| ▲ | mullingitover 3 hours ago |
| > each and every one of us contributes to its intensification or mitigation through our decisions. I have to disagree here. This idea of a consumer-level personal responsibility for the fossil energy industry's externalized costs is a lot like the plastic producers shifting blame for waste by saying that it's the consumers' fault for not recycling. It's transparent blame-shifting. The fossil energy industry pulls the carbon out of the ground and distributes it globally. Then it buys and sells politicians and, through mass media, votes, to ensure they maintain the industry's hegemony. You only have to look at the full-blown slide of the US into a despotic petrostate to understand the causes of the climate crisis. |
|
| ▲ | vaylian 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Hank Green did a good short video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvAznN_MPWQ TL;DW: It is important that individuals show that there is a real problem and that they perform actions that address the problem. This demonstrative behaviour leads to social dynamics where more people feel encouraged to perform actions and to drive larger change. You need to start somewhere. |
| |
| ▲ | XorNot an hour ago | parent [-] | | While true we did that years ago and the other side is simply ignoring it. Worse, the people we sold the idea too are stuck on it: they're convinced the solution must and totally be the performance, not the result. |
|
|
| ▲ | Mordisquitos 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I agree with you that consumer-level personal responsibility is absolutely not the way to go. To a certain extent I try to non-dogmatically "do the right thing", but I know it's simply a cute hobby. The only solution is systemic. The incentives need to be in order for businesses and consumers to do the right thing not because it is the right thing, but because it's cheaper or more convenient. That can only be implemented via legislation and investment of public resources, hence from the political level. And what determines whether the politicians in charge are ones who will implement the changes needed to mitigate the problem, rather than ones who will keep alive the system which is intensifying it? Well, we're back to square one: each and every one of us contributes to its intensification or mitigation through our decisions. |
| |
| ▲ | quantified 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Moving from fossil is less convenient, not more. So, we're stuck. | | |
| ▲ | Mordisquitos 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And yet, we're not completely stuck. It is absolutely clear that not enough has been done to reduce our carbon emissions, and we're on a bad path on track to ~2.5°C warming in the next century. However, something has been done, and if nothing had been done we could easily be on track to >4°C global warming. That would be much worse. So, how did we achieve what little we have? Well, because many people have cared, and have made the right decisions. Not enough people, or maybe not good-enough decisions, but some people, and somewhat good decisions. So, what were the decisions which brought us down from an apocalyptic +4°C to a very bad 2.5°C path? Was it enough consumers making environmentally conscious choices, even if they were less convenient or more expensive. No. It was enough voters wanting their leaders to do something, even if it wasn't quite enough, but it was something. And something isn't nothing. We will never have enough people voting with their wallet to fight climate change, because our rational understanding of the big-picture cannot overpower our intuitive day-to-day choices. However, we may have enough people voting with their ballot to fight climate change, because the rational big-picture can, sometimes, decide whom we vote for. | | |
| ▲ | Ancalagon an hour ago | parent [-] | | are you sure we aren't on the >4°C path? AI could very well put us back on it. |
| |
| ▲ | goatlover 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For how long though? Solar and wind are very competitive now, electric cars have been good enough to transition to for over a decade, other industries can be decarbonized with the right incentives and enough investment. It's not like there aren't any ideas for how to farm or produce steel cleanly. And nuclear reactors can be made safer and cheaper now. Seems more like a lack of political will with powerful lobbying interests opposing it and misleading the public. Fossil fuel companies could have listened to their scientists in the 1970s and changed their business models for a transition to cleaner tech a lot sooner. | | |
| ▲ | short_sells_poo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | For a long time to come. The energy density of fossil fuels is very high (about 50x higher than that of lithium ion batteries), there's a ton of infrastructure for handling and transporting them and a ton of infrastructure for using them. They get turned into plastics and energy, two things which civilization feeds on voraciously. It's not just inertia that keeps them going. | | |
| ▲ | keyringlight an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It's an immense uphill struggle if you tried to get people to adjust to where transport is less available, and encourage living or working at closer ranges or conversely long range shipping/travel/vacations seen as more of a luxury. Just thinking about it I'm reminded of the outrage that was fabricated/stirred up over "15 minute cities" in the UK where the idea that you'd be able to get to most things you need day-to-day in a 15 minute walk was warped into a scare of state checkpoints, fines and surveillance. Or the retreat from working from home. It's a huge adjustment from how the past few decades have established expectations, and it'll take a big force to change quickly, similar to covid even though that was short term in hindsight. | |
