this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
48 points (71.1% liked)

Solarpunk

5492 readers
88 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Why not vote and protest and consume less?

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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%

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Why wouldn’t Chevron be responsible for the emissions for the fuel they provide? The fossil fuel industry has entrenched themselves and made it as difficult as possible to not use their products. Even to go so far as to influence how our cities are built.

I'd love to not use any fossil fuels but I can’t afford solar panels or a heat pump so I have to either burn gas or my family freezes to death. I have to get my electricity from coal because my family can’t survive without electricity.

I don’t have a choice because of the choices made by the fossil fuel industry.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"70% of fossil fuel emissions come from corporations"

"That number attributes your personal emissions to corporations, you should also try to lower your personal impact."

"Why would I lower my personal impact, the corporations are responsible for 70% of all emissions!"

Lol come on now, at least engage with the fucking argument and facts smh

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

So you’re saying you’re plan is for individuals to choose the choice that is not an option?

You’re saying the solution is for everyone to stop using electricity?

Stop driving to work and earning money is the solution?

Buy solar panels without a house to put them on?

This is why the individual carbon foot print doesn’t matter. Because it is a systemic problem. So the large majority of people don’t have the luxury of being able to reduce their carbon footprint. And it is such a small percentage to begin with.

This is why BP is paying a marketing firm to convince the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

We need systemic change not paper straws.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When purchasing new appliances, choose more efficient appliances over less efficient one's. Replace all your incandescent lightbulbs with LEDs. Limit your use of air conditioning to reasonable temperatures. Choose energy-saving programs for your washing machine and hang your clothes outside to dry when it's warm instead of using a dryer.

Stop driving unnecessarily. If there is decent enough public transit, use it instead of a car even if it takes longer. If the distances are short, use a bicycle. Choose food that causes fewer carbon emissions - locally grown vegetables are the best in that regard.

On its own none of these matter. Combined however they will significantly reduce your emissions. None of these cause significant sacrifices.

Not only should we ban plastic straws, we should continuously ban more and more plastic. First plastic straws, then plastic bags, then plastic packaging. The systematic change will happen either gradually or spontaneously. I prefer the latter but if the former is all we have it must be encouraged as much as possible.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I am not opposed to any of those things they are all good.

I just think articles like this are made to get everyone to focus on the least impactful things, by putting too much emphasis on the individual’s carbon footprint.

Achieving climate goals with the individual carbon footprint approach requires 100% willing participation from everyone on the planet.

Achieving climate goals with a systemic approach requires the majority of the voters, which is closer to 25% participation.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Maybe I was overly harsh earlier, I saw elsewhere in the thread that you are vegan. So am I , and I'm sure you've heard the "I didn't kill any animals, the farms did" or "the meat at the store is already killed" or "I'll go vegan when eating meat is illegal" and I'm not sure how you reconcile the two.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I’ve never heard those comments and I don’t know what point you are trying to make with them.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Either you're not vegan or you haven't had many conversations trying to convince others to go vegan lol

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I’m vegan and have had many conversations trying to convince others to go vegan. The only thing I commonly hear is “where do you get your protein”?

I still don’t know what point you’re trying to make.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

I feel like the parallels between the stupid shit carnists say and your comments are obvious, but maybe you're operating on some Idealist level of logic I'm too utilitarian to follow.

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.