• Johem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s nice and all, but we can’t be the solution by spending decisions and word of mouth of positive experiences with sustainable consumption. You semi-acknowledge that, but that’s dangerous. The time for positive gradual change was 20 years ago, it’s time to get nonviolently angry and demand change.

    We need everyone to realize that it’s far from enough to stop using plastic straws or eating less meat. We need fundamental societal and economic change that requires far more than simply adjusting consumption patterns.

    • ebikefolder@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Right, but this “carbon footprint was invented by BP” argument is most often used by people who outright refuse to do their part. Yes, we do need to get angry and demand change. While at the same time reducing our own impact as much as possible.

      Main reason: if our demands will someday be heard, there will no longer be any meat or plastic straws available anyway. Why not get used to living without, now?

      • Johem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It isn’t about getting used to anything or doing your part. Meat and plastic straws are the tip of the iceberg. By focusing on these factors we are constantly failing to address the issue substantially. They are convenient ways to make the problem seem like something that can by solved by a series of small adjustments. As everyone should know by now, that is wrong.

        • ebikefolder@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Of course it’s about getting used to things. I just picked your meat and straw examples but I know there are bigger and more substantial issues. Don’t underestimate the damage done by meat production though: it’s huge.

          Transport is a biggie. Air travel will probably never be sustainable. Time to say good bye. Simply don’t fly unless it’s a question of life and death. Electric cars? No. Those don’t address the right problems. A niche product for niche uses. Pressure for better infrastructure, better zoning, but also buy a bicycle and at least try to not drive everywhere.

          And don’t get me started on fashion.

          There are about 327 more issues. Don’t worry: I am well aware of that.

          • Johem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Saying there are countless issues is another one of those convenient distractions. Of course its complex and there are many factors, but we have one basic issue: greenhouse gases.

            We will not get to carbon neutral(or a global net negative) by slowly getting used to things by word of mouth. Not by signalling through market forces that we are willing to pay for pea protein instead of meat. It has to be political, it has to decisive and radical action at this point. A carbon tax that makes meat much more expensive instead of being subsidized. Completely changing the funding of transportation from being car focused to public transportation focused. And, perhaps most important of all, government oversight and enforcement with teeth that does not shy away from nuking a company with fines if it steps out of line too often.

            All these what YOU can do talk carries the danger of obscuring what needs to be done at a societal and global level.

            • ebikefolder@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Somehow I have the feeling that we are, in fact, on the same page.

              Yes, we need big political and societal changes (how often do I have to repeat that?). But the result will be the abscence of meat and straws and cars and airplanes. And the transition will be much smoother for the individual if he already learned how to not use them even while they are still available and affordable. Affordable in a solely monetary way, don’t get me wrong! They are far from affordable from a ecological point of view.

              By no means I want to obscure any issues or distract from them. On the contrary!

              • Johem@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                In q wq all this is distracting, because there are many, many people who cling to thinking that just doing this or that is already enough. That’s why I call this focus on individual lifestyle choices dangerous. It gives you a psychological out. “I’ve done something, so the problem is out if my hands now,” is a form of complacency I see quite often.

          • Johem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Saying there are countless issues is another one of those convenient distractions. Of course its complex and there are many factors, but we have one basic issue: greenhouse gases.

            We will not get to carbon neutral(or a global net negative) by slowly getting used to things by word of mouth. Not by signalling through market forces that we are willing to pay for pea protein instead of meat. It has to be political, it has to decisive and radical action at this point. A carbon tax that makes meat much more expensive instead of being subsidized. Completely changing the funding of transportation from being car focused to public transportation focused. And, perhaps most important of all, government oversight and enforcement with teeth that does not shy away from nuking a company with fines if it steps out of line too often.

            All these what YOU can do talk carries the danger of obscuring what needs to be done at a societal and global level.

    • unix84@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sure, if you can live that way while still turning the tide, great. It’s still going to take a shift in public opinion.

      I am not going to do anything but reinforce popular resentment towards everything green if I walk around as the angry Asian guy. They already hate me for existing here.

      But if I can convince my office of people that their next car is electric while touting the benefits of my car, that stuff spreads organically.

      • Johem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue is that going electric already is a convenient lie we tell ourselves. We can’t just replace all cars with electric ones and rhinkbthat we’ve solved it. We need to realize that the level of individual mobility by personal vehicle we have today is not sustainable.

        Going electrical helps your individual emissions, sure, but we should be mindful that these are the pseudo solutions sold by people who would rather change nothing.