A fixation on system change alone opens the door to a kind of cynical self-absolution that divorces personal commitment from political belief. This is its own kind of false consciousness, one that threatens to create a cheapened climate politics incommensurate with this urgent moment.
[…]
Because here’s the thing: When you choose to eat less meat or take the bus instead of driving or have fewer children, you are making a statement that your actions matter, that it’s not too late to avert climate catastrophe, that you have power. To take a measure of personal responsibility for climate change doesn’t have to distract from your political activism—if anything, it amplifies it.
the corporations will not save us. be very wary of any “solution” that allows you to continue unchanged and to shift all responsibility to someone else, there’s a reason that perspective is so pervasive
Like I’m all for that we need to hold a fire under corporations. But we also need to change too. Just because they do like, 70% of it doesn’t mean we’re off the hook. We’re buying those products that they pollute for. We drive the cars that are polluting. We buy the cheap clothes that they shamelessly pollute. We each have to change.
Corporations have absolutely no incentive to change, consumers need to vote with their wallets if they want something to happen. But no, everytime someone points out this blindingly obvious fact we get the “uhm actually corporations need to change, it’s not my fault they’re feeding off my unsustainable habits.”
We have to work together, we only have power to effect change when we work together, solidarity is our strength.
File under “green washing.”
If a company offers a more expensive “choice” of a greener option, rather than just being ecologically responsible by default, then you are being sold a product. That is, you get to express your superior “green” ethics by identifying with your purchase.
The company doesn’t actually care about the environment. They’re just doing the minimum to capture extra $$$
I’m not completely sure of what point you’re making. Would you buy the cheaper product even if you could afford the more expensive green one?
Because if the answer is “no”, then you are still agreeing with OP; and if the answer is “yes” then you are saying you want to knowingly buy something that is harmful for the environment and encourage a company to make more of it, while deflecting responsibly and saying that corpos and govs are the ones who have to do something.
I am agreeing with op. Corpos and govs are the ones who have to do something. We individually and collectively also have to do something. Nothing changes for the better unless we have buy-in from individuals. The binary you’re presenting is one I didn’t intend with my comment. I was saying we should watch out for green washing, when functioning as a consumer.
That is, If you can avoid doing business with companies which are harming the environment then you should. The same goes for doing business with companies which are half-assed or insincere in their efforts (though these are naturally preferable).
So if you can’t avoid a purchase, and there isn’t a good choice, then obviously you should pick the most ecologically sound option available to you.
My main point is no one should feel virtuous for picking, like, “eco green Coca Cola” just because 5% of the proceeds go to saving the rainforest. They’re a reprehensible company, so far better to just not fuck with Coke in the first place.
BP oil company pushed the idea that our individual carbon footprints matter so that everyone can share the blame of what the fossil fuel industry has done.
Don’t fall for it. Only corporations pollute enough to matter. Only corporations can provide alternatives to fossil fuels. Only corporations can make a meaningful reduction to greenhouse gas emissions.
The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.
I didn’t say “don’t consume less”.
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 factoid is vastly misinterpreted. In particular, the term “responsible for” does not mean “emitted”.
The study it’s referencing studied only fossil fuel producers. And it credited all emissions from anyone who burned fuel from that producer to that producer. So if I buy a tank of gas from Chevron and burn it, my emissions are credited to Chevron for purposes of that study.
The study is not saying that 100 companies emit 71% of global emissions. It’s saying that 100 companies produce 71% of the fossil fuels used globally.
Exactly. They’re right, but it’s just a way to not feel guilty about driving a gas guzzler or using a gas furnace. No the corporations are more guilty, but that doesn’t make you innocent for just shifting the blame, the same tactic they did. We ALL need to change our ways.
The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.
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.
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.
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.
While this is basically true, what it ignores is the impact personal decisions make on the ethos around us to build support for legal pressure. I have family that doesn’t disbelieve climate change but isn’t motivated by it, and by us going mostly meatless and buying and EV they’ve started meatless Mondays and Thursdays and are considering an EV for their next car. Our individual actions ripple out, and create a public normalization for these types of changes so that it isnt an uphill battle to get uninformed laypeople to care about climate policy at the polling stations
I’m vegan, I drive an EV and I’m saving money for solar and a heat pump.
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%
I’m not saying me driving an EV does statistically anything to reduce carbon emissions, or even that if I got all my friends and family to go vegan and bike instead of drive cars that it would. I am saying that the broad public doesn’t care about these issues enough to consume differently or vote for policy or politicians that make their lives less convenient in order to fight climate change, and that instead our individual actions to avert climate change contribute to a public ethos that can accept lifestyle changes and that may potentially hold the mega polluting corporations to account and fix our throw-away durable goods culture in a way that media-demonized protests and pestering bought-and-paid politicians never can.
Bullshit, straight up bullshit. It makes a difference at scale, but at scale it is miniscule when compared to even small mass polluters.
That’s not to say you should live as pollution-causing as possible, but spare me the pearl clutching over my paper plate usage.
Did nobody here read the article? Manifesting holistic change starts at home, precisely because it creates an appetite for change over status quo. A person who puts in individual effort is far more likely to tolerate and advocate for collective effort. The idea that top down change will not impact individuals is as ridiculous as the notion that resistance to top down change isn’t rooted in anxiety over individual impacts.
Every person is individually responsible for burning down at least one billionaire-owned property.
Other quotes I found compelling from the article were these:
Ultimately, a personal action versus political action binary is unhelpful. The environmental movement needs to sustain a way to do both: agitate and organize for systemic change while also still encouraging individual behavior changes.
[…]
Which is to say that personal action and collective, political action are self-reinforcing. Individual lifestyle changes can act as a kind of alloy that strengthens political activism. To do the difficult work of walking more lightly on the planet is to bind commitment to conviction.
Exactly, also systemic change will have individual consequences. By bearing them early we demonstrate that these burdens are smaller than often imagined.
I love the taste of meat. I struggled to imagine a life without it. I have been a pescatarian now for nearly 3 years. It’s inconvenient at times, but not as much as it once was. Seafood is a treat for me, and I imagine many people can live with meat like that. I am healthier, and I am happy with my choice. By making systemic changes to food people will eat less meat, but while the transition will be uncomfortable, the end result won’t be nearly as bad as they fear.