| ▲ | tavavex an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The energy density of fossil fuels is very high (about 50x higher than that of lithium ion batteries) That doesn't make sense. Batteries are an energy container, they're not energy itself. How can it be compared to a fuel? The direct counterpart to oil or coal is wind or solar radiation itself, batteries are used to amortize the supply and store an excess for emergency use, but otherwise those types of energy just immediately go into powering the grid. The economic case for renewable power is actually extremely good, because unlike fossil fuels, they're effectively infinite and don't need complex infrastructure to extract. They're free. You only need a power plant that directly converts them into power. If we were just able to shift fossil fuel demand towards producing goods like plastics, this would already be massive. However, a lot of powerful people are deeply invested into fossil fuels and will do anything to tip the scales into their favor, despite gradually losing in the energy sector. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent [-] | | It makes perfect sense to look at energy + container subsystems. | | |
| ▲ | tavavex 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Why? In the context of the electrical grid, has the amount of storage you can have in the backburner ever been a choke point? If anything, fossil fuel power plants have the very same batteries to buffer some energy. But for the vast majority of power consumers that can just exist on the grid, power storage is nearly irrelevant because it can go directly from producer to consumer. Even in places where storage is relevant (anything that can't be tethered to the grid, like vehicles) the equation is different because the infrastructure you need to convert fuel to power (engines vs electric motors) don't weigh the same. Yes, even with that, pure electricity still falls behind somewhat, but it's getting better. And I was mainly talking about the power grid anyway, with how universal and important it is. Fossil fuel straight up loses in that sector, like what I said before, so replacing it is an easy choice... and yet we don't do that. | |
| ▲ | aydyn 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | It doesn't make sense to look at that in a vacuum. Energy transport over wire via electricity is much "denser" than transport via liquid or gas. "It depends" is the correct answer, but the equation is shifting quickly towards solar + electricity. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You're the one looking at it in a vacuum. Engineering is all about looking at it in context and the main context where density of energy is important is in vehicles of all shapes and sizes. That's where the rubber quite literally meets the road. You can then theorize about what the 'weight' of the electrical energy is but it is pointless: the weight of container dwarfs the weight of the energy carriers (effectively the electrons) themselves. In the case of fossil fuels the ratio is more balanced, the container will weigh a couple of kilos and the fuel will way a bit more (say 10:1 or 20:1). So to compare the one with the other we weigh the batteries and ignore the electrons and we then compare that with the fuel because that is the dominant factor. Solar + electricity are not directly suitable for powering electric vehicles, that's where the batteries come in. Comparing apples (transport of electricity via wires) with oranges (transport of energy via liquid or gas) misses the elephant in the room: you are not going to be able to use those electrons without a suitable temporary storage medium unless you plan on carrying a very long and impractical extension cord behind your now very light EV. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jounker 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Really? Wind and solar are cheaper. Electric cars and motorcycles are more fun to drive. Fossil fuels are profitable for a small group of powerful people, and they spend vast amounts of money to spread falsehoods. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | tech_ken 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I hear what you're saying but also have lately felt a lot of frustration with this framing. I definitely agree that large corporations share an outsized portion of the blame; they have misled and misdirected us past the brink of crisis in pursuit of profit. And as you point out, one of the special cruelties of their system is that it prearranges individual consumer options so that we have the illusion of choice, but ultimately wind up complicit no matter what we choose. Thus its incumbent on us (collectively) to make a decision that's not on the menu we've been handed. But (critically) its still going to be individuals making that choice. It's not enough to merely topple Big Oil at a social scale, we will also have to give up our F-450s and sprawling SFH tracts with four car garages. It's not necessarily fair, and it's not necessarily our fault, but it's still our responsibility (because it's ultimately our future that's at risk). |
|
| ▲ | beloch 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Corporations do whatever is in their financial interest, provided it is legal. They're neither good or evil. (If they were DnD characters their alignment would be "lawful greedy".) What is legal is determined by governments, who are elected by individuals like you. This is why people need to be reminded of the impact and causes of climate change. You can't just say, "Oil corporations are evil" and absolve yourself of responsibility. That's how nothing gets done. Corporations are not going to stop being "evil" of their own accord. They're going to obey the laws and regulations set forth by the governments they operate under. Americans elected a president who openly campaigned on bringing back coal and said, "Drill baby drill!". Oil executives made campaign donations but, ultimately, this is the fault of Americans. They're not educated enough and they tolerate too much money in their politics. Scapegoating oil companies does nothing to solve these problems. |
