7 ms·

Incidents like this is why we're not going to save the planet with individual actions. I could spend my entire life eating vegan, recycling, and bicycling every

Incidents like this is why we're not going to save the planet with individual actions. I could spend my entire life eating vegan, recycling, and bicycling everywhere and that entire gain is dwarfed by one incident like this. The only thing that will save us is decisive and collective action. Think about that when you think about your vote in the next election in your area. I particularly like the suggestion in one of the comments on the original article: >I wonder if it would have taken 20 days to stop if they were being fined by the pound.

jacquesm 7y ago
Yes, but without you doing all that it would be even worse.
- minikites 7y ago
  Absolutely, I don't want my comment to be taken as an endorsement of "Well, there's nothing I can do so I might as well roll coal and dump my motor oil on the lawn." It's important to do both, but saving the planet will only be accomplished through collective action.
  - tstrimple 7y ago
    > only be accomplished through collective action I'd agree if you said enforced collective action. We cannot rely on companies to self-regulate. There needs to be severe consequences for companies that damage the environment like this. As long as profits far exceed penalties, companies will continue to take the easy path.
    - pc86 7y ago
      I think it's pretty clear from the context he's not talking about corporate action, but citizens' action.
      - jachee 7y ago
        Corporations also have civic responsibility. Any collective, corrective action must include corporate action, or it is futile.
        inimino 7y ago
        I believe the point was collective action of citizens leading to governmental action to enforce corporate action.
    - briandear 7y ago
      Perhaps stop buying the offending company's products?
      - tstrimple 7y ago
        You're making the perfectly informed consumer argument? They don't exactly put warning labels on the packaging. "The company which produces this product does disproportional damage to the environment."
- jellicle 7y ago
  No, it wouldn't. The commenter's actions make no difference at all on a global scale. Zero. That's the point: understanding that individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing. Only collective actions count. At all. Understanding orders of magnitude is not something that comes easily to humans but it must be understood to work on large problems.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    The commenters actions make a difference to them and in turn may influence people around them. Collective actions start out as individual actions and like that they set the stage for change that is real and measurable. By your reading Rosa Parks should have just shut up and sat in the back of the bus because 'individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing'. Understanding orders of magnitude is indeed not something that comes easily to humans but it must be understood to work on large problems, right alongside understanding how social change is engendered.
    - inimino 7y ago
      There is a difference between individual action leading to social change (such as political activism or civil disobedience) and individual action that makes the individual feel better and satisfies the need to "do something" while having no measurable effect. If you take one less flight this year, you've considerably lowered your carbon footprint. Congrats. If every single person that flies reduced their carbon footprint by one flight this year like you did... it would make absolutely no meaningful difference with respect to climate change. You might as well whistle in the wind. On the other hand, if all of those people had actually taken political action, meaningful change would be practically inevitable. The narrative that encourages recycling, buying green brands, and generally expressing how much you care about the earth by how you choose to shop (making your environmentalism part of your identity as a consumer rather than as a citizen) serves only the status quo, and dissipates energy that might otherwise be channelled into making an actual difference.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > understanding that individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing One is forced to wonder why people who think this way bother to get out of bed in the morning. On a global scale you are insignificant approaching nonexistent, so by your own reasoning nothing you do matters and therefor you shouldn't bother doing anything.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  On a global scale the difference would be marginal. Nothing but a mere rounding error.
  - rconti 7y ago
    Speaking of rounding errors, you shouldn't vote, either. In fact, even literally throwing up your hands is a waste of energy.
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      That's not at all the same comparison. An equal comparison would be where the president's vote counts at 1 trillion votes. In that case I wouldn't bother voting because even if everybody in the country votes for candidate A it'll mean nothing if the president votes for president B. The president's vote will always overpower everyone else's vote.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      > Speaking of rounding errors, you shouldn't vote, either. Quite a few philosophers of politics and radicals would agree with that statement; from SEP[0]: >There is some debate among economists and political scientists over the precise way to calculate the probability that a vote will be decisive. Nevertheless, they generally agree that the probability that the modal individual voter in a typical election will break a tie is small, so small that the expected benefit (i.e., p[V(D)−V(R)]) of the modal vote for a good candidate is worth far less than a millionth of a penny (G. Brennan and Lomasky 1993: 56–7, 119). The most optimistic estimate in the literature claims that in a presidential election, an American voter could have as high as a 1 in 10 million chance of breaking a tie, but only if that voter lives in one of three or four “swing states,” and only if she votes for a major-party candidate (Edlin, Gelman, and Kaplan 2007). Chances are, you can use the time to do other things, things that gain you more benefit than "a millionth of a penny" (if we must use the economism of time = money). [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#1 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#1
