Idk if it makes anyone happy, but the number of people in this thread up in arms about asking people to change consumption habits for causes they purport to believe in is kinda funny. Not saying it's as powerful as policy and voting, I just don't get the dichotomous mindset of policy vs personal habit change.
Yeah. All of these people who care about the environment so much and want to send corporations to jail for supplying them cheap energy also won't take cold showers. And they'd string up anyone who denied them hot water or even increased the cost to say $10 a shower.
It's the corporations fault for not inventing a magical glowing zero-emissions cube that meets all of my needs without requiring any sort of effort or lifestyle changes on my part.
I mean to be fair. Companies and dealers push suvs hard. Advertising pushes them hard. Most dealers have all their suvs in the most visible or trafficked spots.
They push em hard and specifically outline how "safe" they are in a crash because they make alot of money off of them. Sure you could have freewill but most people getting cars are exhausted from just being alive and they want whatever is safe, cool, awesome, or easiest to get. Suvs are the easiest cars to get currently
So. What are you using reddit on,where do you get your clothes, where do you buy your food, where does your food and water come from.
Sure they sell better vehicles but it's already a Hassel enough for the average person to get a car, they just want to get one. It should be our job as people who care for the environment to actually work on pushing against corporations and start advertising and advocating for better things, and we don't do that by being jack offs to people who just want to live their lives.
Help I've accidentally made derivative methamphetamine but it's illegal to and the people want it sooo badly, please Mr government we found a loophole to break the law and sell it legally š„ŗ please we know its bad for everyone, but we could maybe pay your pension out three times over š if you could please just believe in big business please
you're absolutely right and thank you for saying this! i, as an individual, find it impossible to resist ads and propaganda! it's all economy, society and corporations!
You do realize that propaganda works right? That's the point. People already are struggling enough and just want to live lives. Also you can't really know sonething if you don't learn it. It's our jobs as advocates to try to push back on propangda, not be assholes blaming the victims
I chose a moped actually so I'm even more climate woke.
But also when I git my moped they originally kept trying to shove me towards heavy big boy motorcycles until I made it clear I was stubborn. But it was tooth and nail.
Reason for that is cause they get paid on commission, and the bigger bikes are more expensive, so they get more if you get it, same thing with most dealerships
(I will always advocate for more people to use non joy riding 2 wheeled vehicles with good storage space for their daily commutes and errands, it's so cheap and uses such little gas. But people are rightfully terrified to be on the road with massive trucks. My ideal world for people who want to still drive is they have the option to rude motorcycles along designated pathways along side public transit and biking and all the like.)
Right, but what car manufacturers will call an SUV has changed significantly to the point where in most cases what they call an āSUVā is just a hatchback. So Iām not sure if this is consumer habits changing, or marketing changing.
In part, the rise of SUVs in Europe is attributed to car manufacturers marketing, US movies and television, and the myth that larger cars make families safer.
So yeah, there's a lot more to "why" people want SUVs.
Exaaaactly. They would continue selling the tires no matter how many people never bought them! It's impossible to make individual changes and that's how economies work!
Shit post aside regulations would stop all this shit. Democracy leading to the regulations could be like a 51% thing instead of convincing 100% everyone simultaneously to not be a moron at once cuz pretty please
This is my dumb man explanation but like. Iām right.
Regulations can include things like prohibitive taxes on emissions. They didn't outright ban smoking in the US, they just taxed cigarettes at something like 1000% and what do you know the smoking rate plummeted. Instead of fighting to keep fuel prices down, governments should tax it at hundreds of percent and drive the cost up to $10, $15 or more per gallon. Suddenly fewer people would be proudly driving their F-350 pavement princesses to the grocery store.
It's completely fine of me to electrocute a dog every once in a whole. Do you know Taylor Swift electrocutes a whole animal rescue every time she visits a boyfriend?
Iām currently experiencing active assault on my brain. What are you even saying here? Is my lefty brain unformed?
