8 ms·

> word is starting to get out that 'carbon footprint' is a scam, but most folks haven't gotten that message yet, so get some plausible deniability by saying, 'c

> word is starting to get out that 'carbon footprint' is a scam, but most folks haven't gotten that message yet, so get some plausible deniability by saying, 'call your reps' first. Article from the site's FAQ: https://www.wired.com/story/does-climate-change-mean-you-should-fly-less-yeah-maybe/ https://www.wired.com/story/does-climate-change-mean-you-sho... "Voting is crucial, but this perspective misses a large point of individual actions. We don’t recommend taking personal actions like limiting plane rides, eating less meat, or investing in solar energy because all of these small tweaks will build up to enough carbon savings (though it could help). We do so because people taking action in their personal lives is actually one of the best ways to get to a society that implements the policy-level change that is truly needed. Research on social behavior suggests lifestyle change can build momentum for systemic change. Humans are social animals, and we use social cues to recognize emergencies. People don’t spring into action just because they see smoke; they spring into action because they see others rushing in with water. The same principle applies to personal actions on climate change." Government and companies are less likely to act when they know individuals aren't willing to change their lifestyles. Nobody is saying individuals have to do everything, but individuals, governments and companies all have a part to play instead of passing the blame around and doing nothing.

readonthegoapp 5y ago
i think you've helped make clear why virtue signaling-as-activism is so dangerous. we've had these Madison Avenue-created ideas of 'recycling' and 'carbon footprint' around for decades (along with the all the other fine stuff they give us), and millions of people in America who have signaled on one or both for decades, and what have we achieved? an even-faster acceleration of global climate collapse. and that's exactly what they were designed to do -- stop any actual progress on preventing climate collapse. i skimmed that wired article a few times now, trying to find something that feels real, something scientific, some strong notion of evidence, something. but there's just nothing there -- wishful thinking at best. i'm sure i've argued, either here or somewhere on the internet, that changing from plastic straws to paper might have some infinitesimally small impact on people and/or the environment, either actual or perceived, but i never would have said "there's evidence!" or anything crazy like that. i probably would have gone as far as to say something like: It does either nothing or next to nothing, so we should be honest about that, _but_ it mainly gives us a change to talk to people about what is actually required to turn things around. Would I destroy some 5-year old kid's dream if s/he was on a campaign to replace plastic straws with paper straws in their town? No. But I would educate them further and point them towards activism that might save their lives in the future - without being so explicit. Fairytales are fine, more or less, for kids -- but we adults can't afford that luxury if we care about those kids' futures. All that said, most/all of what I've heard Greta say over the past few years has been spot on -- if she says paper straws and e-cars and all the other virtue signaling is a good/effective way to help build support for doing something meantingful, then i'm all for it and will support it, and do it, and fund it, and etc. ...adding, even the 'Voting is important' stuff is an overstatement, imo, at least in America. like, yes, vote for the party that is not trying to destroy the world, but that's a tiny part of what needs to be done when when we're talking about politics/electioneering/etc. You take 5 minutes and vote -- unless you're black, in which case -- get harassed, threatened, intimidated, try to get your name back on the voting rolls for days/months/years, wait in line for hours, cast a provisional ballot, have you ballot thrown out anyways -- and then start pressuring whichever pol got elected.
- seanwilson 5y ago
  What do you think of issues that have a much bigger impact though, like people giving up or greatly reducing meat+fish consumption, flying and private transport? I agree the plastic straws issue is a token gesture. If people really care about sealife, they should stop giving money to companies that are destroying the ocean with overfishing (which also produces lots of plastic waste) and stop eating sealife. This recent article is interesting. It talks about how many people aren't willing to change their own lifestyle habits (i.e. plastic straws vs actual sacrifices): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/07/few-willing-to-change-lifestyle-climate-survey https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/07/few-will.... "Only 23% felt that reducing plane travel and charging more for products that did not respect environmental norms were important to preserve the planet, while banning fossil fuel vehicles (22%) and reducing meat consumption (18%) and international trade (17%) were seen as even lower priorities.”
  - readonthegoapp 5y ago
    i think consumer-driven consumption choices are worthless, or nearly-worthless. paper straws, electric cars, etc. etc. etc. -- all worthless or nearly worthless, and probably worse in many ways. there are a few reasons for that. one is -- i don't know what the economic principle is called -- but probably something like, like 'equilibrium' -- if you don't buy that car, i will. also, the Jevons Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox and a few other things. there is, for instance, a drop in meat consumption around the world, and it seems to be caused largely by people prefering to have fewer heart attacks. that's good for a bunch of reasons, including that it happens to be good for the global warming cause. but has global warming decreased? or even stopped accelerating? i don't think so. most Americans probably think that the world we live in is largely one brought about by consumer choice -- as in, the options made available to us were driven by 'the market', which may or may not include consumer choice/sentiment. educated folks know that is not true. so, the fact that people don't want to pay taxes, or die, or experience extreme weather due to global warming -- it doesn't matter -- it's irrelevant -- what the state/government and earth require, we will abide. so, either most of the remaining oil/gas reserves stay underground, or most of us will die. probably not 'us' who read HN, just 'us' poor people who live in India, Africa, Saudi Arabia/Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan, anywhere near the equator, etc. there could still be a miracle - and that's what we're working for right now - maybe we'll build a million nuclear reactors and they won't blow up and kill us all, or maybe we'll block out the sun for a few years and that will only kill a couple billion people, etc. - but the whole thing about people not wanting to 'sacrifice' for global warming - irrelevant - they and we are already sacrificing, and it's going to get a lot worse from here on out. there could be some other miracle outbreak of democracy around the world, maybe the US decides to stop pursuing global hegemony at all costs, but a much more likely outcome is the US will gain in relative power to most of the rest of the world, so we'll continue marching off the cliff -- b/c no amount of money or power for those in charge will ever be enough.

