46
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 61 points 1 month ago

In 2005, fossil fuel company BP hired the large advertising campaign Ogilvy to popularize the idea of a carbon footprint for individuals.

BP oil company pushed the idea that our individual carbon footprints matter so that everyone can share the blame of what the fossil fuel industry has done.

Don’t fall for it. Only corporations pollute enough to matter. Only corporations can provide alternatives to fossil fuels. Only corporations can make a meaningful reduction to greenhouse gas emissions.

The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.

[-] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 month ago

BP oil company pushed the idea that our individual carbon footprints matter so that everyone can share the blame of what the fossil fuel industry has done.

The article discusses this, yes - along with how the carbon footprint is a good metric for individual consumption even if corporate propaganda abuses it.

The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.

I agree with you that political action is vital. I don't agree that it's necessarily more significant than personal action. Feminists used to say "the personal is political", and it's still true. How you act in private demonstrates your commitment to the values you endorse in public and gives your voice more weight when you speak your values.

If you reduce your personal footprint, but never talk about it or encourage other people to do the same, your impact is limited to yourself. If you reduce your personal footprint, and make your actions contagious by talking about them with people you know and encouraging them to do the same, you can impact many more people, encourage them to follow your lead and reduce their footprint, and then they can encourage others to reduce their footprint, and so on and so forth.

Limiting the damage from climate change takes collective action. And collective action requires a community, and a community requires communication.

If you assume you are a lone individual and your personal decisions have no effect on anyone else, it's easy to imagine reducing your personal footprint is meaningless. If you see yourself as part of a community, and by reducing your personal footprint you encourage others in your community to do the same, you can see how much larger your impact can be.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

So you’re repeating the BP talking points.

[-] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 month ago

Again, carbon footprint is not a BP talking point. It was a pre-existing concept that was appropriated by BP to prevent climate change legislation by shifting responsibility for climate change to individual consumers.

And then, some years later, once corporations had more solid control of legislatures and were no longer afraid of legislation, they started using the carbon footprint idea in reverse as propaganda - they claimed individual responsibility was a myth, only legal action against corporations will help with climate change, so eat whatever you want and buy all the gas you want and buy all the corporate products you want, and don't feel guilty about it, because it doesn't matter.

In reality, both individuals and corporations bear responsibility for climate change, and both of the above arguments are corporate propaganda aimed at getting you to give up, do nothing, and buy shit.

[-] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 4 points 1 month ago

Saudi Aramco accounted for more than 4 percent of global emissions, Gazprom clocked over 3 percent and Coal India accounted for roughly 3 percent.

Total global emissions in 2020, including land-use change, were approximately 40 Gt. This means that Australian emissions are approximately 1.2% of global emissions

There are 26 million people in Australia. That 1.2% is obviously all Australian emissions, but let's exaggerate and say that's purely from individuals. That the footprint of all Australian citizens combined was 1.2% of global emissions.

If literally all Australians then brought their personal carbon footprint to 0, it would be a reduction of less than 1/3rd of Saudi Aramco's emissions alone.

From 2016 to 2022, 80 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions were produced by just 57 companies.

But I'm supposed to believe that I, with my ~ 1/26 million of a percent footprint, have an affect. You'll have to try a lot harder to convince me of that.

[-] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

Your vote is also 1 in 26 million. Do you believe that has an effect?

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Tell me you’re a fossil fuel shill without telling me you’re a fossil fuel shill

[-] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

We're actually to the point where wanting people to consume fewer fossil fuels makes me a fossil fuel shill.

Wow.

The absolute state of rhetoric today.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think you misread. I don't account for 1 in 26 million of emissions. I count for 1% divided by 26 million of emissions. 1 26 millionth of a percent.

This would be like if there was some kind of global election, and ALL Australian votes added together were worth 1.2% of the total vote.

That means my personal vote/emissions in this scenario would be 0.000000046%

And then there were 57 corporations whose interests were largely aligned that accounted for 80% that also got to vote.

Imagine a school/college/workplace had votes that everyone could participate in to make changes to it. But altogether, the student/employee votes could account for at most 20% of the vote, and teacher/management accounted for 80% of the vote.

Would you believe your vote has an affect in such an election?

(and this isn't even continuing the analogy to the point that there are like 200 classes/departments and yours accounts for like 1-4% assuming you're in one of the larger ones, and there are 26 million or more people in your department, meanwhile there are 57 teachers/managers that mostly agree with each other in protecting what they want/their interests)

[-] nofob@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago

Why do you think BP produces emissions? They may be evil, but it's not out of malice, it's for profit. People, like the 26 million residents of Australia, pay BP to give them more fossil fuels.

