3 ms·

I strongly disagree here. How are individuals not to blame if they refuse to bear the costs for all the negative externalities they cause? We still live in a d

I strongly disagree here. How are individuals not to blame if they refuse to bear the costs for all the negative externalities they cause? We still live in a democracy, and have known about climate change for over 40 years- the central problem is just that people are (still) NOT willing to pay the price to avoid/mitigate emissions. Because the options are plentiful, like just taxing CO2 emissions and imports, throwing massive funds at low-CO2 energy sources + storage, but taxpayers are simply unwilling- blaming corporations and politicians NOW is the absolute height of hypocrisy.

plorg 4y ago
The point of the personal carbon footprint was to convince people that they could individually make the world less bad by making choices within the existing system and didn't need to change anything (hence that paying for it was unnecessary). It's an influence tactic. I do not think it's hypocrisy to say this. My goal in bringing it up is to note to whoever is reading it that you have better options than just eating Impossible burgers or paying some huckster for a paper that says someone in the Amazon didn't cut down a tree every time you fly on a plane. You can demand that the system change, that you have better options. That probably means that Exxon should stop existing. If you're worried about it costing you more now, it might, but it probably won't in the long run.