3 ms·

Yes, my use of paper bags instead of reusable bags is clearly in the same league as a multibillion dollar campaign to discredit science itself. I fear for when

Yes, my use of paper bags instead of reusable bags is clearly in the same league as a multibillion dollar campaign to discredit science itself. I fear for when MA decides to come after me.

stevenhuang 7y ago
Yes, the impact of the actions of individuals are miniscule compared to that of industry, but I still believe changes in the culture of consumption stand to provide substantial benefits. If everyone is a bit more conscious of the impact of their actions, we'd, for one, likely make considerable strides in the field of green tech. It's for that reason why I may be more supportive than others of i.e., recycling programs and reducing use of plastic bags. At least the existence of which gets people thinking of what happens to their waste.
- staticassertion 7y ago
  I'm completely good with the idea that everyone should try to reduce their consumption and strive to reuse materials. I just think it's crazy to compare that to what Exxon has done. For example, as you stated: > In this quote, substitute for "Fossil fuel industry" and "Exxon", "we" and see how well it fits. And let's try applying that to the quote: > Our own scientists warned their managers 40 years ago of “potentially catastrophic events”. Yet rather than alerting the public or taking action, we have spent the past few decades pouring millions of dollars into disinformation campaigns designed to delay action. Uhhhhh no? I have had scientists telling me about global warming, but they were not hired by me, or direct reports of mine. They didn't advise me on how I could steer my business, as it is one of the major contributors to this problem. I have not spent millions of dollars a year trying to create a culture that questions scientific facts. It's incomparable.
  - stevenhuang 7y ago
    That's fair, and no one disagrees that this asymmetry exists. But the point wasn't to compare. The point was to highlight what can still be done on an individual level, because change there is easier to imagine happening than on the level of entire industries. Change has to start somewhere, so starting from the bottom and nurturing a healthier ideal of consumption could end up being the force that eventually pressures industries to change (by changing voters sentiments that indeed climate change is real; voting with their wallets by supporting ethical companies; etc). That's the idea anyways. Countering this disinformation with efforts on all fronts (education, activism, lobbying, personal statements like recycling) is one of many ways to stem the tide. Because the alternative is willful inaction on the excuse that we are not the largest wasters, which is an unproductive and defeatist mindset. If this line of thought takes root among individuals, I wager you and I both will agree that the problem of climate change will take a darker turn.

Yes, my use of paper bags instead of reusable bags is clearly in the same league as a multibillion dollar campaign to discredit science itself. I fear for when MA decides to come after me.

stevenhuang 7y ago

Yes, the impact of the actions of individuals are miniscule compared to that of industry, but I still believe changes in the culture of consumption stand to provide substantial benefits. If everyone is a bit more conscious of the impact of their actions, we'd, for one, likely make considerable strides in the field of green tech. It's for that reason why I may be more supportive than others of i.e., recycling programs and reducing use of plastic bags. At least the existence of which gets people thinking of what happens to their waste.

staticassertion 7y ago
I'm completely good with the idea that everyone should try to reduce their consumption and strive to reuse materials. I just think it's crazy to compare that to what Exxon has done. For example, as you stated: > In this quote, substitute for "Fossil fuel industry" and "Exxon", "we" and see how well it fits. And let's try applying that to the quote: > Our own scientists warned their managers 40 years ago of “potentially catastrophic events”. Yet rather than alerting the public or taking action, we have spent the past few decades pouring millions of dollars into disinformation campaigns designed to delay action. Uhhhhh no? I have had scientists telling me about global warming, but they were not hired by me, or direct reports of mine. They didn't advise me on how I could steer my business, as it is one of the major contributors to this problem. I have not spent millions of dollars a year trying to create a culture that questions scientific facts. It's incomparable.
- stevenhuang 7y ago
  That's fair, and no one disagrees that this asymmetry exists. But the point wasn't to compare. The point was to highlight what can still be done on an individual level, because change there is easier to imagine happening than on the level of entire industries. Change has to start somewhere, so starting from the bottom and nurturing a healthier ideal of consumption could end up being the force that eventually pressures industries to change (by changing voters sentiments that indeed climate change is real; voting with their wallets by supporting ethical companies; etc). That's the idea anyways. Countering this disinformation with efforts on all fronts (education, activism, lobbying, personal statements like recycling) is one of many ways to stem the tide. Because the alternative is willful inaction on the excuse that we are not the largest wasters, which is an unproductive and defeatist mindset. If this line of thought takes root among individuals, I wager you and I both will agree that the problem of climate change will take a darker turn.