UsernameHere

Consumer greenhouse gas emissions are the smallest of all sources of emissions.

During the pandemic they had to choose between go remote or close up shop. They didn’t have much choice.

Seems that once Covid stabilized they’ve been trying to force everyone back.

This is why we can’t fix climate change by reducing individual carbon footprint. Because it requires 100% of the population taking it upon themselves to do the right thing and many individuals: -don’t care -don’t have the option

The reason we are getting affordable EVs now at all is because governments are intervening to develop the technology and infrastructure. That’s not due to individual action.

No one said consumers are free of all responsibility.

No one said “oh that Exxon, smh”.

Trying to fix climate change by reducing individual carbon footprint doesn’t work because there are a lot of people that:

1. don’t have the luxury of being able to not use gasoline or solar.

2. Don’t care

3. It requires 100% of the world population to take it upon themselves to do the right thing just to fix the smallest part of the problem.

Fixing it with voting/protest reduces emissions for everyone. The rich, poor, industrial emissions, commercial emissions. All emissions.

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.

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.

I’m not discouraging anyone from changing their habits.

I am pointing out why the fossil fuel industry is paying marketing firms to come into threads like this and say the same things you are saying:

Because focusing on individual carbon footprint requires 100% of the world to just do the right thing in order to fix a small part of the problem.

While focusing on systemic change requires the voting majority, which is closer to 25% of the population. To fix 100% of the problem.

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

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.

1 persons individual change is not enough to matter. For individual carbon footprint changes to matter you need 100% participation across the planet to fix a small part of the problem.

To make systemic change you need the majority of voters. So around 25% participation to fix 100% of the problem.

I provided my source showing BP hired a marketing firm to get the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

So to answer your question of who the shill is: I’d say the person repeating the fossil fuel talking points.

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.