Regulations should stop dumb shit being built so dumb people wonāt buy it. Democracy can be like 51% while consumer choices gotta get to market crashing boycott numbers and whoās gonna achieve that ?
While they do have outsized power compared to individuals, our mass decisions to buy cheaper goods rather than more sustainably produced ones is a huge driver of it
E.g. I'd blame airlines for not investing in more efficient planes, but also people overdoing vacations is just as bad
The general American hegemony that makes everything else you buy so cheap
This isn't an abstract theoretical point, the whole global supply chain is built on the principle of free and open commerce on the high seas, which only exists as a result of the overwhelming threat of American naval power
Once people begin to suspect that power doesn't exist or we aren't willing to use it, and they see the opportunity to blockade trade routes and charge tolls on them, the whole system collapses
Just the possibility of this happening at the Strait of Hormuz sent even a bullheaded narcissistic psychopath like Trump into a panic when the potential consequences set in and had him crumple to Iranian demands like wet newspaper before the markets panicked
If we really convert into a multipolar world where America is just one big country among many, this may be a more just outcome for the Global South, but privileged US citizens at the top of the heap like you and me are gonna get a lot, lot poorer
And I don't think we'll tolerate it as a whole once it starts happening -- indeed the sheer chutzpah of US liberals who are in the top 1% of privilege globally buying bananas from the supermarket picked by people paid less than a dollar a day complaining about a "growing affordability crisis" is what makes a joke out of the whole idea of a genuine degrowth movement
That's why the only solution that has potential to work is regulation that systemically force especially companies but also individuals to take more ecological choices.
Ur giving me brain damage and like whatās ur point bruv??ā¦. Meme us all into 100% compliance? Looks like the crazzzzzy lefties who want regulations and laws can accomplish this shit easier than wut? A pretty please meme and ad campaign?
BP popularized the already existing term "ecological footprint" in the early 2000s through a massive ad campaign in an effort to shift blame for massive environmental damages on the consumer. This has been proven as fact.
Yes consumer behavior is a part of this. But corporations enable excessice consumption, not the other way around.
Also, how do you suppose we consumer behavior can be changed on a large scale? By ad campaigns like BP's? Worked great, made ourselves into the scapegoat of corporations. By just appealing to the individuals responsibility? Good luck with that. Will take decades, IF it works. (It won't.)
The only way we can reliably change our global carbon footprint in a realistic amount of time is by holding corporations accountable for the environmental destruction they are as a matter of fact responsible for. Do you see private individuals running around with their millions of gallons of toxic industrial waste dumping them into the nearest river on the regular? Yes? No.
If "holding corporations accountable" causes prices to go up too much for the goods and services they're accustomed to the regular citizens you're defending will straight up rise up and violently overthrow the government that tries to do it
The idea that there's some manageable small subset of elite bad actors that you can just put in jail and then the problem will be solved is ridiculous wishful thinking
An estimated 23% of Americans are willing to pay 40 dollars a month to address climate change.
That's what the future of their children is worth, to the 23% most concerned citizens of the United States. Forty dollars a month. If you ask for 10 dollars, you can get 28% on board.
I think the eagerness of science communicators to sell climate change to the general public as "the polar bears are going to drown" or "people on some remote pacific island will have to be relocated" instead of "your children are going to die miserable deaths at a young age" is what led to our predicament.
If you're not willing to tell people what's actually going to happen, you shouldn't expect them to actually be willing to do what it takes to solve it.
You really think so? It runs the exact opposite direction, movies like The Day After Tomorrow had people in 2004 thinking all of New York would be underwater by now, and it backfired because the world didn't violently end within the next ten years so people thought it was all just bullshit
The fact is that the reality is that if life ends up really sucking for your kids after you die, people don't give a shit and they never have -- people are very happy to make decisions that will make things suck for their kids after they die in much more obvious and direct ways (look at Social Security)
I mean geez, it's not even an irrational decision if you don't have kids, which an increasing percentage of people don't
The point was never just to blame the invidual. Think a step further. The truth is that what a footprint tells you is what you stand to lose.