|
| ▲ | rtpg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| While arguments can be made at the futility of individual action against a system action, it’s not like companies are making a bunch of product just to throw them in the trash. There are consumers of what is being produced! Society’s choices and lifestyles are the cause of fossil fuel consumption, at a very high level. The plastic bag exists because it has users. There are quantitative arguments against many silly consumer-focused initiatives. In aggregate tho companies aren’t burning fossil fuels for fun. Burning fossil fuels costs money, and a lot of people would rather not spend that money!! |
| |
| ▲ | timschmidt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > it’s not like companies are making a bunch of product just to throw them in the trash Sure they do. You even mention one in the venerable plastic bag. Is it the best bag? No, of course not. Is it a good bag? Absolutely not. Is it the cheapest bag to produce? You betcha. Consumers are often presented the least expensive option with the worst outcomes. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory | | |
| ▲ | usrnm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Is it the best bag? No, of course not. Is it a good bag? Absolutely not Plastic is absolutely the best packaging material ever created, it's so good, it feels like magic. It's light, it's cheap, it's waterproof, it's durable and doesn't just decompose, it comes in a miriad shapes and forms and so on. There is a reason it's everywhere | | |
| ▲ | timschmidt 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > it's cheap, it's waterproof, it's durable One of those adjectives describes the plastic bag I'm familiar with. Sometimes it lasts long enough to get the food in the house without spilling through a hole which spontaneously appeared in the bag. |
| |
| ▲ | rtpg 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The plastic bag is sold to businesses! If every supermarket in the world decided to never buy another plastic bag then they would no longer be produced! There can be a futility to it all in that the “ideal option” simply isn’t produced of course. I find boots theory is often a bit too convenient in this topic though. There is unlikely to be magic structural solutions that allow every part of your life to remain as convenient. At one point our lives will have to change in structure. EDIT: to be extra clear, I think systemic coordinated changes is needed. I just think the “it’s the corporations doing this!” narrative to obscure the needs for reorganization of daily life on top of systemic change | |
| ▲ | filoeleven 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I remember when that switch at grocers from paper to plastic was taking hold, and you could choose. "Paper or plastic?" was the question asked. Some comedian (probably) had a good one liner: "That'll be 42.39. Kill a tree or choke a fish?" | | |
| ▲ | XorNot an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's mostly a good example of why comedians aren't a source of information. Plantation lumber is a very sustainable industry, and plastic's environmental impact is highly context dependent. |
| |
| ▲ | throw310822 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why don't you pay for a more expensive bag and bring it to the store? | | |
| ▲ | matthewdgreen an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Many cities have banned plastic bags, and the results have been miraculous for waterways and wetlands. It turns out that shore animals don't benefit as much from "hope a few customers choose the better thing, but otherwise let them take home single-use crap that immediately blows off into natural settings." https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/climate/plastic-bag-bans-... | |
| ▲ | timschmidt 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why do you assume I don't? Opinionated defaults matter, as that's what most users will end up using. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Would you be ok if stores offered the option between a cheap plastic bag and a more expensive non-plastic one? (All the stores here already do it, btw). | | |
| ▲ | timschmidt an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think the externalities of plastic recycling must be internalized economically by requiring all manufacturers of items to pre-pay for the recycling of said items up front, as part of the manufacturing cost. Similar to how bottle returns are managed, which has been very successful. Items which are provably biodegradable or designed to facilitate repair may be exempt. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Plastic bags are already taxed where I live. Consumers pay that tax, obviously. Other costs imposed on producers of plastic items will just be passed down to consumers. | | |
| ▲ | timschmidt an hour ago | parent [-] | | That's lovely, but it's not what I described. Bottles aren't just taxed. They have a refundable deposit. This ensures they don't end up in a landfill. | | |
| ▲ | matthewdgreen an hour ago | parent [-] | | Exactly. The point of this sort of tax should not be to collect revenue, it should be to ensure that non-biodegradable bags are being disposed of correctly. To the extent that this is not happening, any bag tax is malfunctioning. Such a tax is either insufficient or poorly-designed. (Our city just banned chain stores from giving out plastic bags under 4 mils thick, and stores now give out paper and sell re-usable bags.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | filoeleven 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Society’s choices and lifestyles are the cause of fossil fuel consumption, at a very high level. The plastic bag exists because it has users. Society's choices and lifestyles don't exist in some rational-individualistic vacuum. Companies advertise products while hiding known risks and side effects of what they're pushing. Cigarettes. Oil. PFOA/PFAS. They all knew, and they did and continue to do it anyway. Regulatory capture solved all their problems by removing accountability. | |
