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

5044 readers

790 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:

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

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

[vlogbrothers 2021] Wrong on the Internet - The importance of individual action (www.youtube.com)

submitted 3 months ago by threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works to c/climate@slrpnk.net

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hank Green on the importance of individual action, not because it helps directly (which it does), but because it helps remind our brains of the problems which need to be solved.

Social scientists have studied this, and they've found that people taking individual action leads to more pushes for policy change, not less. The original idea is that if you focus more on individual action there will be less push for policy change. It turns out to be the opposite of that.

As social psychologists Leor Hackel and Gregg Sparkman said in their 2018 article, "People don't spring into action because they see smoke; they spring into action because they see others rushing in with water."

I've seen a lot of the "It doesn't matter what individuals do because 90% of the emissions are done by 50 companies" sentiment on Lemmy, and find it concerning. What are the best ways to address this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] zerakith@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I also worry that the systemic vs individual argument is actually used by some as a distraction too. "No point me trying unless the whole system changes" particularly when the change might seem like it involves some level of sacrafice (which often isn't as clear cut as it seems or is presented).

I wonder if its more about paralysing perfectionism rather individual vs system. "Can't be zero emissions as an individual without structural change" so don't do anything. Similarly on the other side "can't overthrow the whole global system so no point doing anything".

I really we wish we talked a lot more about the intermediates between I individual and systemic/national. There's so many smaller organisations that individuals have more agency in changing and in turn have more agency in changing larger numbers of individuals and influencing more of the systemic level

[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

I agree that it's a distraction, just like the "100 companies" is a distraction. I can't stand the systemic/individual comparisons because people don't even know the difference. For example, I can get a 30% tax credit for solar/storage, $2k on a heat pump, $12,500 off an EV in Colorado, and more coming soon for low/moderate income folks via the IRA in the US. When people go to buy this stuff, is it an individual action or the result of these policies? Does it even matter outside the context of this weird debate where the two things are falsely thought of as mutually exclusive? We can all walk and chew gum at the same time. Do what you can, vote, talk, etc. and don't get caught up criticizing beneficial things others are doing because they aren't exactly what you would do in their shoes. Building a culture around solving the issue takes many forms.

[–] Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago

It definitely is used that way and I probably should've worded my post a bit differently so I don't discourage others from taking action.

What I actually think we need is individual level systemic actions which is sort of oxymoronic but I think it has some sort of logic to it.

For example if you think that capitalism is causing a lot of the worlds problems then stop buying stuff and try to find ways to reuse what you already have or get it without engaging with that system (swap shops, free cycle, etc).

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. There is obviously some things that you can't live without buying on some capacity, but like you were saying don't let good be the enemy of perfect and it is better to find alternative systems or ways of doing things that still satisfy your needs.

And I'll say this is true of climate related problems too. Even if capitalism isn't necessarily the main cause, the goal should be to identity what system we think is causing these problems and gradually try and replace these systems in our daily lives with something hopefully better.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~