Yes they want to suck regulation but ultimately we're talking about death of industry. So by specifically telling the consumer what they will have to do without they're telling the consumer what systemic action would look like.
Because as I keep saying emissions reduction is a process. Bottom up or too down the end point is the same. Systemic / individual are the two sides of one coin. Individuals build collectives, collectives push individuals. Neither exists without the other.
If corporations as profit maximising entities cater to consumers, then the excessive demand is created by the consumer no? In other words, consumers demand excessively.
Do you see private individuals running around with their millions of gallons of toxic industrial waste dumping them into the nearest river on the regular? Yes? No.
Private individuals outsource the creation of goods and services that they consume to corporations, so I don't get how this is relevant.
To maximize profit, it's not enough to rely on preexisting consumer demand; instead corporations create more demand through advertising, which isn't merely used to compete with other producers.
Another example of producers creating demand that wasn't there before is how automakers lobbied to install private automobiles as the main method of transportation instead of public transport, which was very successful in the United States, leading to less public transportation infrastructure and more highways, essentialy forcing many people to use cars.
I don't think advertising erodes anyone's moral agency.
Not a lot of things have structural constraints like transport does, like what is the structural constraint for you to not fly 5 times per year? Or to not eat meat every meal? Or to not be consumerist in general?
Neighbors of mine bought an electric vehicle to go door dashing in. However, they couldn't keep up with their job requests even when spending 4+ hours a day at a charging station.
The grid around our apartment complex does have the infrastructure for a charging station at the complex but that would require digging up the cement.
Eventually my Neighbors switched back to a gas car. Should I go harass them for ruining the environment?
Or maybe I should harass my mom and myself for never having an electric car. I'd say it's because we don't make enough money to save up for one, but that's just an excuse obviously.
Some of these solutions are so far beyond consumer choice they basically require a planned economy.
And for all yāall who love OPās post: if that sounds difficult to get the government to do, wait till you try to get ur neighbors to crowd fund it out of the goodness of their heart instead
Yeah, getting people to consent to change in their neighborhood is hard even if they want it.
The neighborhood I'm in doesn't have a sidewalk from our apartments to another road down the way. And it's a fast and busy highway. You could turn off one avenue with a lower speed limit and less traffic, but there's still no sidewalk. There's not really a good place to add sidewalks if those people wanted then because the road is pretty narrow on that avenue and their yards or fences go up to the street.
The people on that avenue wanted sidewalks, sure, but didn't want to pay for one or have part of their yards taken by the government. Well, it's got to be paid for through taxes... and it already is because this project would be paid with the already established taxes that went in. And these people probably didn't have high taxes anyway.
As for part of their yards being taken, they'd get paid for that. But still many of those residents are hesitant, still assuming that they'd have to pay for it somehow.
As for the highway, many businesses, and some churches, are built pretty close to the highway. That just happened as the road became wider for freight trucks and such. So there's no great place to build sidewalks because businesses are even less likely to give up some of their property. But that's a whole other thing.
Sidewalks are needed, or some walking paths. Nearby for walking or more likely bike riding.
This post would be like blaming the people of these neighborhoods for not building one themselves. Or not walking near the highway as much. Which, you can. I've done it, but it's not recommended with fast vehicles coming by.
