It’s not systemic vs individual. It’s both.
Unless you believe politicians will ever tax and remove subsidies from meat. I’m not holding my breath for that one.
On the one hand, I could stop buying yogurt in a disposable plastic cup. On the other, I could shut down the factory that makes yogurt in disposable plastic cups.
These two things are of equal importance and have the same effect.
I’m very smart and haven’t been psyoped.
Systemic? You mean corporations, specific nameable corporations, not some amorphous system.
yes, specific corporations need to change, but they will not change until they are forced to by the system
Not necessarily. I, for one, mostly (i.e. at least a little bit >50%) blame the deliberately-low-density zoning code and early FHA policy (e.g. redlining and deliberately recommending car-centric development patterns).
Did Standard Oil and General Motors have a huge influence? Sure, but they didn’t literally pass the laws.
Alright, lets get rid of gasoline and meat on a systemic level.
This is a false dichotomy.
You don’t need to all or nothing these.
You can greatly regulate the use of gasoline and provide viable alternatives (bike lanes, public transport, electric vehicles) that don’t disrupt society in the same way we can reduce meat consumption or use far more sustainable agriculture practices (less factory farming and more permaculture practices).
Yes this will result in things being more expensive and ‘line not going up’ as fast.
I agree completely, which is why I’m a very strong proponent of sustainable urbanism and sustainable agriculture. Only thing I’ll add is that reducing our car-dependent suburban sprawl will actually be good for the economy, not just the environment. Not only does the housing crisis knee-cap the economy (and the housing crisis is largely a consequence of our pursuit of car-dependent suburban sprawl), but car-dependent suburban sprawl is a fiscally unsustainable ponzi scheme. Building denser, more walkable and transit-oriented cities would save money, stymie the housing crisis, reduce inequality, and reduce emissions.
A plant based diet can reduce 75% of land use and cut 14.5% of emissions, then the freed up land can be used for rewilding.
So we really should go all out on ending meat consumption.
Going 0-100 is impossible. You need to find a compromise that people will actually agree with in a democracy.
If people democratically vote for extinction, it should at least be clearly stated on a ballot, on all ballots, on all receipts, on everything. (Democracy requires informed participants, it’s not optional)
We can tax them into oblivion. Or at least stop subsidizing them as a start.
Here’s a solution: force all new buildings to use a heat pump for heating and cooling.
Here’s another: tax all private jet flights $2000 per trip
Think you missed a couple of zeroes off that tax number buddy.
Also heavily tax SUVs, maybe even impose a limitation on having only businesses buying SUVs with special permits justifying the need of one
$2000 per trip
per km
I always assumed it was what was left of us after getting stepped on by the corporate behemoth if it were displeased by our peasant actions.
deleted by creator
The individual carbon footprint is not a red herring, it’s valid way of talking about GHG emissions with numbers.
More importantly, it’s the Fossil Fuel sector reminding you that you’re their bitch.
If you don’t like individual action, no problem, the systemic approach is to ban fossil fuels extraction, production and distribution. You’re OK with that, right?
edit: the generic you, not OP
Why is the B word removed? Is that a Lemmy.world automod or something? I had it happen to me as well, but I can say a million other words that don’t get automatically removed.
Pretty sure that’s a lemmy.ml thing because they are a bunch of pussies lol
Sure, individual changes will not make nearly enough of a statistical difference. Lack of change in response to reality is however, morally abhorrent. Don’t be morally abhorrent 🤷 Maybe your actions will even have an affect on other people, who while also individually don’t make a statistical difference, make more than just you, and also makes fewer people surrounding you less morally abhorrent. You don’t need a bunch of policy makers to tell you what is right and wrong. You’re an adult. Do the right thing.
It’s not about that. It’s about actually trying to solve the problem which we know from hundreds of years of history, almost always has to happen at the governmental level
Yeah, I still make choices in my personal life to try to live as sustainably as is practical, including major choices like career path. But the only solution that will ever actually work to our systemic issues is good policy. Not everyone has the comfort or privilege of being able to choose sustainable options where they can, and there are many cases where there simply is no sustainable option. Groceries at the store? I doubt a “regenerative agriculture” label even exists in the vast majority of places, so good luck choosing the sustainable option there. The alternative might be becoming a homesteader and growing all your own food, but obviously that’s not a solution for 99% of the population. We need policy to make there even be sustainable options in the first place, and more policy to make those sustainable options the preferred choice or maybe even the only choice.
Lack of change in response to reality is however, morally abhorrent. Don’t be morally abhorrent 🤷
Ah, you seem to be quick to judge people to feel better about yourself. I’m sure you also have an arbitrary list of criteria that allows yourself to classify people as “abhorrent”. You’re an adult, start behaving like one.
So you are concerned with climate change but would change nothing about your behavior to respond to it, unless you’re forced to? But also, you probably hope someone does force you? Where’s your agency? I don’t know how to tell you this, but this isn’t me telling you how to live your life, this is me explaining that you don’t even live in accordance with your own values. You are not even being your authentic self. Are you sure you actually care? I’m unconvinced.
You classify humans into “abhorrent” and “not abhorrent”, I think that makes you a hateful and intolerant individual. I didn’t say anything about how I react or not.
So basically, live and let destroy? You hold no one to any moral standard? I don’t have any desire to hate anyone. What I do think however is that we’ve set the moral bar way, way too low in modern society. More importantly, even if I am a hateful person, that does not justify inaction. Your framing this issue around a superiority complex helps this cause zero percent if not negative. It’s definitely less than individual choices.
Shame has value in discourse, especially at it relates to collective concerns for others. You know this. You demonstrated it slightly higher up in the comments by calling me out. You made a judgement yourself. I just think your ‘live and let destroy’ ideas are clearly worse than my ‘you suck if you don’t address climate change’ ideas.
Edit: damn y’all, I guess I don’t tolerate people who behave in a manner that is intolerant of all known conscious life. Me bad. 🤷♂️ I should seek help 🤷♂️
We can all agree here that climate change need some immediate solutions, but you debating in bad faith and using so many manipulation tactics in just a few comments not only harms your credibility, but demonstrates that you don’t actually care about climate change, but to just win an argument. Stop. Get some help
Why is it bad faith? What was manipulative? If you’re making the claim, you should explain.
You have only an uninformed shot at me explaining what essentially you can also find on Google: appeal to morality, hasty generalization (especially on your little funny edit in your second to last comment), false dichotomy, begging the question (the “shame has value in discourse” is your worst example, trying to justify it by a “tu quoque” fallacy). And these are just from a surface level analysis, you don’t want me to do a full one
