Solarpunk

5583 readers

2 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

ex_06@slrpnk.net

poVoq@slrpnk.net

SteveKLord@slrpnk.net

Yes, Actually, Individual Responsibility Is Essential to Solving the Climate Crisis (www.sierraclub.org)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net to c/solarpunk@slrpnk.net

94 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

File under "green washing."

If a company offers a more expensive "choice" of a greener option, rather than just being ecologically responsible by default, then you are being sold a product. That is, you get to express your superior "green" ethics by identifying with your purchase.

The company doesn't actually care about the environment. They're just doing the minimum to capture extra $$$

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not completely sure of what point you're making. Would you buy the cheaper product even if you could afford the more expensive green one?

Because if the answer is "no", then you are still agreeing with OP; and if the answer is "yes" then you are saying you want to knowingly buy something that is harmful for the environment and encourage a company to make more of it, while deflecting responsibly and saying that corpos and govs are the ones who have to do something.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I am agreeing with op. Corpos and govs are the ones who have to do something. We individually and collectively also have to do something. Nothing changes for the better unless we have buy-in from individuals. The binary you're presenting is one I didn't intend with my comment. I was saying we should watch out for green washing, when functioning as a consumer.

That is, If you can avoid doing business with companies which are harming the environment then you should. The same goes for doing business with companies which are half-assed or insincere in their efforts (though these are naturally preferable).

So if you can't avoid a purchase, and there isn't a good choice, then obviously you should pick the most ecologically sound option available to you.

My main point is no one should feel virtuous for picking, like, "eco green Coca Cola" just because 5% of the proceeds go to saving the rainforest. They're a reprehensible company, so far better to just not fuck with Coke in the first place.

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ah, I see, I definitely agree with everything you're saying; I just got a bit confused. When you talked about "green option", I was thinking something like fast fashion vs clothes that will last, for example.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago

Oh I can see how the word "option" could read like that. Glad you brought it up, to give me the chance to clarify