allan_s 7y ago
I save you the whole quote but : > Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world. it's easier to have this kind of thing voted in a "climate-change-aware" nation, which is easier to have if all your local government are climate-change-ware, which is easier to have if all your neighborhood are climate-change-aware, which is easier if all the familly in it are climate-change-aware which is easier if you are climate change aware. and once your country, regardless of how small it is, is climate change aware, it's easier to make bigger, more polluting country, to change, as they can't hide anymore behind a "your first" but yes I agree with you that you can't stop at your individual level, but it has to start there
- cjdaly 7y ago
  there are certain, specific individuals who could stop and it would make a huge difference. someone decided to punch this hole in the ground. someone directed the engineering. I’m glad this new Sentinel-5P sat is up. it’s hard to manage what’s not being measured.
briandear 7y ago
I'd rather have the climate change than have to fear "decisive and collective action." The Bolsheviks, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and a series of other groups and people engaged in "decisive and collective action" and it didn't turn out very well. We don't need drastic change; we need incremental improvements. The coming "catastrophe" is overblown -- every 12 years or so people warn us about the end of the world in 12 years -- long enough for people to forget, but urgent enough to scare people into advocating for "decisive and collective action." For example, the pollution generated in the United States has been significantly declining without resorting to mob-rule collective action. There are more trees in the United States today than there was 100 years ago. The air is much than it was 40 years ago as well. Few people remember what Los Angeles air looked like in the 1970s. People don't remember Pittsburgh air either. If people were serious about pollution, they'd boycott China and India. However, those calling for "collective action" are more interested in the anti-capitalist part than they are the pollution part. Otherwise, why isn't Greta Thunberg and other activists calling for worldwide boycotts of China? Why is it the United States that is in the crosshairs of every environmental group? It's because the United States is an easy target. Let's see some protestors go to China and try to shut down their industry and economy. Let's see Thunberg "How dare you" to Xi Jinping in Beijing.
- pjc50 7y ago
  "The United State is a better country than China because you are free to speak about how you would like it to be run!" "Very well, I'd like to complain about carbon emissions" "Fuck off to China, commie!"
- lm28469 7y ago
  > I'd rather have the climate change than have to fear And here is the crux of the problem, you'll be long dead before Life gets impacted by climate change. That's why a lot of people simply don't care. > every 12 years or so people warn us about the end of the world in 12 years You have to make a distinction between Nostradamus&co and science though, everything isn't equal. It might be blown out of proportion but we don't know how far we fucked up yet because earth climate is complex, duh, and composed of an infinite amount of codependent variables. You might be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_... > If people were serious about pollution, they'd boycott China and India. You can't do that since the 70s, virtually everything you touch was manufactured or altered abroad. You can't have a globalized capitalist world AND tell people to boycott products from the so called "factory of the world". Reminds me of all these people posting "eh look, all the most polluting rivers are outside of the US, it's not my problem, fuck them" from a made in china iphone, while sipping an Ecuadorian coffee from a made in china starbucks cup, wearing a made in Thailand shirt and a Vietnamese pair of jeans. > more interested in the anti-capitalist part than they are the pollution part. It might be hard to swallow but hear me out: what if these two things are correlated ? capitalism/globalism put economical profit above all else with little to no regards for long term side effects. It's an endless and boundless quest for "progress", consumption and growth, there is no notion of limit, the long term plans are for the next 15 years, not the next 1500 years, &c. > For example, the pollution generated in the United States has been significantly declining without resorting to mob-rule collective action. What about the pollution generated to produce what Americans consume ? It's easy to delocalize everything to Asia and point the finger. Remember: capitalism -> global economy-> global problems > Why is it the United States that is in the crosshairs of every environmental group? I think you're projecting, as far as I know most environmental parties are protesting locally in their home country. If you're and American living in the US I would encourage you to check international news. It really is the same thing in every developed countries. Also, when will we stop with the "everything I disagree with must be fascism ?" I love how the current quasi-forced consumerism is accepted, and even loved, but being "forced" to better the planet for _ourselves_ is Mao level fascism.
noobermin 7y ago
While this accident is terrible, it pales in comparison to the US output of GHG's per year. The collective action that is needed will also call for individual action. You're right though that individual action alone is not enough.

jacquesm 7y ago

Yes, but without you doing all that it would be even worse.

minikites 7y ago
Absolutely, I don't want my comment to be taken as an endorsement of "Well, there's nothing I can do so I might as well roll coal and dump my motor oil on the lawn." It's important to do both, but saving the planet will only be accomplished through collective action.
- tstrimple 7y ago
  > only be accomplished through collective action I'd agree if you said enforced collective action. We cannot rely on companies to self-regulate. There needs to be severe consequences for companies that damage the environment like this. As long as profits far exceed penalties, companies will continue to take the easy path.
  - pc86 7y ago
    I think it's pretty clear from the context he's not talking about corporate action, but citizens' action.
    - jachee 7y ago
      Corporations also have civic responsibility. Any collective, corrective action must include corporate action, or it is futile.
      - inimino 7y ago
        I believe the point was collective action of citizens leading to governmental action to enforce corporate action.
  - briandear 7y ago
    Perhaps stop buying the offending company's products?
    - tstrimple 7y ago
      You're making the perfectly informed consumer argument? They don't exactly put warning labels on the packaging. "The company which produces this product does disproportional damage to the environment."
jellicle 7y ago
No, it wouldn't. The commenter's actions make no difference at all on a global scale. Zero. That's the point: understanding that individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing. Only collective actions count. At all. Understanding orders of magnitude is not something that comes easily to humans but it must be understood to work on large problems.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  The commenters actions make a difference to them and in turn may influence people around them. Collective actions start out as individual actions and like that they set the stage for change that is real and measurable. By your reading Rosa Parks should have just shut up and sat in the back of the bus because 'individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing'. Understanding orders of magnitude is indeed not something that comes easily to humans but it must be understood to work on large problems, right alongside understanding how social change is engendered.
  - inimino 7y ago
    There is a difference between individual action leading to social change (such as political activism or civil disobedience) and individual action that makes the individual feel better and satisfies the need to "do something" while having no measurable effect. If you take one less flight this year, you've considerably lowered your carbon footprint. Congrats. If every single person that flies reduced their carbon footprint by one flight this year like you did... it would make absolutely no meaningful difference with respect to climate change. You might as well whistle in the wind. On the other hand, if all of those people had actually taken political action, meaningful change would be practically inevitable. The narrative that encourages recycling, buying green brands, and generally expressing how much you care about the earth by how you choose to shop (making your environmentalism part of your identity as a consumer rather than as a citizen) serves only the status quo, and dissipates energy that might otherwise be channelled into making an actual difference.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > understanding that individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing One is forced to wonder why people who think this way bother to get out of bed in the morning. On a global scale you are insignificant approaching nonexistent, so by your own reasoning nothing you do matters and therefor you shouldn't bother doing anything.
hanniabu 7y ago
On a global scale the difference would be marginal. Nothing but a mere rounding error.
- rconti 7y ago
  Speaking of rounding errors, you shouldn't vote, either. In fact, even literally throwing up your hands is a waste of energy.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    That's not at all the same comparison. An equal comparison would be where the president's vote counts at 1 trillion votes. In that case I wouldn't bother voting because even if everybody in the country votes for candidate A it'll mean nothing if the president votes for president B. The president's vote will always overpower everyone else's vote.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    > Speaking of rounding errors, you shouldn't vote, either. Quite a few philosophers of politics and radicals would agree with that statement; from SEP[0]: >There is some debate among economists and political scientists over the precise way to calculate the probability that a vote will be decisive. Nevertheless, they generally agree that the probability that the modal individual voter in a typical election will break a tie is small, so small that the expected benefit (i.e., p[V(D)−V(R)]) of the modal vote for a good candidate is worth far less than a millionth of a penny (G. Brennan and Lomasky 1993: 56–7, 119). The most optimistic estimate in the literature claims that in a presidential election, an American voter could have as high as a 1 in 10 million chance of breaking a tie, but only if that voter lives in one of three or four “swing states,” and only if she votes for a major-party candidate (Edlin, Gelman, and Kaplan 2007). Chances are, you can use the time to do other things, things that gain you more benefit than "a millionth of a penny" (if we must use the economism of time = money). [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#1 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#1

allan_s 7y ago

I save you the whole quote but : > Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world. it's easier to have this kind of thing voted in a "climate-change-aware" nation, which is easier to have if all your local government are climate-change-ware, which is easier to have if all your neighborhood are climate-change-aware, which is easier if all the familly in it are climate-change-aware which is easier if you are climate change aware. and once your country, regardless of how small it is, is climate change aware, it's easier to make bigger, more polluting country, to change, as they can't hide anymore behind a "your first" but yes I agree with you that you can't stop at your individual level, but it has to start there

cjdaly 7y ago
there are certain, specific individuals who could stop and it would make a huge difference. someone decided to punch this hole in the ground. someone directed the engineering. I’m glad this new Sentinel-5P sat is up. it’s hard to manage what’s not being measured.

briandear 7y ago

I'd rather have the climate change than have to fear "decisive and collective action." The Bolsheviks, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and a series of other groups and people engaged in "decisive and collective action" and it didn't turn out very well. We don't need drastic change; we need incremental improvements. The coming "catastrophe" is overblown -- every 12 years or so people warn us about the end of the world in 12 years -- long enough for people to forget, but urgent enough to scare people into advocating for "decisive and collective action." For example, the pollution generated in the United States has been significantly declining without resorting to mob-rule collective action. There are more trees in the United States today than there was 100 years ago. The air is much than it was 40 years ago as well. Few people remember what Los Angeles air looked like in the 1970s. People don't remember Pittsburgh air either. If people were serious about pollution, they'd boycott China and India. However, those calling for "collective action" are more interested in the anti-capitalist part than they are the pollution part. Otherwise, why isn't Greta Thunberg and other activists calling for worldwide boycotts of China? Why is it the United States that is in the crosshairs of every environmental group? It's because the United States is an easy target. Let's see some protestors go to China and try to shut down their industry and economy. Let's see Thunberg "How dare you" to Xi Jinping in Beijing.

pjc50 7y ago
"The United State is a better country than China because you are free to speak about how you would like it to be run!" "Very well, I'd like to complain about carbon emissions" "Fuck off to China, commie!"
lm28469 7y ago
> I'd rather have the climate change than have to fear And here is the crux of the problem, you'll be long dead before Life gets impacted by climate change. That's why a lot of people simply don't care. > every 12 years or so people warn us about the end of the world in 12 years You have to make a distinction between Nostradamus&co and science though, everything isn't equal. It might be blown out of proportion but we don't know how far we fucked up yet because earth climate is complex, duh, and composed of an infinite amount of codependent variables. You might be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_... > If people were serious about pollution, they'd boycott China and India. You can't do that since the 70s, virtually everything you touch was manufactured or altered abroad. You can't have a globalized capitalist world AND tell people to boycott products from the so called "factory of the world". Reminds me of all these people posting "eh look, all the most polluting rivers are outside of the US, it's not my problem, fuck them" from a made in china iphone, while sipping an Ecuadorian coffee from a made in china starbucks cup, wearing a made in Thailand shirt and a Vietnamese pair of jeans. > more interested in the anti-capitalist part than they are the pollution part. It might be hard to swallow but hear me out: what if these two things are correlated ? capitalism/globalism put economical profit above all else with little to no regards for long term side effects. It's an endless and boundless quest for "progress", consumption and growth, there is no notion of limit, the long term plans are for the next 15 years, not the next 1500 years, &c. > For example, the pollution generated in the United States has been significantly declining without resorting to mob-rule collective action. What about the pollution generated to produce what Americans consume ? It's easy to delocalize everything to Asia and point the finger. Remember: capitalism -> global economy-> global problems > Why is it the United States that is in the crosshairs of every environmental group? I think you're projecting, as far as I know most environmental parties are protesting locally in their home country. If you're and American living in the US I would encourage you to check international news. It really is the same thing in every developed countries. Also, when will we stop with the "everything I disagree with must be fascism ?" I love how the current quasi-forced consumerism is accepted, and even loved, but being "forced" to better the planet for _ourselves_ is Mao level fascism.

noobermin 7y ago

While this accident is terrible, it pales in comparison to the US output of GHG's per year. The collective action that is needed will also call for individual action. You're right though that individual action alone is not enough.