Every time climate discussion comes up and i point out that we can do things to decrease their own impact, i’m met with anger and relentless defense that they have no responsibility and it’s all corporations.
So I have little faith that any worker revolution will solve the problem.
Individual changes are negligible compared to corporations though. Also, changes that would benefit would be to improve public transit to reduce carbon emission, but that is something on the government level. This people are rightly pointing out that individual changes would account to like less than 1% of the emissions. A workers Revolution would change this because it would implement all the changes needed on corporations and public transit, among other.
I neither said nor implied that I want no moderation. In fact, that sounds way worse than what happened here.
Second, whether that’s true about lemmy doesn’t preclude moderators from acting exactly like what everyone claimed to hate about reddit moderators, which is exactly what happened here. Mod didn’t like that I called out their claims, so they removed the post with the claim of “victim blaming” lol (which, of course, isn’t a violation of any rules).
So there is a little no waste shop by me. I’ve turned on numerous neighbors to it. They have grown quite well and are moving into a bigger space, and even have talked about opening a second store…and basically don’t do any advertising. It’s all word of mouth.
While I agree with you that the focus should be on corporations, ultimately the reason these corporations are producing stuff is because individuals are consuming it. If more consumers show a willingness and desire to buy low carbon shit, the more it will be catered to. I do believe this would have a leveraging affect.
I absolutely agree with the concept, it’s something I’ve argued in the past (although less in a loss of profit, than simply a loss of hard to enumerate "rights), I just never knew there was an established concept for it. So thanks for that.
But I don’t see how it applies here. Unless you’re agreeing with me and something like driving (one of the first examples given in the article) is an externality that should be addressed, and something that the individual often has some control over. But what it’s always met with, as it was here, “It’s really not my fault so I have no responsibility to change my behavior at all.”
In my personal experience, and I’m lucky to have this available to me a lot: our rules is that if it’s a 15 minute or less walk, we walk it. I bike to work most mornings when the weather is nice. These are things I could often just drive because “eh, what’s my contribution going to do?” But I try my best (certainly still a work in progress), because i understand my actions are an negative externality for much of the rest of the world.
This doesn’t preclude me from pushing for larger scale things too, but at least I also put my money where my mouth is.
Don’t let me discourage you from cycling, that does help!
BUT
Even homeless people are still polluting at higher than sustainable levels. If we internalized the cost of pollution (with pigouvian taxes or whatever), then your efforts would yield even better results. As you can see under “Possible solutions”, none of them involve placing responsibility on people around you individually - they’re all addressing the externality at a systemic level.
It’s not either/or; I can both work to decrease my personal impact and also push for systemic changes. It’s just a recognition that responsibility does fall on the individual as well. If one cares about this issue, they should make changes in their life to minimize their impact. I understand that we can’t solve it without a systemic change, because even from what I see all the time, right here, people who presumably care about the situation coming up with every excuse in the book to avoid assuming even a modicum of responsibility. Can’t imagine how long it would take to get the current deniers on board.
The reality is that any change that is going to be top down is going to be slow; it’s not coming for a while. Right now, you can make changes in your personal life. And even then, it’s not all or nothing. You can just keep grabbing the low hanging fruit over and over again to minimize your personal impact.
And on top of that, any change coming from top down is going to affect the individual: things will get more expensive and less convenient. So you might as well get a head start on it.
Married with two kids, we both work full time, cook dinner almost every night, i have multiple hobbies, regularly exercise, and I usually go out once a week with buddies to get a drink.
It’s overwhelming if you treat it as all or nothing. I get that. I just started by grabbing the low hanging fruit, and when I realized that wasn’t all that hard, I just reached up and grabbed the next. And then the next.
What if you took all the time you spend suggesting that consumers unilaterally pollute less, and invested it towards suggesting systemic change instead?
Is the goal here social status, or to maximize your impact?
"Every time climate discussion comes up and i point out that we can do things to decrease their own impact, i’m met with anger and relentless defense that they have no responsibility and it’s all corporations.
So I have little faith that any worker revolution will solve the problem."
Every time climate discussion comes up and i point out that we can do things to decrease their own impact, i’m met with anger and relentless defense that they have no responsibility and it’s all corporations.
So I have little faith that any worker revolution will solve the problem.
