I will bomb a pipeline, thank you Hank

I think that "It doesn't matter what individuals do" is very explicitly the opposite position that this Lemmy instance stands for. I have a lot of admiration for Hank Green. He covers several different versions of this position, which is good. But this video is wrong in that it misses a very important facet of that discussion.

We are very pro-science here. I agree with Hank that having these discussions based on 'vibes' is the wrong idea. I'm happy that he linked the paper so we can all validate his conclusion with data. He's usually correct, but in this case he's wrong -- and I can point out where I think he went wrong:

Two studies using large, well-powered samples show that focusing attention on one’s sustainable behaviors rarely results in a decrease in support for a climate policy like a carbon tax.

I highlight rarely, because that word is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence. The paper does not report on society at large, but rather a self-selected group from Amazon Turk, and 'rarely' refers to the frequency of the result in their study based on the framing in their questions, and not the frequency of that result in the society at large. So it's irresponsible to not look deeper into the 'edge-case' they outline in their study. I endorse reading the full paper on sci-hub (j.erss.2021.102150), which I can quote here if there's interest, but the sciencedirect summary does it justice:

The only circumstances where this may be a concern is when there are notable financial costs of the policy that are framed as falling on the individual, and people only reflect on their behavior in a way that is devoid of activating their personal or social values and identity. Even under these “ideal” conditions for negative spillover, this effect did not reach significance in Study. However, a meta-analysis of this effect size across both studies finds an effect that does exclude zero, perhaps suggesting it is simply a small and somewhat noisy effect.

That is, if you're already biking to work, spending an hour a week separating your recyclables, cooking your own vegan meals, and a congresscritter announces a new sales tax to subsidize boomers trading in their old cars for a new Tesla, you're much more likely, and I think justified, to vote the slimeball out of office. The paper doesn't teach us anything new about human psychology, it just re-iterates something obvious about framing. The reality on the ground is that working people are already doing more than their share of the climate change mitigation labor. In order for effective climate change legislation to lead to overwhelming public support, it needs to be paid from the pockets of the rich and the elites, and leave the infrastructure and programs that benefit the general public alone. That's exactly how the questions in the paper's survey were typically framed.

But this is exactly what the capitalist political system is designed to prevent. For legislation to pass, it needs support from the capitalists that put politicians from both parties in office. Since they're unlikely to approve of something that reduces their wealth and power, any pro-environment legislation will be subject to the so-called "rare" condition: it can be framed as taking away from people who are already tapped-out due to other demands on their limited resources. The condition is not rare when it describes the rhetoric and framing typical of the Republican Party and their pundits. And it's only 'rare' if you believe that legislation to stop climate change is mostly funded exclusively from the pockets of the rich and elite, has no effect on the funding of other social benefits, and has no knock-on effects on the price of food or other costs of living.

Because years of capital's suppression of leftist movements, the overton window has shifted so far right that the Republican party is now openly fascist. The Democratic Party has to concede very little to the average voter to still be worthy of their corporate sponsors. This situation is mirrored in most other Western countries, as the escalating crisis results in ever-more radical solutions becoming expedient, and the only significant parties with radical postures are the ones whose solution is to find scapegoats. Alone, political or electoral solutions to the climate crisis will be ineffective.

Furthermore, this paper ignores the well-documented counter examples used to emphasize why individual action can be flawed. The 'Crying Indian' ad was famous for changing the public's relationship with plastic. Instead of steering consumer choices away from single-use plastics, the message was simply don't litter - shifting the responsibility for plastic pollution on individuals instead of corporations, and more insidiously, made the problem less visible. This had no effect on actual plastic pollution, as single-use plastic production continued to increase, and now its pollution permeates the entire biosphere. Likewise the book "50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth" became a ubiquitous 1990's staple, but in all of its tips about carpooling to work, cutting 6-pack loops, and taking showers instead of baths, had very little to say about organizing mass action. Unsurprisingly the 90's zeitgeist of individual climate action it promoted has resulted in the revolutionary temperature we're feeling today.

So Hank missed an important point when he glossed over that the study showed even in its limited population sample and curated questions they found evidence that individual climate action fatigue can effect policy support. I think Hank is right when he says:

It turns out that one of the most important ways that we show that something is an emergency is by acting like it’s an emergency. If we aren’t actually acting like there’s a problem, our brains have a hard time remembering that there is a problem.

But making casual lifestyle changes does not constitute 'acting like' there's an 'emergency.' So when people like me express skepticism about proposed individual actions, it is from the frame "is it effective enough to justify the fatigue towards other demonstrably effective solutions?" We are experiencing an emergency, and it would be wise to individually assess how to use our limited resources to mitigate the worst effects. I'm proud to support the several communities on this platform that distribute information about individual means to resist climate change. But I'm not interested personally in trying to shame people into being vegan, riding a bike, or even voting, as each of those behaviors carries a cost that is different to each individual. I trust each person to be a better judge than I am of what actions are appropriate for their values and situation.

Individual action is ineffective, and political solutions are ineffective, then what is effective? We can look to the past to predict the future, and during the civil rights era, it wasn't either of those that changed government policy; it was organized mass movements engaged in direct action. They organized boycotts, held demonstrations and marches, and shut down society to draw attention to the crisis of racism in the United States. I hope that Solarpunk grows to be a significant force in a modern version of that struggle. Whatever meager resources we each have individually are amplified when we work together. Whatever individual actions you decide to implement (and thank you for that!) I hope you don't neglect the most effective action of all - Organize!

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)~