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.

  • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 个月前

    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.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 个月前

      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…

      • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 个月前

        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?

          • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 个月前

            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.

            • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 个月前

              So you waste your time trying to get 100% of the worlds population to change their individual carbon footprint.

              That is the plan. How else are you going to get to zero, but to change the everybodies carbon footprint.

              Instead of focusing on getting the majority of voters to protest and vote.

              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.

              • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 个月前

                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.

                • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 个月前

                  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.

                  Remember when we tried to get people to wear masks during the pandemic?

                  Remeber the US president refusing to wear a mask in public? Johnsons parties during covid? There was a lot of that bs.

                  • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    2 个月前

                    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.

                    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.