3 ms·

I agree with your reasoning, but I don't see how individual level effort can solve the problem. Ignoring the fact that it's impossible (the average household si

I agree with your reasoning, but I don't see how individual level effort can solve the problem. Ignoring the fact that it's impossible (the average household simply can't spend $40,000 on anything, let alone the environment), individuals are only involved in maybe a quarter of emissions. Unless the giant corporations also change, every single human going carbon neutral wouldn't be nearly enough. It'd certainly be a big help, but it wouldn't solve the problem.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Tarsul 4y ago
As little as I like it but war is probably an apt metapher: only once the stakes are as clear cut and direct (as in war) are people willing to change. But maybe not even then: There are countless of weather (read: climate) desasters that only lead to a rebuild, even in "intelligent" countries. The biggest problem is that the younger generations seem more and more to grasp it but it's the old who are in power to change things. And we actually don't have the time to wait until the old die. As I'm not a radical (although I appreciate climate radicals and wish them all the best), I do my little part but have resigned to the fact that there will be a lot of pain and runaway effects for generations to come that are already foreseen and could be prevented but simply won't. (but as I said: This doesn't mean to simply yolo. As every ton counts and I have a conscience - and will still in 30 years.)
gamegoblin 4y ago
I've never really understood the "giant corporations" talking point. Even if the numbers are accurate, giant corporations don't just create emissions for fun -- they do it to create a product that will be purchased by consumers, i.e. individuals. If an individual buys a plastic toy, and the production of that toy caused a corporation to emit 10kg of carbon, in my mind that individual is responsible for that carbon, even if it was a Hasbro factory in China who emitted it. Similarly, I don't understand the talking point "even if the US goes carbon neutral, China is an even bigger problem, US is only 15% of emissions". A big part of that is because the West outsourced their manufacturing (and thus emissions) to China! If the West buys carbon-intensive products from China, the West is responsible for that carbon. China isn't making container ships full of plastic toys for fun. Obviously, China has a large domestic population with its own emissions issues with coal power plants, but non-trivial amounts of Chinese emissions are just off-shored Western emissions. Is there something I am missing here?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Tarsul 4y ago

As little as I like it but war is probably an apt metapher: only once the stakes are as clear cut and direct (as in war) are people willing to change. But maybe not even then: There are countless of weather (read: climate) desasters that only lead to a rebuild, even in "intelligent" countries. The biggest problem is that the younger generations seem more and more to grasp it but it's the old who are in power to change things. And we actually don't have the time to wait until the old die. As I'm not a radical (although I appreciate climate radicals and wish them all the best), I do my little part but have resigned to the fact that there will be a lot of pain and runaway effects for generations to come that are already foreseen and could be prevented but simply won't. (but as I said: This doesn't mean to simply yolo. As every ton counts and I have a conscience - and will still in 30 years.)

gamegoblin 4y ago

I've never really understood the "giant corporations" talking point. Even if the numbers are accurate, giant corporations don't just create emissions for fun -- they do it to create a product that will be purchased by consumers, i.e. individuals. If an individual buys a plastic toy, and the production of that toy caused a corporation to emit 10kg of carbon, in my mind that individual is responsible for that carbon, even if it was a Hasbro factory in China who emitted it. Similarly, I don't understand the talking point "even if the US goes carbon neutral, China is an even bigger problem, US is only 15% of emissions". A big part of that is because the West outsourced their manufacturing (and thus emissions) to China! If the West buys carbon-intensive products from China, the West is responsible for that carbon. China isn't making container ships full of plastic toys for fun. Obviously, China has a large domestic population with its own emissions issues with coal power plants, but non-trivial amounts of Chinese emissions are just off-shored Western emissions. Is there something I am missing here?