- cross-posted to:
- environment
- cross-posted to:
- environment
You must log in or # to comment.
Well do something about it!
Corporate oligarchy says no… Until solutions become profitable.
I think some of this is defeatism and blaming the corporations. Corporations are about half the problem IMO. The stuff we all buy is made by these corporations. Buy less stuff. Buy quality. Repair stuff. Buy used stuff. Drive less. Don’t buy a canyonero or monster truck to drive in a suburb. Rent a truck if you need one, you’ll save $$$$ and emissions. Beef is a huge culprit. Eat less beef. Other meats tend to be cheaper anyway. Replace meat in a meal with rice and beans or lentils. You will also save money.
Vote for ending car dependency in cities and suburbs.
Talk to people. Mention saving money to retire early. Most people think work sucks.
Drive less
Baut addressed a number of your other points already, so I wanted to drill down into this one.
You touched on it later, but driving less is really hard with how our cities are designed. Yes absolutely people should advocate and vote for less car dependency. But right now when cycling can be seriously risking your life every day, and public transport can take 90 minutes for a trip that’s easily a 30 minute drive—and that’s if you leave at precisely the right time and make all your connections, which are themselves all on time—far too often not driving is not really a viable option. People should cycle and go by public transportation as much as possible, but “as much as possible” is, in our cities, much less often than it should be.
Without commenting any of your other points, saying that “our stuff is made by corporations so it’s the individuals fault for buying it” is in my opinion extremely shortsighted.
You don’t have any influence on the supply chain. Even with exceptions like Fairphone, harmful ways to produce are mostly cheaper than less harmful ways. On one end, those who produce cheaper have the competitive advantage, on the other you have low, non-increasing wages.
This also applies to the “buy quality” thing. Even if the word “quality” had an objective definition, it’s incredibly hard to decide that. Expensive items could be made out if cheap materials, which feel valuable but aren’t. The hardware could be good, but software updates are only supplied in the short-term.
And after all, people have work in the morning and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect them to sacrifice what little free time they have into researching all of their consumption. It’s a systematic issue, and these tips floating around feel like bikeshedding. Yes they’re nice, good on you for doing it, but does it really fix any of the pressing issues?
it’s late so please apologize if this text doesn’t make any sense.There are also situations where there is no good option but you still need it. I live in Victoria. Most of our power comes from brown coal.
I have solar panels but that only covers part of it. I can’t afford the $5-10k for batteries so I have no choice but to keep using grid power. Even if I did spend that, there is no guarantee that it will be better.You are why individual action matters. Replacing your power source will take years. I can eat 5 less cheeseburgers a year right now and start slowing demand for beef production almost immediately. If the whole world does this, we start slowing things down a bit and buy time for things like your grid situation to be fixed.
Without commenting any of your other points, saying that “our stuff is made by corporations so it’s the individuals fault for buying it”
I didn’t mean it in a way to pass blame, but to empower.
Yes they’re nice, good on you for doing it, but does it really fix any of the pressing issues?
If a billion people make an effort, then it certainly helps. It will require individual action AND systemic changes.
We really need an all hands on deck effort here. We are racing down a mountain towards a cliff with a buried speedometer. Individual action is removing our foot from the accelerator. Systemic action is applying the brakes. We might have to crash into the side of the mountain to avoid going over the edge, so let’s try and slow down as much as we can first.
Consumers definitely share some of the blame for the demand, but the fools errand is expecting millions/billions of individuals to act in everyone else’s best interest at detriment to their own immediate finances, quality of life, and standard of living.
Climate change is a tragedy of the commons that corporations have continuously exploited for financial gain (e.g. offshoring their most dangerous and pollutant processes to developing countries; out of reach of developed world democracies/regulations/voters).
Corporations will always bear most of the blame, as they have used their capital to engage in immoral, unethical, and downright criminal anti-democratic and psychological warfare tactics to maximize profit; the same as they have done for labour laws and everything else that benefits the collective (impacts profitability).
immediate finances, quality of life, and standard of living.
That is the problem. The immediate finances isn’t true. A small car for commuting to work is cheaper than a giant SUV. Poultry is cheaper than beef. Having more money means less stress and an increased quality of life.
As far as quality of life goes, how are these heat waves, wildfires, and extreme weather events treating everyone? Soon enough, we will start seeing shortages of various things due to crop failures and shipping issues like we are seeing currently with the Panama canal.
Blaming corporations is exactly what corporations want. It means consumers can feel ok with more consumption, which is good for their bottom line.
Suburbia, one of the biggest culprits just isn’t sustainable in its current form. It will take years to fix, but in the meantime let’s all replace a few steaks with anything else. And stop buying monster trucks and canyoneros to commute to an office job.
Want to reduce your carbon footprint? The most effective thing you can do is blockade a carbon exporter.
Fact Check estimated that Australia’s domestic emissions plus the emissions embedded in its exports added to 1,712 million tonnes in 2016.
Our domestic emissions were about 411 million tonnes that year.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/australia#what-are-the-country-s-annual-co2-emissions
The “carbon footprint” idea was popularized in a press campaign run by BP. It’s purpose was to shift public attention away from the damage being done by the petroleum industry and shift blame onto individuals.
Get the billionaires and millionaires to stop taking thousands of private jet trips every day and the problem is basically solved. That won’t happen though because they want everyone else to reduce their carbon footprint while maintaining their globe trotting ways.
Bad and incorrect oversimplification of the problem. Aviation, particularly private aviation, is responsible for only a small minority of total global emissions and has a relatively negligible impact on climate change. It might feel good to pretend you don’t have to change your lifestyle because “rich man bad” but that’s not an accurate reflection of reality. Everyone has a responsibility here.
It might feel good to pretend you don’t have to change your lifestyle
There’s really not much that the every man can do though. Driving an electric vehicle does nothing. I have solar already but our power companies and government have made them basically pointless with battery systems being prohibitively expensive. It’s businesses and rich people doing the heavy lifting of climate damage.
Also not really sure why you say aviation has a relatively negligible impact when your own link says otherwise?
Aviation is widely known for its carbon footprint, with the industry contributing 2.5% to the global CO₂ burden. While some may argue that this pales in comparison with other sectors, carbon is only responsible for a third of aviation’s full climate impact. Non-CO₂ emissions (mainly NOₓ and ice trails made from aircraft water vapour) make up the remaining two-thirds.
Taking all aircraft emissions into account, flying is responsible for around 5% of human-induced climate change.
1/20th of ALL human induced climate change isn’t “relatively negligible”.
Also not really sure why you say aviation has a relatively negligible impact when your own link says otherwise?
Do you understand the meaning of the word “relatively”?
5% is negligible when you consider that a) this is the total impact of all aviation - not just “billionaires and millionaires” and private aviation which would be an even lower percentage and b) it is a significantly lower figure than that of other contributors, such as livestock, which has been estimated at 15% or even higher. And while we’re on the topic of livestock, I notice that you conveniently didn’t mention diet at all even though it is something that the “every man” can address right now.
I do, but 5% is not relatively small in any meaning of the word when it comes to things that contribute to climate change.
It is small relative to the size of other contributions.
You claimed that the problem of climate change can be “basically solved” by preventing billionaires and millionaires from flying on private jets. You are either suggesting a total emissions reduction of <5% is satisfactory, in which case you would be a) wrong and b) admitting that the global contribution from aviation is indeed relatively negligible, or you are suggesting that the 5% figure is wrong and aviation in fact makes up a much higher percentage of global emissions in which case you are also wrong.