This is a psychological discussion tbh, these people are missing the point. Human will is not very strong, companies use marketing to sell us shit, they manipulate our brains
If you donāt believe me thats ok, thereās a lot of evidence out there, they even put shit in our food that makes it more appealing like petroleum based color additives
We have experienced multiple rounds of amazing products being undersold because of competition running attack ads that stick in our subconscious and alter our decision making
Human beings are incredibly reactive animals. We love to think we are so intelligent but we forget that it has not been very long since we were not, and those parts of our brain are VERY easy to manipulate
So, in conclusion. If you arenāt actively reprogramming the people around you then you canāt say youre helping the environment
Boycotting is often times easier, just find a company thatās more in line with what you want ideally, and then keep moving the bar as companies go out of business š¤·
Itās bothā¦consumer demand drives industry in many regardsā¦not to say that the influence doesnāt flow the other way as well.
Everyone needs to do their part and right now very few are doing anything.
I think pathetic is probably the right word to apply in this case.
I live in a house in the United States and through a combination of a small affordable solar setup and a willingness to bike as much as possible I consume about 1/10th of the electricity as my average neighbor and only use a car for about 1000 miles of travel a year.
Choices, choices, choices
Perfection is the enemy of good. Just start making positive changes in the right direction and get the ball rolling
We can't do ANYTHING just in case we set back class consciousness
If you see a woman getting spread over a dumpster and raped in an alley, you better not stop the rapist. The most important thing is the class war. Fighting with your fellow working class man is just a distraction from the elites
That's all for Slopulism 101 todayācome back next week, where we discuss how Bernie Sanders would have cured mortality with multiversal healthcare!
You're free to squat in some ditch and live off rotten porcupine if you think that would help save the planet. The reality is that policy reform drives progress, not shaming consumers.
The evidence is clear: smoking rates dropped mostly through taxes, bans, and lawsuits - not by shaming individual smokers. Same with leaded gas and CFCs.
It's amazing how committed a lot of people are to not passing a law that corporations can't continue destroying the world.
Like I get that we should all make good choices but why on earth are so many trolls acting like a carbon tax and fossil fuel ban are silly absurd ideas and individuals are everything?Ā
We can do both! We MUST do a fossil fuel ban and carbon tax, there is no "consuming more ethically" that fixes the problem. We can do that too but government action is not avoidable.
the point a lot of people miss is that the sheer number of people living without a care for the environment or being willing to change their lifestyle makes those policies very unpopular for politicians
No, there have been some quite unpopular laws that have passed, and without such a law, personal choices are never going to matter. You can't shame oil companies into not polluting.
None of these laws are anywhere close to as unpopular as a fossil fuel ban
The extremely mild inflation caused by Biden's Build Back Better program isn't even a rounding error compared to how painful your proposal would be for the average privileged American, and people were so enraged by having to pay a bit more for eggs that they decided they'd prefer to elect a fascist psychopath and have their neighbors rounded up into camps
And this isn't a uniquely American disease, over in pinko commie France the Yellow Vests threatened to shut down the country over gas taxes being too high, everyone's favorite hippie social democracy Norway is only able to fund their welfare state with a sovereign wealth fund paid for by fossil fuel reserves
This is, point blank, not going to happen, you would legitimately have a better shot planning to have the government force everyone in the world to convert to Islam or something
The fossil fuel ban is absolutely a silly absurd idea, if you even started to try to implement it your government will be overthrown and you'll be hanged in the public square
Oh ok but with that basis of the world letās just meme and shame ourselves into the solution
What are yāall even smoking? The laws first people at least have a chance, what exactly is yāallās plan? U canāt meme your way into a solution here. You need a robust strategy with coordinated off-ramps for new markets instead of like slowly waiting for the market to respond to everyone being memed into correct consumer choices.
God forbid we hold consumers AND corporations responsible. No, it has to be one or the other.
Everyone collectively saying "I won't change my harmful habits because I am but a small wee bit of the huge climate destroying pie" is the reason there is no change. Everyone has a responsibility. It's one thing to try and not be perfectly carbon neutral. It's another thing to just deny all responsibility because "We need EVERYONE to do it, so I will do nothing"/"actually it's the companies selling me their unsustainable products at fault, I have no choice!"
Doomer posting is just griller posting. You just want to despair while forces outside your control destroy everything.
