5 ms·

> The latter policy really emphasizes to me that that there are a large number of people who do not want to change their behaviour in any way, and would much ra

> The latter policy really emphasizes to me that that there are a large number of people who do not want to change their behaviour in any way, and would much rather have a corporate scapegoat to point at. I find this to be a fairly common perspective, when talking to Canadians online; and there's some data to support that it is[0][1]. The truth is that individuals are _hugely_ influential on carbon emissions, and changes to individual consumption, commuting, and so forth are necessary if we're to tackle climate change meaningfully. The Covid lockdowns made the impact of individuals irrefutably clear.[2][3][4] 0: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-poll-climate-change-1.5178514 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-poll-climate-chang... 1: https://globalnews.ca/news/8139537/canada-climate-change-economy-poll/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8139537/canada-climate-change-eco... 2: https://pcc.uw.edu/blog/research/how-did-covid-19-affect-our-carbon-emissions/ https://pcc.uw.edu/blog/research/how-did-covid-19-affect-our... 3: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x 4: https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record-drop-carbon-emissions-2020#gs.8054tu https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record...

relax88 5y ago
I find it interesting that both your reply and mine are being downvoted without explanation as if it’s a controversial idea that consumers are culpable. And yet there are no replies making a logical argument about why this perspective is wrong?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dleslie 5y ago
  It's an unpopular proposition to state that there exists a collective responsibility to make individual adaptations to combat climate change. I also argued that the lockdown was good for combating climate change, and there are many people who are desperate to leave their bedroom communities, hop in their car, and commute to the downtown office.
  - filoeleven 5y ago
    > there exists a collective responsibility to make individual adaptations to combat climate change. Individual adaptations do not matter unless they are undertaken collectively. My personal lifestyle changes don’t impact the state of CO2 emissions in any significant way. Leading by example AND talking about it has more impact, but still negligible unless/until enough people do it. Changing incentives, by making production account for the climate change externality, will shift more people into changing their lifestyle based on price alone. It’s the same reasoning behind targeting drug dealers and cartels more heavily than end-users.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - dleslie 5y ago
      > My personal lifestyle changes don’t impact the state of CO2 emissions in any significant way. Collective action requires personal changes. You, and everyone else, must alter your personal lifestyle. You are only a little bit responsible for the harm, but in aggregate, the collective you are enormously responsible. Each individual must change. > It’s the same reasoning behind targeting drug dealers and cartels more heavily than end-users. I don't like the drug dealer analogy because it implies that targeting drug dealers has been reasonably effective in combating drug use. It hasn't. To combat substance abuse the users must be targeted; to combat climate change, the consumers must be targeted.
      - filoeleven 5y ago
        I think we are talking past each other a bit. I guess it boils down to the question “where does the incentive to make widespread personal changes come from?” Perhaps the CFC problem is a better analogy. CFCs cause problems with the ozone layer, so CFCs were mandated to be removed from products that people bought like ACs and hairspray. In that instance, the supply chain was fixed, so the option to buy CFC hairspray was removed. I think the same fix applies here. Renewable energy, ending single-use plastic packaging, etc. are all things that should be done in order to decrease negative effects. That’s not to say people don’t have to or shouldn’t also make our own personal changes, only that the impact of changing the supply chain is much greater. [edit: rogue apostrophe]
Tronno 5y ago
I don't understand why you would cite Covid lockdowns (a centrally-coordinated government policy) as evidence of individual impact. Is this not an argument against your own point?
- lupire 5y ago
  It's (partially) centrally coordinated, but it's individual behaviors that change, not "corporations making factories and ships magically better while consumers don't feel a change", which is the average (sl)activist's proposed solution.

relax88 5y ago

I find it interesting that both your reply and mine are being downvoted without explanation as if it’s a controversial idea that consumers are culpable. And yet there are no replies making a logical argument about why this perspective is wrong?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dleslie 5y ago
It's an unpopular proposition to state that there exists a collective responsibility to make individual adaptations to combat climate change. I also argued that the lockdown was good for combating climate change, and there are many people who are desperate to leave their bedroom communities, hop in their car, and commute to the downtown office.
- filoeleven 5y ago
  > there exists a collective responsibility to make individual adaptations to combat climate change. Individual adaptations do not matter unless they are undertaken collectively. My personal lifestyle changes don’t impact the state of CO2 emissions in any significant way. Leading by example AND talking about it has more impact, but still negligible unless/until enough people do it. Changing incentives, by making production account for the climate change externality, will shift more people into changing their lifestyle based on price alone. It’s the same reasoning behind targeting drug dealers and cartels more heavily than end-users.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dleslie 5y ago
    > My personal lifestyle changes don’t impact the state of CO2 emissions in any significant way. Collective action requires personal changes. You, and everyone else, must alter your personal lifestyle. You are only a little bit responsible for the harm, but in aggregate, the collective you are enormously responsible. Each individual must change. > It’s the same reasoning behind targeting drug dealers and cartels more heavily than end-users. I don't like the drug dealer analogy because it implies that targeting drug dealers has been reasonably effective in combating drug use. It hasn't. To combat substance abuse the users must be targeted; to combat climate change, the consumers must be targeted.
    - filoeleven 5y ago
      I think we are talking past each other a bit. I guess it boils down to the question “where does the incentive to make widespread personal changes come from?” Perhaps the CFC problem is a better analogy. CFCs cause problems with the ozone layer, so CFCs were mandated to be removed from products that people bought like ACs and hairspray. In that instance, the supply chain was fixed, so the option to buy CFC hairspray was removed. I think the same fix applies here. Renewable energy, ending single-use plastic packaging, etc. are all things that should be done in order to decrease negative effects. That’s not to say people don’t have to or shouldn’t also make our own personal changes, only that the impact of changing the supply chain is much greater. [edit: rogue apostrophe]

Tronno 5y ago

I don't understand why you would cite Covid lockdowns (a centrally-coordinated government policy) as evidence of individual impact. Is this not an argument against your own point?

lupire 5y ago
It's (partially) centrally coordinated, but it's individual behaviors that change, not "corporations making factories and ships magically better while consumers don't feel a change", which is the average (sl)activist's proposed solution.