Is it fair? Probably, yeah. But I don’t think it’s an effective way of framing or addressing the problem.
The challenge is always getting enough people to do enough of an action that it makes an impact. It is certainly more effective, in terms of reducing emissions, to target policy interventions at leverage points - like forcing energy companies to adopt renewables by law and banning further fossil fuel extraction.
Personal action can be useful to live in alignment with your values and to provide examples to others for ways to get involved in the climate movement, but we can’t consume our way out of this.
Said it better than I could. Fair? Yes. Effective? No.
this is my issue with people who say we are not overpopulated. For me the population of the earth should not exceed the number of people living they way they want as we do things today without using more resources than can be regenerated by the earth (for things that are renewable but maximally using renewable over limited resources)
Is it “fair”? I’d say no, but the world isn’t a fair place. Enormous, unscrupulous corporations are to blame for the untenable situation we collectively find ourselves in. And those corporations aren’t going to be rectifying their behavior any time soon unless forced to.
That being said, asking individuals to take steps to reduce climate change isn’t an unreasonable thing in my eyes. Because, until corporations are held accountable, asking individuals is the only thing that can possibly improve the situation. Even though it’s like throwing a cup of water on a forest fire.
The second that Amazon, Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Coke, Pepsi, et al are forced to do their part, I will start throwing my trash out the window again like a proper American. Until then, I’m gonna recycle and encourage my friends and family to do so as well.
Because, until corporations are held accountable, asking individuals is the only thing that can possibly improve the situation. Even though it’s like throwing a cup of water on a forest fire.
Nice sum up.
If climate change becomes bad enough, you WILL be changing your lifestyle.
Mad Max or Waterworld?
It’s fair to ask companies and politicians first.
Companies will pass costs onto consumers anyway, so best to make them all bear the same costs and be on a level playing field. No point targeting consumers directly unless it’s greenwashing.
My city banned plastic bags a year ago. I’m still using ones from 2-3 years ago. The bags that replaced them are advertised as more “reusable” but use like 5-10x more plastic per bag and I doubt I’m going to even get double the longevity. Really feels like they did it to benefit the fossil fuel merchants of death, and not reduce plastic at all… especially considering everything else is still wrapped in single use plastic.
be on a level playing field.
No individual is at a level playing field as a multinational corporation. Regulate costs away from consumers.
Nothing wrong with asking as long as you’re also willing to accept no as an answer. If you’re going to attact them for refusing, then it wasn’t really a question in the first place but rather a demand masked as one.
Also, I’m not sure if this is the correct community to ask this.
Is it fair to ask literally everyone to die so that you can enjoy unnecessary luxuries?
Come on now…some of those people will be worse than dead.
Ever seen the hair styles in the 80’s? They don’t make hairspray like they used to. That’s a nostalgic /s….
If only international companies who produce the most issues for the climate made significant changes to their business first.
We should all “play our part”. But assuming everyone in the world got rid of their cars and solely relied on bicycles, for example, how much impact would that really have? Compared to huge lorries on the road and shipping companies burning bunker oil?
the problem with blaming companies is none of them do this out of desire to hurt the environment. they do it to meet customer demand.
as an example imagine if we all stopped buying gas from Shell. their environmental impact would plummet…and their competitors impact would go up as we continue to buy the same amount of gas from other companies
they do it to meet customer demand.
No, they do it to increase profit.
Companies only do things for their bottom line, not for customer demand. Also, if nobody would buy gas from Shell anymore, their gas stations would just have to be rebranded to something else. Behind the scenes the oil companies are all trading with each other.
It would have a massive effect. Transport (car) emissions are one of the larger - and growing - sources of emissions.
And we can’t hide behind “But the corporations…” because ultimately what they produce gets used by us.
So to answer your question: riding a bike when Global Capital wants you to keep buying cars and pumping oil into them is one of the best acts of defiance you can make
It would have a massive effect. Transport (car) emissions are one of the larger - and growing - sources of emissions.
I call that bullshit. Newer ICE cars are more efficient and EVs are all the rage now… and you’re claming cars are larger sources? Compared to trucks? Container ships? Diesel trains? Airplanes? For real?!
The bikes would still be shipped from india because it’s cheaper. So the OPs question stays the same. Would you be willing to buy a bike that’s 3 times the price because it’s been built locally. Statistics show that most people wouldn’t. So no, most people wouldn’t change their lifestyle to combat climate change. Should they? Obviously, since living a modest life is better than burning alive or drowning. Although in all fairness, people might be more willing to spend money to combat climate change if corpocrats wouldn’t be gobbling up every bit of wealth like fucking ghouls.