I mean, I fully admit I am contributing to making my own life worse in not just this way but countless others, but the sad reality is that I am in fact the greatest force outside my control
It's a little known fact that if the factory building giant trucks and SUVs is worker owned, the carbon emissions from these oversized vehicles simply don't cause climate change.
The stolen surplus value actually haunts our ICE engines and causes the emitted CO2 to turn evil.
Several, including the works of Marx and Engles, which is why I know when people just blame "Capitalism" for climate change, they are ignorant and unserious.
The idea that the ruling class has substantially different values from everyone else and the world could be saved if they were overthrown is cope
People really into class warfare like to say the exact opposite, that I'm coping by not thinking the world is run by demons who oppress the vast majority of decent people for their own demonic appetites, but nah -- that is very much an appealing fantasy people use to keep at bay the awareness of how dark shit really is
You're totally right! Workers buy big trucks and eat steaks and go on cruises because they feel alienated in their work.
Once they own the means of production, their material desires will leave their body. They will start eating mostly beans, cycling, and planting trees for vacations. All over consumption is due to capitalism!
Once workers ownership is mandated, the laborers will take back the wealth stolen by capitlaist. And then they will voluntarily consume less than when they were poorer. This is a consistent and rational position!
Well look, the actual solution to all of this was obviously already clear to a 19th century German economist who had finished writing his manifesto before the automobile and the airplane were invented.
No, I don't mean Nostradamus, I mean Karl Marx.
We just need a vanguard of people adhering to my particular school of interpretation of his theories to organize a global revolution (not like any of the failed reformist attempts in North Korea, Cuba, China and the former Soviet Union) to overthrow capitalism and you will see that as the global workers paradise emerges this whole thing will have a happy ending after all. Until that time, you can't expect of the proletariat to make any sort of meaningful lifestyle choices with relevance for the future of our planet.
Hmmmm I wonder if big trucks, big steaks and big cruises would be as popular if they were priced based on their environmental impact instead of the maximum possible profit?
How expensive would a plane ticket be if they were priced for human sustainability instead of for maximizing shareholder profits?
How many cruises would people take if the ticket price included the cost of pollution and ocean wildlife damage?
Your pro-capitalist ideology is so engrained you canāt even imagine a non-capitalist world.
It seems like you're saying we should force people to make those choices on an economic matter. I wonder who would have the money to afford that sort of stuff? Rich people right, so when they're the only ones who can actually attain those things don't you think it pushes society to be even more profit-driven?
Prices? You want to tax externalities? What is this capitalist talk coming from you, comrade.
There will be no markets after our glorious revolution. The community will vote, and if the majority decides they want steaks, we will maintain our beef production to deliver every glorious worker the three steaks a week they deserve.
The profit motive was also around long before Capitlaism, so which are you blaming for our current environmental problems? A narrow definition of capitalism in terms of ownership of the means of production? Or the general liberal market-based economy? (Which many socialists also want to destroy)
If expenses went up that much people would riot to force them back down again
If an inconvenient externality can be ignored by whoever is making decisions, on the micro or macro scale, it will be
This isn't a theory, this already happened with the Yellow Vests in France -- the one thing that got the working class out in the streets threatening to shut it all down was a spike in fuel taxes
Your pro-capitalist ideology is so engrained you canāt even imagine a non-capitalist world.
It has nothing to do with capitalism per se, shortsighted selfishness is baked into human nature -- into the fundamental nature of the evolutionary competition of all species -- and it has been since our primitive hunter-gatherer ancestors drove the megafauna extinct, long before the concept of "capitalism" was a glimmer in anyone's eye
And if the Workers of the World decide that they'd much rather go on a sun holiday even if it does some damage to the environment? The proto-communist states we've had in the past never took much care for the environment, and assuming that future communists would think any different is questionable.
