this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
3337 points (99.9% liked)
196
16243 readers
2327 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We SHOULD be telling people to use planes less though.
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.
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.
another tool is taxation. example: single use plastics are a bad thing and we don't need them in most of the ways they're used. taxing them will make them economically untenable and companies will look for alternatives.
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.