Individual changes are negligible compared to corporations though. Also, changes that would benefit would be to improve public transit to reduce carbon emission, but that is something on the government level. This people are rightly pointing out that individual changes would account to like less than 1% of the emissions. A workers Revolution would change this because it would implement all the changes needed on corporations and public transit, among other.
Removed by mod
Lol removed my comment. This is the type of reddit mod behavior we all hate and shit on.
Lemmy is for picking your moderators, not having no moderators.
I neither said nor implied that I want no moderation. In fact, that sounds way worse than what happened here.
Second, whether that’s true about lemmy doesn’t preclude moderators from acting exactly like what everyone claimed to hate about reddit moderators, which is exactly what happened here. Mod didn’t like that I called out their claims, so they removed the post with the claim of “victim blaming” lol (which, of course, isn’t a violation of any rules).
So you’ve had this experience on reddit, and here… At which discussion forum have you had your best experience with moderators?
deleted by creator
Hard to say. Good moderation is like air: if it’s there you don’t even really notice it, if it’s missing, everyone is miserable.
But why does it matter? Does the fact that one place is better than another preclude any single moderator from doing a bad job?
People should be doing what they can, but that will only partially address maybe 8% of the problem hence why that conversation comes up.
So there is a little no waste shop by me. I’ve turned on numerous neighbors to it. They have grown quite well and are moving into a bigger space, and even have talked about opening a second store…and basically don’t do any advertising. It’s all word of mouth.
While I agree with you that the focus should be on corporations, ultimately the reason these corporations are producing stuff is because individuals are consuming it. If more consumers show a willingness and desire to buy low carbon shit, the more it will be catered to. I do believe this would have a leveraging affect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
I absolutely agree with the concept, it’s something I’ve argued in the past (although less in a loss of profit, than simply a loss of hard to enumerate "rights), I just never knew there was an established concept for it. So thanks for that.
But I don’t see how it applies here. Unless you’re agreeing with me and something like driving (one of the first examples given in the article) is an externality that should be addressed, and something that the individual often has some control over. But what it’s always met with, as it was here, “It’s really not my fault so I have no responsibility to change my behavior at all.”
In my personal experience, and I’m lucky to have this available to me a lot: our rules is that if it’s a 15 minute or less walk, we walk it. I bike to work most mornings when the weather is nice. These are things I could often just drive because “eh, what’s my contribution going to do?” But I try my best (certainly still a work in progress), because i understand my actions are an negative externality for much of the rest of the world.
This doesn’t preclude me from pushing for larger scale things too, but at least I also put my money where my mouth is.
Don’t let me discourage you from cycling, that does help!
BUT
Even homeless people are still polluting at higher than sustainable levels. If we internalized the cost of pollution (with pigouvian taxes or whatever), then your efforts would yield even better results. As you can see under “Possible solutions”, none of them involve placing responsibility on people around you individually - they’re all addressing the externality at a systemic level.
It’s not either/or; I can both work to decrease my personal impact and also push for systemic changes. It’s just a recognition that responsibility does fall on the individual as well. If one cares about this issue, they should make changes in their life to minimize their impact. I understand that we can’t solve it without a systemic change, because even from what I see all the time, right here, people who presumably care about the situation coming up with every excuse in the book to avoid assuming even a modicum of responsibility. Can’t imagine how long it would take to get the current deniers on board.
The reality is that any change that is going to be top down is going to be slow; it’s not coming for a while. Right now, you can make changes in your personal life. And even then, it’s not all or nothing. You can just keep grabbing the low hanging fruit over and over again to minimize your personal impact.
And on top of that, any change coming from top down is going to affect the individual: things will get more expensive and less convenient. So you might as well get a head start on it.
Do you have unlimited time and willpower?
Married with two kids, we both work full time, cook dinner almost every night, i have multiple hobbies, regularly exercise, and I usually go out once a week with buddies to get a drink.
It’s overwhelming if you treat it as all or nothing. I get that. I just started by grabbing the low hanging fruit, and when I realized that wasn’t all that hard, I just reached up and grabbed the next. And then the next.
What if you took all the time you spend suggesting that consumers unilaterally pollute less, and invested it towards suggesting systemic change instead?
Is the goal here social status, or to maximize your impact?
"Every time climate discussion comes up and i point out that we can do things to decrease their own impact, i’m met with anger and relentless defense that they have no responsibility and it’s all corporations.
So I have little faith that any worker revolution will solve the problem."