, so it only reduces the greenhouse gas emissions for consumers that can afford it.
Because it is a systemic problem. Not a problem caused by consumer choice.
Consumers don’t care if they use a gas car or an EV as long as it does what they need it to do and it is affordable.
If we just focus on voting and protesting we can create a solution that reduces all emissions, industrial emissions, commercial emissions, consumer emissions, all reduced.
The top 10% globally emit almost half of global emissions That group is also the one, which can afford the alternatives, like for example EVs.
You also ignore that actually living the change, is what builts up the alternatives. Lets take EVs as an example. Economies of scale bring down prices and more EVs means more reason to expand charging infrastructure. We can in fact see both of those in action. That kind of stuff also works socially. The more EVs are around, the more normal they become. It also lowers oil sales, which hurt oil companies, which makes them weaker.
Aligning you politics and your lifestyle, also makes you more effective politically. Somebody who rudes their bike in everyday life as trandport,, will call for very different things, then somebody who only drives everywhere. That can just be knowing the worst parts in the cycling network. Also again, it makes it more believable, when you lobby for something, which makes your life better.
So I will continue to try to live a life, which aligns with my values, and not pretend I gave up all my agency to Wallstreet.
This is why we can’t fix climate change by reducing individual carbon footprint. Because it requires 100% of the population taking it upon themselves to do the right thing and many individuals: -don’t care -don’t have the option
The reason we are getting affordable EVs now at all is because governments are intervening to develop the technology and infrastructure. That’s not due to individual action.
No, it just requires everybody who is not living in a sustainable fashion to change their lifestyle. Prending otherwise like you do is just not helpful. People will not be able to drive a combustion engine car, fly on a jet, take diesel ship cruises, eat even close to as much beef and a lot of other things, which are going to change their lifes. Without changing that, you just can not solve the climate crisis.
People like you, who only want to lobby governments to take action, ignore that this is going to create a counter movement. That already happened a few times. Yellow west and farmer protests come to mind. This is very easily capable of stoping climate action in total and has lead to some truely nasty parties gaining in power. This idea of being able to ignore those effects, is just plain and simply dumb. We need to convince most people to take climate change seriously enough to be willing to change their lifes. Otherwise your climate idea of just lobbying works once and is very quickly reversed.
Keep in mind a society is made up of individuals. That means no society will be willing to take climate action, when the individuals in the society are not willing to do so.
The individual carbon footprint approach does not force anyone to do anything. So those that do not want to will not make changes. That is why it won’t work. It requires 100% of the worlds population to just do the right thing.
If there is not political/legal action to force change, most people will not change.
Which, as I said, is exactly why we should stop giving them our money. Divestment is a key thing people can will hurt these companies massively.
“We” as in consumers don’t use enough to hurt companies by divesting.
By all means do anything you can to reduce your individual carbon footprint. But do so knowing it is just a drop in the ocean. Such a small difference that it might as well be nothing.
But if you convince the public that our individual choices can fix climate change then we end up with paper straws instead of systemic change.
I think you're confused by what divesting is. That's us as business owners, not as customers (obviously we as customers can hit them simultaneously from the other side too).
Yes, individually it doesn't hurt them much, but it becomes the death of a thousand cuts.
If you can put pressure on your pension provider, local government, church, favourite charity or any other organisation you care about to drop funds with them in entirely then all the better.
Divesting is not to do with that, it's about hitting these companies right in the share price.
Here is the definition of divesting.
You seem to be confused about what individual carbon footprint is because you’re talking about business choices as if they are an individuals choices.
Business owners divesting has nothing to do with an individuals carbon footprint.
This is accomplished by group action and legal/political pressure which is the opposite of reducing your individual carbon footprint. That is the systemic change I am saying we need.
Not telling people they need to walk to work so they don’t burn fuel. Or get solar panels to stop funding coal, when they live in an apartment.
Those 100 companies are fuel producers making fuel that everyone else burns. By that metric my gas company is responsible for 100% of my gas-based greenhouse emissions.
I hate how often that study gets misused.
Why wouldn’t they be responsible for the emissions from the fuel they provide? The fossil fuel industry has entrenched themselves and made it as difficult as possible to not use their products. Even to go so far as to influence how our cities are built.
I'd love to not use any fossil fuels but I can’t afford solar panels or a heat pump so I have to either burn gas or my family freezes to death. I have to get my electricity from coal because my family can’t survive without electricity.
I don’t have a choice because of the choices made by the fossil fuel industry.
If the providers are to blame for all emissions and the consumers are free of responsibility, then all consumption is equal. If Exxon is the responsible party, then the guy buying the gas guzzler to stick it to the libs is the same as the guy driving a hybrid, as neither is to blame for their emissions.
I understand choosing comfort over living in a cave or dying, obviously, but that doesn't mean we're free of any and all blame. Any time a new climate report comes and it's worse than the one before I understand that my existence and choice of comfort played a part in it . I don't just go "oh that Exxon, smh" and carry on guilt free.
No one said consumers are free of all responsibility.
No one said “oh that Exxon, smh”.
Trying to fix climate change by reducing individual carbon footprint doesn’t work because there are a lot of people that:
don’t have the luxury of being able to not use gasoline or solar.
Don’t care
It requires 100% of the world population to take it upon themselves to do the right thing just to fix the smallest part of the problem.
Fixing it with voting/protest reduces emissions for everyone. The rich, poor, industrial emissions, commercial emissions. All emissions.
This is what I'm trying to get across to you here. You've posted the same notion multiple times in this thread. The consumer share isn't the smallest part, it's most of it. All the oil we extract serves to make products, transport products, sell products to the consumer - you. It's not being being burnt for fun.
When you engage in consumption, any amount of it, you're pulling a string connected to a million other strings that mostly end up in an oil well one way or another. The luxury you speak of is in that consumption, not the lack of it.
And if you think otherwise, compare your lifestyle, your lifelong level of comfort to that of someone who spent their whole life living in a hut in Mali, whose lifelong emissions equal a few months worth of yours. Now try to tell that person that you're not responsible for the gas you burn, it's the fault of those that provided you with the option to do it. It's insulting.
Consumer greenhouse gas emissions are the smallest of all sources of emissions.
Please tell me, when it says "Transportation" on that chart, what exactly do you think is being transported, and where?