A top-down response, where governments just outlaw all extraction and burning of fossil fuels, would be a lovely, quick solution to the climate crisis. By all means, try and make that happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

One thing you can do today to make an impact is to adjust your lifestyle to give less money to the fossil fuel industry. An individual carbon footprint is small compared with a company, just like the money they give to BP is relatively small, when compared with their total profits. But when you add up all the customers, their money adds up to the revenue of the industry, and their carbon footprints add up to the footprints of the relevant companies.

[-] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago

My mum never owned a car, we walked, biked, bus'd or train'd every day of my life. Because I was used to it and don't have a lot of money, I don't own a car either. I don't know what exactly you want me to do to give them less money, but what I do know is me walking everywhere every day has influenced exactly 0 people to do the same, and it's affected global carbon emissions by such a small fraction it can barely be measured.

It's not relatively small, it's essentially non existent, and there's no way as an individual to force others to give up their conveniences, any more than an individual can have the government ban all fossil fuels.

How much profit do you possibly think Australia provides to BP and other companies? How much of Australia doing business with them contributes to their global emissions? Because the fact is the entirety of Australia could return to tribalism with no modern technology and it would barely move the needle on either global profits or global emissions. Even a country that has 5% global emissions wouldn't achieve much by going to 0. It's near meaningless.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

some years later, once corporations had more solid control of legislatures and were no longer afraid of legislation, they started using the carbon footprint idea in reverse as propaganda - they claimed individual responsibility was a myth, only legal action against corporations will help with climate change, so eat whatever you want and buy all the gas you want and buy all the corporate products you want, and don’t feel guilty about it, because it doesn’t matter.

citation needed

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 month ago

Not only that, but only collective action and politics can give people the choices they need to reduce climate change.

It's no use telling people not to drive if there's no public transport system. And people can't individually will their energy to have a generation mix.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

Those are important, but the act of doing things like installing solar panels, or a heat pump changes minds — and when you do it, others around you see and imitate.

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I'd rather put my money into feeding the hungry than consumption effecting nothing but my ego.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] thejevans@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Conclusion of the article sums it up best:

"Our true responsibility is to use our choices as political agents in the world to try to shift power, take power away from the people who are blocking the transition away from fossil fuels and give it to people who will lead into a livable future," [Genevieve Guenther, the author of “The Language of Climate Politics”] said.

Do what you can by yourself, sure, but only as a supplement to doing the hard work to solve the problem via collective and political action.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 16 points 1 month ago

I agree.
But the corporations and companies that have done most of the polluting need to clean their messes up if there's going to be any change.

You, nor my neighbor, nor any of our friends dumped so much crap into nearby rivers and lakes that everything is poisoned. The corporations and companies did it.

[-] thejevans@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago
[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

That’s cool, could we also compare that to what would happen if the wealthy and corporations also put in their fair share of individual action too?

[-] Gloomy@mander.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

Having a consumer base that is aware of and cares about the environment is going to help a lot on that regard.

[-] M500@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/business/starbucks-ceo-commute-jet-brian-niccol.html

Don’t forget, that he could just move like the rest of the employees had to.

[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

What if every company did something?

[-] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

I mean if every one stopped ordering from temu, it's already one problem solved and we move to the next one

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If the one thing is redacted a billionaire, you would only need 3200 people.

[-] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Sounds good. I'll start by telling all my corporations that blast the majority of CO2 emissions worldwide into the air to slow it down a bit.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 month ago

They're mostly not blasting it directly; they're selling fossil fuels for others to blast. Changing how you commute or heat your home helps change social norms around those and lowers the rate of emissions

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] altair222@beehaw.org 6 points 1 month ago

We should all work towards curbing climate change by learning how to build guillotines

[-] cymbal_king@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Amen!

My gas stove was leaky and could have blown up my house. So we replaced that with an induction stove, and it's all around a better experience. Same with the water heater and the EV. All of these things plus insulating the attic have been improvements to our lives with the added benefit of reducing natural gas consumption more than 20% over the past year and saving about $100/month on utilities and gasoline. It's nice that we aren't pumping air pollution directly into our house when we cook anymore.

Every bit of change we make helps, because the climate crisis is not binary. but more importantly the people who can make these changes receive the greatest upfront benefits.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Clent@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Free solar panels for everyone.

Free heat pumps for everyone.

We need everyone on free clean electricity now and cut all natural gas lines to homes, businesses and factories. Nothing else comes close to the impact of those and it will drive a change in other sectors like transportation when there is free clean electricity everywhere.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

I'm sorry but these things drive me bonkers angry

You can't ask billions of people to do shit whilst < 2700 billionaires refuse to do shit because they need their private jet to buy an apple. You can't ask me to do a huge thing with zero impact whilst oil companies actively sabotage every effort to improve the climate so that shareholders can get that extra dollar.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
46 points (71.7% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5240 readers
443 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS