A fixation on system change alone opens the door to a kind of cynical self-absolution that divorces personal commitment from political belief. This is its own kind of false consciousness, one that threatens to create a cheapened climate politics incommensurate with this urgent moment.

[…]

Because here’s the thing: When you choose to eat less meat or take the bus instead of driving or have fewer children, you are making a statement that your actions matter, that it’s not too late to avert climate catastrophe, that you have power. To take a measure of personal responsibility for climate change doesn’t have to distract from your political activism—if anything, it amplifies it.

  • niucllos@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    While this is basically true, what it ignores is the impact personal decisions make on the ethos around us to build support for legal pressure. I have family that doesn’t disbelieve climate change but isn’t motivated by it, and by us going mostly meatless and buying and EV they’ve started meatless Mondays and Thursdays and are considering an EV for their next car. Our individual actions ripple out, and create a public normalization for these types of changes so that it isnt an uphill battle to get uninformed laypeople to care about climate policy at the polling stations

    • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m vegan, I drive an EV and I’m saving money for solar and a heat pump.

      Just pointing out that the fossil fuel industry paid a marketing team to push the idea of individual carbon footprints for a reason.

      100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That means that the remaining 29% of emissions are shared by all the other companies and consumers. Even if you split that remainder evenly between all other companies and consumers, that’s only 14% all emissions being caused by consumers and it’s probably more likely in the single digits.

      This is why the fossil fuel industry pays a marketing team to get the public focused on their individual carbon footprint. So you’re focused on the less than 14% of the total emissions instead of the other 86%

      • niucllos@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m not saying me driving an EV does statistically anything to reduce carbon emissions, or even that if I got all my friends and family to go vegan and bike instead of drive cars that it would. I am saying that the broad public doesn’t care about these issues enough to consume differently or vote for policy or politicians that make their lives less convenient in order to fight climate change, and that instead our individual actions to avert climate change contribute to a public ethos that can accept lifestyle changes and that may potentially hold the mega polluting corporations to account and fix our throw-away durable goods culture in a way that media-demonized protests and pestering bought-and-paid politicians never can.

        • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I am saying that the broad public doesn’t care about these issues enough to consume differently or vote for policy or politicians that make their lives less convenient in order to fight climate change

          Which is why focusing on our individual carbon footprint doesn’t work. You need 100% participation and not enough people care.

          With protesting/voting you can force change with just the majority of voters. Which is around a quarter of the population.