69
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
69 points (96.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5306 readers
455 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ok, I watched the video and I agree with Hank's point. Taking action towards your values, even if it isn't effective by itself (which Hank argues against), is always a good thing.
The thing is there are barriers within society that make it harder to make the ethical choice. For example if I wanted to be a vegan I'd have to pay extra since the dairy and beef industry have subsidies and most corporations charge extra for vegan/vegetarian options.
Or if I wanted to help with pollution and started to recycle yet most of the recycling gets thrown in landfills anyways because of how things are stored with other trash.
And I'm not saying that just because it is harder that people shouldn't try and do the right thing but the thing is that most of these barriers are dynamic and will change to make it just as hard for people if it starts taking away power from people at the top.
I think the general point that is trying to be made when people say that collective action is needed instead of individual action is that individual action doesn't really change underlying problem that is causing most of the harm and instead is just making the cause of the problem more bearable.
I'd say if you want change it is better to take action that encourages the system to change rather than taking action that doesn't focus on effecting that at all.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
I would argue you've actually articulated exactly why individual action inevitably leads to wider collective action. It take attempting to do the right thing on individual level for some people to see the systemic issues that are there (like the subsidies you mention).
Yeah you are right. It is just that we sort of get stuck at that level and are never willing to actually take systemic actions because it will disrupt the status quo by definition.
So instead we find new technological solutions or habits that distract us until the next miracle drug (action) is presented.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~
I also worry that the systemic vs individual argument is actually used by some as a distraction too. "No point me trying unless the whole system changes" particularly when the change might seem like it involves some level of sacrafice (which often isn't as clear cut as it seems or is presented).
I wonder if its more about paralysing perfectionism rather individual vs system. "Can't be zero emissions as an individual without structural change" so don't do anything. Similarly on the other side "can't overthrow the whole global system so no point doing anything".
I really we wish we talked a lot more about the intermediates between I individual and systemic/national. There's so many smaller organisations that individuals have more agency in changing and in turn have more agency in changing larger numbers of individuals and influencing more of the systemic level
I agree that it's a distraction, just like the "100 companies" is a distraction. I can't stand the systemic/individual comparisons because people don't even know the difference. For example, I can get a 30% tax credit for solar/storage, $2k on a heat pump, $12,500 off an EV in Colorado, and more coming soon for low/moderate income folks via the IRA in the US. When people go to buy this stuff, is it an individual action or the result of these policies? Does it even matter outside the context of this weird debate where the two things are falsely thought of as mutually exclusive? We can all walk and chew gum at the same time. Do what you can, vote, talk, etc. and don't get caught up criticizing beneficial things others are doing because they aren't exactly what you would do in their shoes. Building a culture around solving the issue takes many forms.
It definitely is used that way and I probably should've worded my post a bit differently so I don't discourage others from taking action.
What I actually think we need is individual level systemic actions which is sort of oxymoronic but I think it has some sort of logic to it.
For example if you think that capitalism is causing a lot of the worlds problems then stop buying stuff and try to find ways to reuse what you already have or get it without engaging with that system (swap shops, free cycle, etc).
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. There is obviously some things that you can't live without buying on some capacity, but like you were saying don't let good be the enemy of perfect and it is better to find alternative systems or ways of doing things that still satisfy your needs.
And I'll say this is true of climate related problems too. Even if capitalism isn't necessarily the main cause, the goal should be to identity what system we think is causing these problems and gradually try and replace these systems in our daily lives with something hopefully better.
~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~