345
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ebikefolder@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Right, but this "carbon footprint was invented by BP" argument is most often used by people who outright refuse to do their part. Yes, we do need to get angry and demand change. While at the same time reducing our own impact as much as possible.

Main reason: if our demands will someday be heard, there will no longer be any meat or plastic straws available anyway. Why not get used to living without, now?

[-] Johem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It isn't about getting used to anything or doing your part. Meat and plastic straws are the tip of the iceberg. By focusing on these factors we are constantly failing to address the issue substantially. They are convenient ways to make the problem seem like something that can by solved by a series of small adjustments. As everyone should know by now, that is wrong.

[-] ebikefolder@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Of course it's about getting used to things. I just picked your meat and straw examples but I know there are bigger and more substantial issues. Don't underestimate the damage done by meat production though: it's huge.

Transport is a biggie. Air travel will probably never be sustainable. Time to say good bye. Simply don't fly unless it's a question of life and death. Electric cars? No. Those don't address the right problems. A niche product for niche uses. Pressure for better infrastructure, better zoning, but also buy a bicycle and at least try to not drive everywhere.

And don't get me started on fashion.

There are about 327 more issues. Don't worry: I am well aware of that.

[-] Johem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Saying there are countless issues is another one of those convenient distractions. Of course its complex and there are many factors, but we have one basic issue: greenhouse gases.

We will not get to carbon neutral(or a global net negative) by slowly getting used to things by word of mouth. Not by signalling through market forces that we are willing to pay for pea protein instead of meat. It has to be political, it has to decisive and radical action at this point. A carbon tax that makes meat much more expensive instead of being subsidized. Completely changing the funding of transportation from being car focused to public transportation focused. And, perhaps most important of all, government oversight and enforcement with teeth that does not shy away from nuking a company with fines if it steps out of line too often.

All these what YOU can do talk carries the danger of obscuring what needs to be done at a societal and global level.

[-] ebikefolder@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Somehow I have the feeling that we are, in fact, on the same page.

Yes, we need big political and societal changes (how often do I have to repeat that?). But the result will be the abscence of meat and straws and cars and airplanes. And the transition will be much smoother for the individual if he already learned how to not use them even while they are still available and affordable. Affordable in a solely monetary way, don't get me wrong! They are far from affordable from a ecological point of view.

By no means I want to obscure any issues or distract from them. On the contrary!

[-] Johem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

In q wq all this is distracting, because there are many, many people who cling to thinking that just doing this or that is already enough. That's why I call this focus on individual lifestyle choices dangerous. It gives you a psychological out. "I've done something, so the problem is out if my hands now," is a form of complacency I see quite often.

[-] Johem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Saying there are countless issues is another one of those convenient distractions. Of course its complex and there are many factors, but we have one basic issue: greenhouse gases.

We will not get to carbon neutral(or a global net negative) by slowly getting used to things by word of mouth. Not by signalling through market forces that we are willing to pay for pea protein instead of meat. It has to be political, it has to decisive and radical action at this point. A carbon tax that makes meat much more expensive instead of being subsidized. Completely changing the funding of transportation from being car focused to public transportation focused. And, perhaps most important of all, government oversight and enforcement with teeth that does not shy away from nuking a company with fines if it steps out of line too often.

All these what YOU can do talk carries the danger of obscuring what needs to be done at a societal and global level.

this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
345 points (97.3% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5234 readers
14 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!


RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith


Related communities:


Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS