4 ms·

For people saying individual action is useless, where does top-level action from governments and big companies come from if it can't be traced to individuals?

For people saying individual action is useless, where does top-level action from governments and big companies come from if it can't be traced to individuals? How is this different from saying voting in elections, organising protests and boycotting companies/products has no influence? How does voting with your wallet not heavily influence supply/demand and company policies? Why would governments feel compelled to make changes if there's little support demonstrated by individuals? Are you saying the beliefs and actions of your friends and family have little influence on you and you personally have rarely influenced anyone you know?

Isinlor 5y ago
There is no way you could meaningfully control CO2 emissions of companies as an individual. If you will try to do it, then the companies will optimize for misleading you. There are systemic solutions: European Union Emissions Trading System is quite good system. It sets a limit on emissions and auctions rights to emissions that can be traded later. The limit will go down according to the IPCC recommendations. The current price is ~50 euro per metric tone of CO2 emissions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Trading_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Tradi... https://ember-climate.org/data/carbon-price-viewer/ https://ember-climate.org/data/carbon-price-viewer/
- seanwilson 5y ago
  > There is no way you could meaningfully control CO2 emissions of companies as an individual. If you will try to do it, then the companies will optimize for misleading you. You don't think you can have an impact on your personal CO2 levels by avoiding flying and eating less beef for example (which both have a massive footprint)? How is a company realistically going to mislead you into going for a worse alternative there? > There are systemic solutions: European Union Emissions Trading System is quite good system. But why would systemic solutions get suggested or implemented if individuals didn't show they wanted a solution? Where would these initiatives come from if they're not influenced by the voices, voting power and buying power of individuals?
  - Isinlor 5y ago
    Aviation is responsible for some 3% and whole agriculture for some 10%. Not only you will have very little impact, but it will decrease your life standard. Additionally, you will not convince the whole society to stop flying and to stop eating meat directly. We barely can agree on climate change in the first place. It is beauty of the free market and capitalism that as the price of CO2 will increase everyone will start looking for ways to reduce emissions without even thinking about emissions. Including innovators and investors. There is also nice political side of Emissions Trading Schemes. It had no effect when it was introduced and it's impact increases little by little each year. Not everyone who would be opposed realized effects of that system when it was introduced. They are slowly gaining awareness, but the positions have reversed. Now, they have to fight against the status quo. I see that quite clearly in Poland. Polish coal miners have a lot of political swing, but they did not realize the consequences of Emissions Trading Scheme. Now as the effects are increasing Polish government is not capable of changing it. But they have money from selling emission rights so they can use that money to appease coal miners and other politically important groups. > But why would systemic solutions get suggested or implemented if individuals didn't show they wanted a solution? Where would these initiatives come from if they're not influenced by the voices, voting power and buying power of individuals? It's easier to convince people that climate change needs to be addressed than to educate them on how --all-- industries work. E.g. how much do you know about concrete curing, steel and related emissions? Would you be able to make informed decisions with regard to building materials and CO2 emissions? Do you even know if viable alternatives exist? Do you expect companies to spend more to emit less?
    - seanwilson 5y ago
      I think you're underestimating the impact of livestock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production#Greenhouse_gas_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... "At a global scale, the FAO has recently estimated that livestock (including poultry) accounts for about 14.5 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions estimated as 100-year CO2 equivalents.[60] A previous widely cited FAO report using somewhat more comprehensive analysis had estimated 18 percent" > There is also nice political side of Emissions Trading Schemes. It had no effect when it was introduced and it's impact increases little by little each year. Not everyone who would be opposed realized effects of that system when it was introduced. I'm in strong agreement that taxing emissions is the long-term solution but do you not think the collective actions and influence of individuals have had a part in paving the way for solutions like this to appear? Don't companies, products and political parties appear and adapt (however slowly) to meet the needs of individuals?
tomjen3 5y ago
Government has to make noise to what the people that vote for them want. As such several government has made noise about doing something about global warming. No government has done anything that actually do move the needle. It is all about promises that won't be fulfiled and things like banning non-ice cars 10-15 years out (so that it can keep getting pushed out). You have the same issue with boycots etc. Companies will make noise and do cheap things like fire an employee or post something to company social media, or change a supplier. They won't do anything major. And you don't have any influence on people on areas they care about. I can influence my mum on what phone she should buy, only because she does not greatly care and she thinks I know about things. We disagree politically, on lifestyle, etc.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Isinlor 5y ago

