>100 companies producing 71% of emissions to sell us products that we continue to buy
And they could in most cases produce those goods with a more ecological process, but since that requires reducing profit at least in the short term, it won't ever get done without regulation. Which requires political action.
I agree in general with "consumerism needs to also be reduced" but that's just way down stream from the most impactful things conscientious actors can do. Like those prices would reduce consumerism, and I'd rather have complaints about not being able to afford the new iphone than boiling oceans. I still think there's plenty of space to trim in the profit section of the pie before we increase cost.
I never didn't agree with personal action is important, paper straws good technically, all that good stuff, sure. Just mostly negligible vs political action in a perfectly democratic world.
All I meant to get at is that like per "dollar" of effort spent, you get by far the best return on political action. Personal changes are just nowhere near as efficient. Not taking airplanes vs getting a climate conscious politician elected locally quantified would surely demonstrate that? Again though I'm no climate scientist and I'm mostly talking from my ass and a few books about climate.
I didn't get into the rest of the debate here but this is how I see it: we are the government, we are the companies, and obviously we are the consumers who drive the economy and vote for the government. We all wear different hats at different times, but these things are the embodiment of the collective will of the people. They are the clearest demonstration that we are doing nothing about it and will continue to do nothing about it. We are collectively stupid and selfish.
You can pretend that you can vote for a government that will put in place solutions for climate change, and then wash your hands of the problem. But you're kidding yourself. How would that work? Let's say the green party weren't completely fucking clueless and had policies that would actually work. They'd be banning frivolous air travel, implementing strict personal carbon budgets, shifting complete away from fossil fuels on an aggressive timeline, updating building codes to ensure that all new buildings were carbon negative, banning shit left, right and center. Are you going to vote for them? The hell you are. You would effectively be voting to enforce the lifestyle that you think I'm ker-razy for voluntarily adopting. Even though the Green Party's policies right now are milquetoast, still nobody votes for them.
I'm doing the only thing I can do. You might say that my individual contribution is negligible. You'd be right. But climate change is just the collective impact of a few hundred million people who, just like me, who are in the top x% in terms CO² emissions.
Here's the thing: I always vote for whatever party that leans towards climate action. Usually that means: absolutely nothing. They're all shit. Even if the fantasy political party did exist, and I was happy to vote for those changes (which I would!) my vote would be worth noting in the grand scheme of things because they'd get less than 1% of the vote. And whereas you tell me that my personal CO² reductions are worthless, and my vote is not, it's precisely the opposite. Every kg of CO² that I curb is literally good, but every wasted vote that has it's effective value wiped out in an election is worth literally nothing.
The fact is, I'm far, far happier giving up a luxury lifestyle that was unimaginable two generations ago. Is it really such a huge thing to give up meat? Or flying? Nope. Anyway, if things get as bad as I think they'll get during my lifetime, then I consider my current (comfortable) lifestyle "practice for the real thing when it happens".
And they could in most cases produce those goods with a more ecological process, but since that requires reducing profit at least in the short term, it won't ever get done without regulation. Which requires political action.
I agree in general with "consumerism needs to also be reduced" but that's just way down stream from the most impactful things conscientious actors can do. Like those prices would reduce consumerism, and I'd rather have complaints about not being able to afford the new iphone than boiling oceans. I still think there's plenty of space to trim in the profit section of the pie before we increase cost.
I never didn't agree with personal action is important, paper straws good technically, all that good stuff, sure. Just mostly negligible vs political action in a perfectly democratic world.
All I meant to get at is that like per "dollar" of effort spent, you get by far the best return on political action. Personal changes are just nowhere near as efficient. Not taking airplanes vs getting a climate conscious politician elected locally quantified would surely demonstrate that? Again though I'm no climate scientist and I'm mostly talking from my ass and a few books about climate.