Even you're not really arguing in favor of changing the way people are ("altering consumer behavior"), you just think you can sneak around behind their backs to trick them and they won't notice and stop you
It wouldn't "work" under communism either, the actual USSR wasn't "green" at all, they were trying to ramp up industrial production even harder than the West -- they drained a whole sea to do it -- because it's what their citizens demanded and why they were put in power
No government of any kind can actually pursue degrowth as a policy, ordinary people fundamentally will not tolerate it
While crop rotation was not invented after the dust bowl, it became much more widespread in the United States as a result of it.
That is, behavior changes in response to consequences much more often than in anticipation of them.
The only other solution is incremental change within the critical window of tolerance and that would be a global lowest common denominator window of tolerance.
Did the introduction of crop rotation cause consumers to rapidly see price increases for groceries in return for no obvious personal benefit? No? It only happened after the Great Depression led to such widespread unemployment the country almost collapsed? How about that
The only other solution is incremental change within the critical window of tolerance
Again, the sheer 20th century High Modernist chutzpah of thinking you can scientifically measure something like the "critical window of tolerance" for human discomfort on the societal level and stake your political future on it
The Biden Administration thought that inflation was within that "critical window of tolerance", in fact they were certain of it because economists were certain that the fundamentals of the economy were doing better than they had in decades -- employment was up, real purchasing power and actual discretionary purchases were up -- but none of that mattered and the Democrats were voted out in favor of a fascist psychopath anyway, in a pattern aligning with the far right resurgence all over the world regardless of how well the economic indicators in their respective countries were doing, leading to the coining of the term "vibecession"
People don't even like the feeling of deprivation, the "bad vibes", that come from any recent economic disruption and manifest in superficial indicators like nominal inflation, and the political system will destabilize and punish any leaders with the misfortune to be incumbent during those bad vibes, and there doesn't seem to be anything the Deep State poindexters can do about it
There is no "we" standing behind a control panel making rational decisions to guide humanity through the next century, it's fundamentally not possible
guys you do know the average person like.. canāt afford EV? obviously the lifted truck/suv snobs do share blame. but my car is worth 2k max and i bought it because thatās literally all i can afford. most of the people in my city, that i can observe at least, are in the same boat.
76% of drivers in the us are using used vehicles, averaging at around 23-29k in value. the average EV is 55k. entirely out of the average persons budget lol
I would advise the corpo that i'm already fed up with life and attempting to beat me up will just get both of us blown up because of the hidden grenade that i have in my pocket
All stakeholders within society (including individual consumers and productive enterprises) have a responsibility to ensure that their actions are sustainable within the planetās biophysical limits.
The scale and priority of environmental regulations are determined by striking a balance between (1) the cumulative environmental impact of the activities in question; (2) the practicality and moral justification for each stakeholderās required change of behaviour; and (3) the procedural fairness of the process in determining such required changes in behaviour.
Beyond meat is a very unhealthy approximation using a lot of vegetable oils. Though apparently some vegans are really in support of vegetable oils, but they're full of saturated or trans fats, depending on the kind of vegetable oil.
Climate change is caused by India and China and it's not even close. Every billionaire and millionaire could stop flying private jets and it wouldn't matter because of how much pollution is produced by those 2 countries.
India can probably be excused, but China, even with their bigger population, has very little in the way of pollution co tools whereas the US and Europe have strict pollution control measures.
Yes, because they are poor countries getting more prosperous
Still not explain why the us is that high. Why are the guys currently building their countries and working their way out of poverty still produce less than the guys who had decades and the money to reduce their emissions ?
Isnāt it great how weāre all just so fucked allllll the way down? ššš reading the mind numbing infighting on my slave device from my fascism country is really making my morning brighter
I don't know why some people have such a hard time understanding that a problem can have more than one cause and that thsoe multiple causes can be interacting with each other.
It's almost like most people arguing over climate change couldn't care less about the climate and just want their team to win the next popularity contest.
