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.

  • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 hours ago

    To do what? Ban combustion engines to force everybody to change their individual carbon footprint? Any sort of actually massive climate legislation is going to impact a lot of peoples life directly.

    You’re arguing that we shouldn’t vote for legislation to prevent climate change because it is going to impact people’s lives?

    And instead we should just hope that 100% of the worlds population just does the right thing?

    Remember when we tried to get people to wear masks during the pandemic?

    That appoach doesn’t work. That’s why the fossil fuel industry is paying marketing firms to convince the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 hours ago

      What I am trying to say, is that to fight climate change lifestyle changes are required. To get those changes done in a demicratic fashion, you need to convince a majority of people to actually make those changes. Part of that is making them without the actual law, to show that it is possible.

      Just take you as an example. You want I presume a combustionengine ban. However that ban would cause you massive problems, as you can not get to work or buy food without a car. I would say that, if true, those would be amazing arguments against such a ban. For me the argument is much easies, as I would do more or less fine with that law, as my lifestyle is already pretty low car.

      Remember when we tried to get people to wear masks during the pandemic?

      Remeber the US president refusing to wear a mask in public? Johnsons parties during covid? There was a lot of that bs.

      • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        For me the argument is much easies, as I would do more or less fine with that law, as my lifestyle is already pretty low car.

        This is my point. If we try to fix climate change by improving individual carbon footprint, there are some that can do it but many that can not, so it only reduces the greenhouse gas emissions for consumers that can afford it.

        Because it is a systemic problem. Not a problem caused by consumer choice.

        Consumers don’t care if they use a gas car or an EV as long as it does what they need it to do and it is affordable.

        If we just focus on voting and protesting we can create a solution that reduces all emissions, industrial emissions, commercial emissions, consumer emissions, all reduced.