| ▲ | delusional 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This presupposes that consumers have infinite capacity to ingest the minute details of every single product they come into contact with. Yes, the plastic bag has users. Do you really expect every single shopper to investigate how the bag at <grocery co> was made and if the plastic is recycled? What if they also have to do the same for every single thing they interact with every single day? It's much easier to ask the people that work with the minutia of plastic bags every day, namely the people who make them, to maybe fix this problem. | |
| ▲ | GolfPopper an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Let us not pretend that the billions and billions spent on advertising by corporations leveraging deep knowledge of human behavior means the lion's share of blame goes to the victims of said advertising behmoth. |
|
|
| ▲ | throw310822 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I never understood this. The companies sold you fossil fuel, you burnt it and got benefits out of it: transportation, energy, heating, constructions, fertilizers and food, etc. You want them to pay for the negative consequences of your fossil fuel consumption while you keep all the generated benefits? |
| |
| ▲ | triceratops an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > You want them to pay for the negative consequences of your fossil fuel consumption No I want them to pay for the negative consequences of the lies they spread. I paid them for fuel, and I got fuel. I did not think I was paying for lies and I never wanted them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_deni... | |
| ▲ | CGMthrowaway 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Where does the chain end? I burn diesel in my tractor to harvest corn. Should the feedlot that buys my corn pay for the tractor’s emissions? Should the slaughterhouse that processes the cattle pay? Should the supermarket that stocks the beef pay? Should the family who grills the steak on Sunday pay? Or just the one who eats the largest portion? | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You either tax the fuel and pass the cost down to the consumers, or decide as a society to share the cost of the externalities and use general taxation for that. | | |
| ▲ | mullingitover 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why should all of society pay for these externalities? If some people manage to improve their energy supply and don't require dirty fuels, why should they be forced to subsidize those who won't? Taxing the carbon at the source is simply correctly pricing it, and because it makes it impossible to shift the externalities away from the producer it fixes the accounting problem that falsely makes fossil fuels appear cheap. | |
| ▲ | pants2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Here, in the first scenario it directly punishes consumers for consuming more. In the second, it punishes everyone equally on everyone's consumption, which is unlikely to lead to behavior change. So yes, we should tax fossil fuels much more. | | |
| ▲ | throw310822 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | However, the first scenario will pass the increased cost of fuel down to the consumers affecting poorer people disproportionately. Example: some good that is produced with fossil fuels (including food) will become too expensive for low-income people, while richer (and more polluting) people will not feel the difference that much. If you go for general taxation, you distribute the cost proportionally to income, making rich people pay more. Probably the ideal is a mix of both. | | |
| ▲ | pants2 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Ideally in the first scenario where we have well-functioning government, necessities like food and low-income housing would be well subsidized. Other things like random junk from Temu and large gas-guzzling trucks will be less accessible to poorer people by design. |
|
| |
| ▲ | _alternator_ an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | So… it’s like you completely understand the issue :) And obviously, you tax the fuel at the source, right when it comes out of the ground. Higher prices get passed down, changing behavior because the products externalities are priced correctly from the start. | | |
| ▲ | derektank an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | To be clear, the source would still be the consumer. Hydrocarbons can be used for non-CO2 emitting purposes such as chemical feedstock for pharmaceuticals, solvents, etc. We should only be levying a tax upon uses that emit CO2 into the atmosphere, i.e. burning them in your ICE vehicle. It’s not the fracking company that’s emitting the CO2 (unless they’re gas flaring or similarly emitting carbon during extraction but this is a rounding error on total emissions). | |
| ▲ | throw310822 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can. Everything- including basic things like food, transportation, construction, healthcare- will become more expensive, of course. My objection was to ask fossil fuel companies to pay after you already bought and burned your fuel cheap. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | danny_codes 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I want the emitter to be taxed however much it would cost the market to put the carbon back. Obviously in such a system there wouldn’t be any fossil fuel companies so it’s a moot point. But this isn’t purely economic. Fossil fuel companies are paying top dollar to ensure we destroy the climate. Just look at all the batshit propaganda around climate change. People genuinely believe it’s not a problem. It’s wild how effective the fossil fuel industry has been in convincing people the sky isn’t falling | |