There is no way you could meaningfully control CO2 emissions of companies as an individual. If you will try to do it, then the companies will optimize for misleading you. There are systemic solutions: European Union Emissions Trading System is quite good system. It sets a limit on emissions and auctions rights to emissions that can be traded later. The limit will go down according to the IPCC recommendations. The current price is ~50 euro per metric tone of CO2 emissions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Trading_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Tradi... https://ember-climate.org/data/carbon-price-viewer/ https://ember-climate.org/data/carbon-price-viewer/

seanwilson 5y ago
> There is no way you could meaningfully control CO2 emissions of companies as an individual. If you will try to do it, then the companies will optimize for misleading you. You don't think you can have an impact on your personal CO2 levels by avoiding flying and eating less beef for example (which both have a massive footprint)? How is a company realistically going to mislead you into going for a worse alternative there? > There are systemic solutions: European Union Emissions Trading System is quite good system. But why would systemic solutions get suggested or implemented if individuals didn't show they wanted a solution? Where would these initiatives come from if they're not influenced by the voices, voting power and buying power of individuals?
- Isinlor 5y ago
  Aviation is responsible for some 3% and whole agriculture for some 10%. Not only you will have very little impact, but it will decrease your life standard. Additionally, you will not convince the whole society to stop flying and to stop eating meat directly. We barely can agree on climate change in the first place. It is beauty of the free market and capitalism that as the price of CO2 will increase everyone will start looking for ways to reduce emissions without even thinking about emissions. Including innovators and investors. There is also nice political side of Emissions Trading Schemes. It had no effect when it was introduced and it's impact increases little by little each year. Not everyone who would be opposed realized effects of that system when it was introduced. They are slowly gaining awareness, but the positions have reversed. Now, they have to fight against the status quo. I see that quite clearly in Poland. Polish coal miners have a lot of political swing, but they did not realize the consequences of Emissions Trading Scheme. Now as the effects are increasing Polish government is not capable of changing it. But they have money from selling emission rights so they can use that money to appease coal miners and other politically important groups. > But why would systemic solutions get suggested or implemented if individuals didn't show they wanted a solution? Where would these initiatives come from if they're not influenced by the voices, voting power and buying power of individuals? It's easier to convince people that climate change needs to be addressed than to educate them on how --all-- industries work. E.g. how much do you know about concrete curing, steel and related emissions? Would you be able to make informed decisions with regard to building materials and CO2 emissions? Do you even know if viable alternatives exist? Do you expect companies to spend more to emit less?
  - seanwilson 5y ago
    I think you're underestimating the impact of livestock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production#Greenhouse_gas_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p... "At a global scale, the FAO has recently estimated that livestock (including poultry) accounts for about 14.5 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions estimated as 100-year CO2 equivalents.[60] A previous widely cited FAO report using somewhat more comprehensive analysis had estimated 18 percent" > There is also nice political side of Emissions Trading Schemes. It had no effect when it was introduced and it's impact increases little by little each year. Not everyone who would be opposed realized effects of that system when it was introduced. I'm in strong agreement that taxing emissions is the long-term solution but do you not think the collective actions and influence of individuals have had a part in paving the way for solutions like this to appear? Don't companies, products and political parties appear and adapt (however slowly) to meet the needs of individuals?

tomjen3 5y ago

Government has to make noise to what the people that vote for them want. As such several government has made noise about doing something about global warming. No government has done anything that actually do move the needle. It is all about promises that won't be fulfiled and things like banning non-ice cars 10-15 years out (so that it can keep getting pushed out). You have the same issue with boycots etc. Companies will make noise and do cheap things like fire an employee or post something to company social media, or change a supplier. They won't do anything major. And you don't have any influence on people on areas they care about. I can influence my mum on what phone she should buy, only because she does not greatly care and she thinks I know about things. We disagree politically, on lifestyle, etc.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]