Removed by mod
one comment that came up in the context of yet another of the Blizzard scandals – “You, as an individual, boycotting Blizzard will have no noticeable effect on their bottom line, BUT it will have far more of an effect on your ability to live with yourself.”
Removed by mod
People doing something SHOULD feel good, because they are trying, even if it fails, if that’s a ‘cope’ than whatever. Would you rather the world burn and everyone still be a dick?
i think we should organize better to have actual impact as a group.
we are many and they are a few, the idiots in the middle can always be swayed to the side of truth.
Removed by mod
I didn’t say they should do things because they feel good, but it’s natural to feel good if you’ve done something that helps others. My mom drilled it in my head well, that we do what’s right because it’s the right thing to do, not for any reward even praise or celebrity or whatever.
Yes, we can; and we do it by achieving the power to set the rules of society so that people do the right thing by default, whether or not they care
Removed by mod
This depends a lot upon which country.
The path to power in some is indeed determined by elections. Not all, and some countries are mixed, like the US, where gerrymandering limits the impact of elections in large areas
We can’t fix it. We have no power. … There’s no point in any of it. Capitalism won. Greed won. The poorly educated won.
Developed countries are getting more of their power from renewables every year. Solar and wind are now more cost effective than fossil fuels for bulk generation. The US has lowered its GHG emissions 3% by reducing dependence on coal this year.
Most importantly, policies that encourage renewable use are coming into effect. The next few years should see gradual declines in GHG output.
It’s over.
There is no “over”. As long as we keep emitting, we need to cut back. We’ll find a sustainable level eventually - it’s only a question of when.
Removed by mod
There’s no need to be harmful, if you’ve given up you don’t need to encourage others to do the same. But as others have said it’s far from over, we are only still able to fight because so many of us are trying to do something. If we had no ability to change anything, the capitalists wouldn’t work so hard to keep us sequestered and depressed.
Removed by mod
How can you say objectively people have done nothing? There is no control to base such a statement on, there is no way to know where we would be as a society without people doing the things they have done. Related to climate, without any fights for protections where do you think levels of industrial pollution would be today? If you see no progress at all maybe your time frame is too limited.
What do you even think my values are? I saw another comment of yours says we should do what is right because it’s what’s right, not because it’s what feels good. I agree with that sentiment, I don’t think our values are so different but I don’t know. Even if we are defeated and climate collapse and global authoritarian tyranny or whatever hellscape is inevitable at this point, what else do we have to do? I would rather know I did what I could than give up too soon.
Actually very good point and excellent use of the word sequestered
If we win this, it’ll be due to the effort of people like you making that sacrifice, so thank you.
I saw an research years ago saying that donating for a ngo or militating politically in a party was more effective than recycling or going vegetarian. This issue would not be fixed individually as neo liberalism tries to sell to us, we have to make big polluters accountable and also, transitioning to green energy is expensive, only governments and big companies can do it
Hey! You’re just like me! A vegetarian with a minimalist lifestyle! It might not help the planet much, but it certainly helps my bank account. I own a house and have 6 figures in savings while most people my age are still paying off student loans.
Consumerism and living in constant debt are just too normalized. The very idea of companies like uber eats blows my mind, and yet it’s a successful company. Not only are you going to pay a lot of money for something you could make yourself for very little, but you’re also going to pay even more for someone to bring it to you when getting it yourself is essentially free?? I’m not being cheap, I’m being efficient! How many companies need to be put in-between you and eating food?
You can’t expect to fix systemic problems with individual action. But you can hope to. Hope is a powerful motivator even if it is not necessarily rational. We rarely run on logic, usually action is spurred by our emotions.
Accepting defeat is counterproductive. Progress is made by people being willing to fight for their ideas whether in a metaphorical or a real sense. People died to fight for a 40 hour work week. People died to fight against slavery. People died to fight for democracy and free speech.
Or more accurately, they were and continue to be killed (sacrificed) in an attempt to uphold the status quo.
I feel many people are so far removed from the consequences of their actions that they act irresponsibly. Hiding behind the wall of “it’s massive corporations not me” is so infuriating to me because things will never get better if people keep being passive as opposed to proactive. Try going vegan, try driving less, try attending a climate protest. Make some fucking noise. Shits getting worse, where’s your fucking anger?
i pay taxes and have been paying them for a long time, why isn’t this history already?
i pay so that things happen for society
That’s what you think taxes are for? Taxes are so we can bomb children to pieces in the Middle East, not for improving the country.
Just show the people who don’t care the study that says the pollution is making their dicks smaller. They may not care about the environment, but they certainly care about their tiny dicks.
Okay, but what if they are lesbian or into tiny dicks or suffer from big dick syndrome (asking for a friend)
I haven’t read the author’s book, but I think her position in the article still misses the mark and is naively dangerous, having us all just look at the flowers and embrace market solutions while we collapse the biosphere at stunning pace.
Honestly I’m not seeing any ‘solutions’ that are on a timeline relevant to the crisis. But I think any first step will have us coming to terms with climate change not being the problem, but a symptom of our economic system and our relationship to the environment. We’re going to have to reorient away from growth, because that growth is literally consuming the biophysical basis of our own existence.
Large-scale solutions aside, I think we’re going to start seeing a growing desire in people to somehow ‘exit’ this system. I know I feel it in myself, deep in my bones, and it pisses me off to no end that I’m forced into destructive behavior because of the system I’m trapped in. All this waste, plastic and destruction just to exist each day, and I’m not even having a good time! If anyone has made some progress in this area I would love to hear about it. I imagine it must start with some rejection of what the market ‘values’, choosing not to participate in this whole game that is making us miserable, and somehow trade material wealth for greater awareness and connection to our humanity. If Elon and Jeff want it all, they can fucking have it, I just want out of this nightmare and to find peace with nature somehow.
What’s key, and you can incorporate data into this, is trying to build a narrative for people which is positive in terms of its future outlook. It’s: “This is the world we can build. We can address climate change alongside other issues. It’s not going to cost you a ton of money. It might save you money. We’ll have cleaner air. We’ll have more energy security.” Which is more appealing than “We’re all going to die from climate change.”
That certainly sounds more persuasive to me.
It’s a good article about how advocating for the non-climate benefits of climate solutions might get one further than using the climate argument again.
I like, but also chuckled at this passage.:
What is the appropriate response from the scientific community? To cede the political discussion to nonscientists?
What scientists are often not that good at is explaining to the layman what this actually means for them. You have temperature targets of 1.5 degrees or two degrees. We need to explain in clear language what that means for the average person.
What does a world at two degrees of warming look like?
It is a hard question to answer
Removed by mod