| ▲ | EGreg 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, what we wanted for decades is for cars to shift to the free market of electric energy, just like every one of our other appliances have for decades. Electricity is a free market - can be generated by hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, even nuclear. If tomorrow they invent clean fusion power then electric cars would be able to benefit. The cars being locked into fossil fuels is the result of fossil fuel subsidies from the government. Otherwise, OPEC raising prices would have long ago led to improvements in battery technology and electric cars. But the federal government shields the fossil fuels companies to make sure the “price at the pump” is small. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRnUY6V2Knk We should be raising pigovian taxes on fossil fuels at the point of extraction, and redistribute it to all our citizens as a UBI. Alaska has been doing this for decades and they have almost the lowest GINI index of all states year after year. Just like we want bottling and clothing companies to shift from plastics to bidegradeable materials. But you like to keep individuals distracted and blame them for using a straw and a bag, as if THAT is the main cause of pollution. And plastic recycling was a total scam designed to keep people distracted from forcing change on corporations pollution and unsustainable practices upstream. | |
| ▲ | Ygg2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Pretty sure those poor multi billion companies also got huge subsidies. | |
| ▲ | aaronbrethorst 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Neat, I’ve never seen a fossil fuel company exec on hacker news before. Welcome! | | |
| ▲ | aoeusnth1 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm an environmentalist and I agree with this framing. The solution is going to be painful and must increase prices on products and services that fossil fuels are currently the cheapest solution for. If you're not willing to personally sacrifice anything to reduce fossil fuel consumption you can see why carbon taxes are not popular, right? France's protests against them, for example, are a good example of a populist reaction against attempts to regulate the economy to have less emissions. |
| |
| ▲ | thesuitonym 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The amount of fossil fuels that a working class individual burns are a rounding error compared to what big companies burn. How many private jets are in the air right now? Even if you drive the most energy inefficient truck ever produced, run your home HVAC at max, and buy gasoline just to burn in your back yard, you will never measure up. It's like saying we need to dry the oceans, so you should stop peeing in it. | | |
| ▲ | 2III7 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And who are the customers of big companies driving the demand? Regular people or other companies who also produce for those people. | |
| ▲ | throw310822 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > if you drive the most energy inefficient truck ever produced Sorry, but how was that truck produced? Where did the energy to make it come from? How was your home built, where did the energy come from? Where did the materials come from? How did the workers come to the job? What did they eat, and what do you eat? Do you go to an office? How was it built? How do you and your colleagues get there? Do your children go to school? Do you go to hospitals when you're sick? Etc. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | SJC_Hacker 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Its a case of prisoner's dilemma. Individuals making the proposed lifestyle changes in order to make a genuine dent in AGW amount to jumping on the tracks in order to stop a freight train. This is the one issue where I feel some sympathy with the right. I hate "Virtue signaling" about as much as they do. I'm sorry, but if you are going to snap at people over eating beef, while you fly/drive all over the country/world unnecessarily, you are absolute full of shyte. |
| |
| ▲ | iinnPP 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Don't forget buying mountains worth of crap that gets used for a month or less and trashed. | | |
| ▲ | brightball 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right to Repair and some type of incentives that actually rewarded it would probably do more globally than most other consumer level solutions. |
| |
| ▲ | Simbio 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Prisoner's dilemma is a bad reference here. Prisoner's dilemma is about situation when optimal outcome requires cooperation from all participants. In the situation with climate change, personal decisions of 99% of Earth population do not really matter. | | |
| ▲ | Mordisquitos 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You are correct that this is not a prisoner's dilemma, it is a tragedy of the commons[0]. However, if a wizard could magically control the "personal decisions of 99% of Earth population" and make them optimal for reducing CO2 emissions then, believe me, climate change could be trivially solved. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons | |
| ▲ | 2III7 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | WDYM personal decisions don't matter? Industrial and agricultural sectors, which both in sum contribute 50% of total greenhouse gas emissions, produce what is in demand from consumers. Another 15% of emissions is from personal vehicles. Changing personal habits is the only way we can ever reach some utopian climate targets. Utopian because old habits die hard. | |