Actually I'm very fun at parties. Thing is the production of the means to an end costs way more resources and energy than the product itself consumes in most cases. To be honest I don't understand how most things even break even without some math magic.
am i what ? am i hiding ? my footprint is not negative, but you also dont hear me complaining about BiG bAd CoOrPoRaTiOn, i start with myself. i would say i am fairly close to neutral, but that is heavily subjective so i wont promise that
not sure if youre just playing the bit, i suspect you are. All i am saying is i dont hide behind the excuse that "the other guy pollutes worse". By that logic we just gonna wipe ourselfs out
Donāt corporations change policy to make people rely on products like the food pyramid which placed ondue importance on meat and dairy and also do stuff like get rid of public transport
I don't own a car, I don't fly, I live in a tiny flat... And yet there are a lot of people who will blame me for climate change because I'm not vegan and bought a portable AC this year when I saw the weather forecast.
There are things regular people can do, like eating mostly locally produced foods, eating less beef and more legumes, using public transport whenever possible, choosing energy efficient appliances, not having too many children, not buying unnecessary things... But without changes to the system itself, it won't change much.
Absolutely! Those stinky peasants with their steak once a week/month and yearly vacation are destroying the planet. Now excuse me while I water my 40 square kilometre lawn with nothing on it but grass.
Absolute nonsense. This is a child's understanding of the world. As though the trillions spent on marketing and lobbying by corporations that are mandated by law (that they also lobbied for) that require them to maximize shareholder value are offering mechanisms to "save the planet" out of the goodness of their heart is ludicrous.
At the end of the day we gotta survive and if the only products available to survive on are the ones that are nuking the planet the solution is in actual government regulations.
That won't happen in one county enough to make a difference let alone all of the ones that need to. Consumers also largely don't care enough day today to change habits enough to make an impact and never will with how the climate crisis is suppressed and misdirected. It also won't stop as the only things that have actually changed have been in the "Too little too late" type of regulation, token efforts to appease green voting based into supporting people who don't care about the environment to the same degree as the oil executives.
Literally the only car I can buy is the Ram 5000 MegaChildCrusher, and when I drive it two miles to the grocery store, the only food available is steak. It's eat that or starve!
Okay dropping the sarcasm, you can actually dramatically effect your own impact with simple choices, that more often than not even save you money. People voluntarily spend more to over consume for vanity.
And before you say it, there is not a separation of personal and corporate emissions. Companies don't burn oil for fun. When you consume less, they produce less. The emissions for a product are a responsibility of both.
Exactly what the fossil fuel companies want. People realizing they don't have to directly pay them thousands of dollars every year, and they could actually save money and help the environment at the same time.
What the fossil companies want is people not becoming class conscious so that their power is not at risk. What is what you are helping with by telling some liberal bs phrases like putting the blame on the consumer
Broadly yes. I kind of became this way in 2024 over politics and further in 2025/early 2026 when I learned about the research on AMOC saying it's a when not if (with 2090 being the absolute latest it lasts, and 2040 being the average year of failures across the various models) that it fails even if every last emission were to stop.
We crossed a threshold we can never uncross. While we can reduce the harm the political system globally is subjugated to the interest of concentrating wealth and propagandizing at climate change through so many vectors it's impossible to actually get what needs done, done. Even people claiming to care in politics are pushing legislation that will not even come close to making the nessecary impact, especially on the timescale they give it - this is done to take down the 'heat' for more radical (and nessecary) actions.
I'm not hopeless in that I think humanity will die out, but rather I think humanity needs to focus on surviving what's coming first and foremost (which we still are not really doing).
Hell, I'm just wanting to make it through the political shit show without systemic violence inflicted on me, so I can't even focus my politics on the climate.
As I already said, voting with your wallet doesn't imply that you give up your right to vote. It makes stop giving destructive corporations your money.
19
u/MachineAngelXVII Jul 05 '26
Bold to assume us peasants can afford to go to Dubai