readonthegoapp 5y ago

i think you've helped make clear why virtue signaling-as-activism is so dangerous. we've had these Madison Avenue-created ideas of 'recycling' and 'carbon footprint' around for decades (along with the all the other fine stuff they give us), and millions of people in America who have signaled on one or both for decades, and what have we achieved? an even-faster acceleration of global climate collapse. and that's exactly what they were designed to do -- stop any actual progress on preventing climate collapse. i skimmed that wired article a few times now, trying to find something that feels real, something scientific, some strong notion of evidence, something. but there's just nothing there -- wishful thinking at best. i'm sure i've argued, either here or somewhere on the internet, that changing from plastic straws to paper might have some infinitesimally small impact on people and/or the environment, either actual or perceived, but i never would have said "there's evidence!" or anything crazy like that. i probably would have gone as far as to say something like: It does either nothing or next to nothing, so we should be honest about that, _but_ it mainly gives us a change to talk to people about what is actually required to turn things around. Would I destroy some 5-year old kid's dream if s/he was on a campaign to replace plastic straws with paper straws in their town? No. But I would educate them further and point them towards activism that might save their lives in the future - without being so explicit. Fairytales are fine, more or less, for kids -- but we adults can't afford that luxury if we care about those kids' futures. All that said, most/all of what I've heard Greta say over the past few years has been spot on -- if she says paper straws and e-cars and all the other virtue signaling is a good/effective way to help build support for doing something meantingful, then i'm all for it and will support it, and do it, and fund it, and etc. ...adding, even the 'Voting is important' stuff is an overstatement, imo, at least in America. like, yes, vote for the party that is not trying to destroy the world, but that's a tiny part of what needs to be done when when we're talking about politics/electioneering/etc. You take 5 minutes and vote -- unless you're black, in which case -- get harassed, threatened, intimidated, try to get your name back on the voting rolls for days/months/years, wait in line for hours, cast a provisional ballot, have you ballot thrown out anyways -- and then start pressuring whichever pol got elected.

seanwilson 5y ago
What do you think of issues that have a much bigger impact though, like people giving up or greatly reducing meat+fish consumption, flying and private transport? I agree the plastic straws issue is a token gesture. If people really care about sealife, they should stop giving money to companies that are destroying the ocean with overfishing (which also produces lots of plastic waste) and stop eating sealife. This recent article is interesting. It talks about how many people aren't willing to change their own lifestyle habits (i.e. plastic straws vs actual sacrifices): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/07/few-willing-to-change-lifestyle-climate-survey https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/07/few-will.... "Only 23% felt that reducing plane travel and charging more for products that did not respect environmental norms were important to preserve the planet, while banning fossil fuel vehicles (22%) and reducing meat consumption (18%) and international trade (17%) were seen as even lower priorities.”
- readonthegoapp 5y ago
  i think consumer-driven consumption choices are worthless, or nearly-worthless. paper straws, electric cars, etc. etc. etc. -- all worthless or nearly worthless, and probably worse in many ways. there are a few reasons for that. one is -- i don't know what the economic principle is called -- but probably something like, like 'equilibrium' -- if you don't buy that car, i will. also, the Jevons Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox and a few other things. there is, for instance, a drop in meat consumption around the world, and it seems to be caused largely by people prefering to have fewer heart attacks. that's good for a bunch of reasons, including that it happens to be good for the global warming cause. but has global warming decreased? or even stopped accelerating? i don't think so. most Americans probably think that the world we live in is largely one brought about by consumer choice -- as in, the options made available to us were driven by 'the market', which may or may not include consumer choice/sentiment. educated folks know that is not true. so, the fact that people don't want to pay taxes, or die, or experience extreme weather due to global warming -- it doesn't matter -- it's irrelevant -- what the state/government and earth require, we will abide. so, either most of the remaining oil/gas reserves stay underground, or most of us will die. probably not 'us' who read HN, just 'us' poor people who live in India, Africa, Saudi Arabia/Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan, anywhere near the equator, etc. there could still be a miracle - and that's what we're working for right now - maybe we'll build a million nuclear reactors and they won't blow up and kill us all, or maybe we'll block out the sun for a few years and that will only kill a couple billion people, etc. - but the whole thing about people not wanting to 'sacrifice' for global warming - irrelevant - they and we are already sacrificing, and it's going to get a lot worse from here on out. there could be some other miracle outbreak of democracy around the world, maybe the US decides to stop pursuing global hegemony at all costs, but a much more likely outcome is the US will gain in relative power to most of the rest of the world, so we'll continue marching off the cliff -- b/c no amount of money or power for those in charge will ever be enough.