The responsibility of the individual to curb climate change and resource management is a con. Yes, it should be part of the shared burden; however, until the primary drivers of resource overconsumption and climate change (I. E. Corporations and mega-rich) are held to the fire, there’s no point.
Like, why do people think the answers to systemic problems are through individual actions and responsibility? Like what. The most impactful change we can take as individuals is to vote, protest, and push for changes to the system.
Who the fuck cares if someone’s got their heater set to 85 in the winter if the energy is coming from geothermal, solar, wind, and heat pumps?
It’s not a con, people can and should still make choices and sacrifices to stop climate change while recognizing that the real problem is corporate greed.
You can recognize that litter is caused by corporations use of single use plastics for everything, while at the same time recognizing that it’s your responsibility to at least dispose of them properly instead of throwing it on the street.
It is a con from the perspective that it will have a meaningful impact at this time.
Time and focus are finite resources. Yeah, people can make green sacrifices AND protest to lobby for big changes. But if they only could do one because of time, which would you say would have the largest impact?
All the stuff you said or blocking ports to grind economies to a halt?
Sure those two things aren’t going to stop climate change, systemic change is needed. But the methods for everyday people to create that systemic change are either illegal ( blocking ports, destroying oil infrastructure), and thus most people aren’t going to risk there livelihoods for, or they’re ineffectual (peaceful protest, electoral politics) so doing the above choices would make more of a difference.
Yes attention and effort are finite resources, but the choice for most people is not block a port or become vegetarian, it’s gonna be go to a peaceful protest / vote for the dems or become a vegetarian. In that choice, becoming a vegetarian is the better use of effort.
You’ve definitely given me something to think about - evaluate if even 110 million would have prevented or given us another decade before we hit +1.5c.
However, your Bangladesh stat is absolutely meaningless and misleading. It seems impressive at first glance, but it’s not. The proper context is global CO2 production. In 2014, 35,000 million (or 35 billion) tons of CO2 were produced. And that’s just fossil fuels. And that’s more than a decade ago. I don’t have the numbers, but I suspect it’s even more.
Fair enough, the figure you’re looking for / what I based on the Bangladesh claim is here, 39 billion tonnes total so even less, 0.28% reduction. But that is for only 10% reduction in one country. Increase that to 20% and do it for all countries and your probably getting a couple percent reduction. Again not going to stop climate change or give us another decade before 1.5c, which we’ve already passed in 2025.
Were going to need every percent we can get though and any sort of reduction helps. If we’re going to have a carbon neutral future it’s going to require these sacrifices, and the earlier we make them the better. Delaying them is only hurting the cause for some temporary comfort.
The responsibility of the individual to curb climate change and resource management is a con. Yes, it should be part of the shared burden; however, until the primary drivers of resource overconsumption and climate change (I. E. Corporations and mega-rich) are held to the fire, there’s no point.
Like, why do people think the answers to systemic problems are through individual actions and responsibility? Like what. The most impactful change we can take as individuals is to vote, protest, and push for changes to the system.
Who the fuck cares if someone’s got their heater set to 85 in the winter if the energy is coming from geothermal, solar, wind, and heat pumps?
It’s not a con, people can and should still make choices and sacrifices to stop climate change while recognizing that the real problem is corporate greed.
You can recognize that litter is caused by corporations use of single use plastics for everything, while at the same time recognizing that it’s your responsibility to at least dispose of them properly instead of throwing it on the street.
It is a con from the perspective that it will have a meaningful impact at this time.
Time and focus are finite resources. Yeah, people can make green sacrifices AND protest to lobby for big changes. But if they only could do one because of time, which would you say would have the largest impact?
All the stuff you said or blocking ports to grind economies to a halt?
It would make a meaningful impact, if everyone in America just drove 10% less that would result in a reduction of 110 million metric tons of co2, close to the total emissions of Bangladesh 122 million tons ( population around half the US). The same is true about meat consumption, which is even more feasible to completely stop today for most people.
Sure those two things aren’t going to stop climate change, systemic change is needed. But the methods for everyday people to create that systemic change are either illegal ( blocking ports, destroying oil infrastructure), and thus most people aren’t going to risk there livelihoods for, or they’re ineffectual (peaceful protest, electoral politics) so doing the above choices would make more of a difference.
Yes attention and effort are finite resources, but the choice for most people is not block a port or become vegetarian, it’s gonna be go to a peaceful protest / vote for the dems or become a vegetarian. In that choice, becoming a vegetarian is the better use of effort.
You’ve definitely given me something to think about - evaluate if even 110 million would have prevented or given us another decade before we hit +1.5c.
However, your Bangladesh stat is absolutely meaningless and misleading. It seems impressive at first glance, but it’s not. The proper context is global CO2 production. In 2014, 35,000 million (or 35 billion) tons of CO2 were produced. And that’s just fossil fuels. And that’s more than a decade ago. I don’t have the numbers, but I suspect it’s even more.
110 million / 35,000 million = 0.3% reduction
Fair enough, the figure you’re looking for / what I based on the Bangladesh claim is here, 39 billion tonnes total so even less, 0.28% reduction. But that is for only 10% reduction in one country. Increase that to 20% and do it for all countries and your probably getting a couple percent reduction. Again not going to stop climate change or give us another decade before 1.5c, which we’ve already passed in 2025.
Were going to need every percent we can get though and any sort of reduction helps. If we’re going to have a carbon neutral future it’s going to require these sacrifices, and the earlier we make them the better. Delaying them is only hurting the cause for some temporary comfort.