this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
55 points (68.5% liked)

Solarpunk

5344 readers
272 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

You can say this, but you can't make it happen. What is more realistic, changing the attitudes and habits of billions of individuals quickly enough to reverse climate change, or enforcing restrictions on thousands of companies?

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net -4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

Exactly! We can't blame these companies and then buy their stuff and deflect all responsibility.

It's sort of a cycle that runs on apathy, ignorance, and lack of empathy.

Powerful groups manipulate and coerce people and markets

Manipulated, coerced people buy more of what they are pushed to

Consumer votes in leaders that support this exploitative cycle making laws facilitating companies manipulating and coercing their behavior

We need to break out of this cycle by conscientiously rejecting this manipulation, buying less, voting, running for office, etc. (i.e. degrowth)

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 13 points 15 hours ago

Every person is individually responsible for burning down at least one billionaire-owned property.

Finally someone said it.

“But the companies”. The companies will only stop doing what they do if you don’t buy from them.

[–] eleitl@lemm.ee 1 points 11 hours ago

And this is why we're doomed.

[–] ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org 46 points 1 day ago (2 children)

the corporations will not save us. be very wary of any "solution" that allows you to continue unchanged and to shift all responsibility to someone else, there's a reason that perspective is so pervasive

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

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 $$$

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Like I'm all for that we need to hold a fire under corporations. But we also need to change too. Just because they do like, 70% of it doesn't mean we're off the hook. We're buying those products that they pollute for. We drive the cars that are polluting. We buy the cheap clothes that they shamelessly pollute. We each have to change.

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 22 hours ago

Corporations have absolutely no incentive to change, consumers need to vote with their wallets if they want something to happen. But no, everytime someone points out this blindingly obvious fact we get the "uhm actually corporations need to change, it's not my fault they're feeding off my unsustainable habits."

We have to work together, we only have power to effect change when we work together, solidarity is our strength.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

Yep. Who did Dasani bottle all that water for? Paying humans with mouths

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (6 children)

In 2005, fossil fuel company BP hired the large advertising campaign Ogilvy to popularize the idea of a carbon footprint for individuals.

BP oil company pushed the idea that our individual carbon footprints matter so that everyone can share the blame of what the fossil fuel industry has done.

Don’t fall for it. Only corporations pollute enough to matter. Only corporations can provide alternatives to fossil fuels. Only corporations can make a meaningful reduction to greenhouse gas emissions.

The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.

Well can also stop giving them our money. Reduce consumption of their products through alternatives and overall reduction. We can also divest our investments away from funds that include their shares.

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (14 children)

I’m not saying to do nothing as individuals.

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%

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Why not vote and protest and consume less?

[–] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (9 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%

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Other quotes I found compelling from the article were these:

Ultimately, a personal action versus political action binary is unhelpful. The environmental movement needs to sustain a way to do both: agitate and organize for systemic change while also still encouraging individual behavior changes.
[...]
Which is to say that personal action and collective, political action are self-reinforcing. Individual lifestyle changes can act as a kind of alloy that strengthens political activism. To do the difficult work of walking more lightly on the planet is to bind commitment to conviction.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Exactly, also systemic change will have individual consequences. By bearing them early we demonstrate that these burdens are smaller than often imagined.

I love the taste of meat. I struggled to imagine a life without it. I have been a pescatarian now for nearly 3 years. It’s inconvenient at times, but not as much as it once was. Seafood is a treat for me, and I imagine many people can live with meat like that. I am healthier, and I am happy with my choice. By making systemic changes to food people will eat less meat, but while the transition will be uncomfortable, the end result won’t be nearly as bad as they fear.

[–] walter_wiggles@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 day ago

The author is somehow surprised at the reactions they get when they nitpick people on their individual actions.

[–] Scary_le_Poo@beehaw.org 19 points 22 hours ago

Bullshit, straight up bullshit. It makes a difference at scale, but at scale it is miniscule when compared to even small mass polluters.

That's not to say you should live as pollution-causing as possible, but spare me the pearl clutching over my paper plate usage.

load more comments
view more: next ›