4 ms·

I think it's problematic to focus exclusively on individual responsibility for averting climate change. Climate change is a massive global problem, intimately r

by rmchugh 11y ago

I think it's problematic to focus exclusively on individual responsibility for averting climate change. Climate change is a massive global problem, intimately related to the structure of the global economy. The scale of the problem and the changes needed to mitigate it are thus far beyond the reach of any individual consumer. Problems at this scale can only be addressed by nation states and transnational actors, as was done for CFCs for example. Unfortunately these actors have been dragging their feet for decades. I am skeptical that they will be able to get their acts together in time to avert catastrophe.

haxel 11y ago
You say global economy and then you say far beyond the reach of individual consumers. Yet the global economy is by definition composed of the demands of individual consumers. You also say that top-down hasn't been working very well and so we may be running out of time. Isn't that a strong signal that we should look at a different approach? As technologists, we can plainly see the power of our mobile computers and the influence they have over our behavior. Advertising is huge because it works. But what if its influence drives us to disproportionately purchase products or services that contribute to climate change? If advertisement works, and technology works, and people's behavior is already being directed, then why can't we direct it another way?
- rmchugh 11y ago
  I don't think advertisement works that well. While you may convince a small minority of consumers to consume in a climate conscious way, I sincerely doubt that it would appeal to the vast majority. For example, you would need to persuade people not to eat meat, not to fly, not to purchase fresh food that has been transported by air, not to drive cars driven by fossil fuels etc etc. These are all things that make people's lives more enjoyable (for the most part), so you are asking people to act against their immediate self-interest. I don't think advertising is sufficient for this. What would be more effective is a carbon tax on consumer goods, which would drive the price of such goods up dramatically. But this would require government action. As for solutions, I don't claim to have all the answers. I do think that the divestments movement is a very good idea, as is direct action against the most polluting industries (for example, a recent action to shut down Europe's largest coal mine).
  - haxel 11y ago
    Ah, I meant advertising in the sense that we're seeing tons of advertising for cheap meat, air travel, factory food, new gas cars, and whatnot. A good question to ask might be that if corporations _didn't_ advertise so much, how much less frequently would we buy those types of products/services? Would we still need them? I think the advertisers know what would happen, and so they have to keep it up. Now, if we decided to throw a few environmental ads into the current mix, I think you're right that they'd have little effect. But we can't forget how much advertising we see for stuff that's harmful in many ways, regardless of how temporarily satisfied we are with our purchases. Because so much of what we buy has serious negative (but hidden) consequences, advertising is causing us to act against our (non-immediate) self-interests.

by rmchugh 11y ago

haxel 11y ago

You say global economy and then you say far beyond the reach of individual consumers. Yet the global economy is by definition composed of the demands of individual consumers. You also say that top-down hasn't been working very well and so we may be running out of time. Isn't that a strong signal that we should look at a different approach? As technologists, we can plainly see the power of our mobile computers and the influence they have over our behavior. Advertising is huge because it works. But what if its influence drives us to disproportionately purchase products or services that contribute to climate change? If advertisement works, and technology works, and people's behavior is already being directed, then why can't we direct it another way?

rmchugh 11y ago
I don't think advertisement works that well. While you may convince a small minority of consumers to consume in a climate conscious way, I sincerely doubt that it would appeal to the vast majority. For example, you would need to persuade people not to eat meat, not to fly, not to purchase fresh food that has been transported by air, not to drive cars driven by fossil fuels etc etc. These are all things that make people's lives more enjoyable (for the most part), so you are asking people to act against their immediate self-interest. I don't think advertising is sufficient for this. What would be more effective is a carbon tax on consumer goods, which would drive the price of such goods up dramatically. But this would require government action. As for solutions, I don't claim to have all the answers. I do think that the divestments movement is a very good idea, as is direct action against the most polluting industries (for example, a recent action to shut down Europe's largest coal mine).
- haxel 11y ago
  Ah, I meant advertising in the sense that we're seeing tons of advertising for cheap meat, air travel, factory food, new gas cars, and whatnot. A good question to ask might be that if corporations _didn't_ advertise so much, how much less frequently would we buy those types of products/services? Would we still need them? I think the advertisers know what would happen, and so they have to keep it up. Now, if we decided to throw a few environmental ads into the current mix, I think you're right that they'd have little effect. But we can't forget how much advertising we see for stuff that's harmful in many ways, regardless of how temporarily satisfied we are with our purchases. Because so much of what we buy has serious negative (but hidden) consequences, advertising is causing us to act against our (non-immediate) self-interests.