| ▲ | smadge 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is a classic cooperation problem. Perhaps not prisoners dilemma. Perhaps not at individual scale. Probably tragedy of the commons. Cooperation is not consuming fossil fuels. Defection is consuming fossil fuels. If you cooperate and other defects you suffer climate impact and expensive energy (expensive everything, worse economic growth than others). If you defect and other cooperates you suffer climate impact but at least you get cheap energy (cheap everything, more economic growth than others). People, nations, corporations, etc don’t stop using fossil fuels because they incur a penalty against their competitors if they volunteer to and their competitors don’t. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse an hour ago | parent [-] | | The assumption here is that fossil fuels are actually cheaper. But an electric car pays back the higher upfront cost in fuel savings in significantly fewer miles than most cars will have put on them. Solar generates power at a lower cost per kWh than coal. The fossil fuel industry has to be actively sustained through subsidies and government regulation hostile to alternatives. Maybe that wasn't true 50 years ago before the alternatives got viable and cheap, but if it's not true now then why did we stop subsidizing electric cars while we still subsidize oil companies? |
|
| |
| ▲ | bwestergard 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am not a vegan. My social world in D.C./NYC has many secular, left-wing, vegans. Many of them are friends or loved ones. They demonstrably speak their mind in front of me on countless issues on which we disagree. I have dined with them countless times at restaurants where they order vegan and I don't. I have never once been "snapped at" about my dietary decisions. Some of these people have dedicated years of their life to non-human animal rights activism. So I am very skeptical that this shaming occurs at any appreciable scale. I suspect it is mostly psychological projection: one doubts the morality of one's decisions, judges oneself harshly, but experiences this as the judgement of others. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | marginalia_nu 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Problem is that we if we all stand in a circle and point fingers at the next guy who is to blame, that doesn't really move us toward any sort of solutions. In fact the reason it's so easy to find others to blame is that the responsibility is a shared one. Holding consumers responsible doesn't absolve producers, or governments for their participation. All have to be held responsible for their actions. That's the only way forward. |
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Problem is that we if we all stand in a circle and point fingers at the next guy who is to blame, that doesn't really move us toward any sort of solutions. Because of the power of lobbyists and their war chests full of cash, even if we made that circle surrounding our congress critter so everyone was pointing at them, we'd still have no effect. Our shame circle would only be uncomfortable for a short time which would quickly be assuaged by the soothing feeling of another large donation from a lobbyist. |
|
|
| ▲ | rapnie 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is still everyone's responsibility, just not to equal extent. That petrolstate also rose to power through democratic elections. |
| |
|
| ▲ | j2kun 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > consumer-level personal responsibility Indeed, the biggest personal responsibility is to make this a top political priority when deciding who to elect. Nothing will change until we consistenly fire leaders who refuse to act decisively on this. |
|
| ▲ | quantified 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you drive a fossil fuel vehicle, you have chosen to buy into this. If you drive it 3 blocks when you could walk, you've chosen to go the way the fuel company wants you to. That's you. Plastic is a bit different, you didn't choose the packaging. And you probably don't have the option to recycle anyway. Putting in a special bin doesn't change the fact that it's probably going to a landfill anyway. Some of it's consumer level. Do what you can. Don't whatabout it. |
| |
| ▲ | throw310822 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Plastic is a fantastic material, that's why it's chosen for the packaging. I also don't see the problem sending it to a landfill as long as it stays there. |
|
|
| ▲ | Gud 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is nothing g to “disagree” about.
Of course systemic changes are required.
But if the individual improve their actions it will have a meaningful impact too |
| |
| ▲ | pousada 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Without systemic change the impact of individuals wont be meaningful. Maybe on a spiritual level but they won’t contribute meaningfully to the climate change (or non-change) | |
| ▲ | ggggffggggg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It won’t and believing it will is part of ensuring nothing changes. All energy you spend on personally changing should be instead spent lobbying, organizing, and otherwise working politically to effect systemic change. There is no value in individual change. It’s worse than doing nothing. |
|
|
| ▲ | Synaesthesia 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Americans use a lot of power. Buying big houses means they have higher heating and cooling costs. All this makes a big difference. |
|
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | EGreg 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s actually a lot more systematic than you think: https://magarshak.com/blog/government-and-industry-distract-... |
|
| ▲ | femto 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Andrew Forrest, a well connected billionaire, puts the blame on a group of 1000 "captains of industry". https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/inside-and... |
|
| ▲ | DonnyV 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The 2 biggest contributors to climate change are ... - US Military - Cargo Ships You fix those 2 things and like 60% of pollution goes away. |
|
| ▲ | WhompingWindows 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If everyone chose to eat veggie burgers and seitan steaks instead of using beef, the climate's trajectory would immediately improve. For all the responsibility of industry, many individual world citizens could, and many have, changed their lifestyle due to the moral issue of climate-changing emissions. |