Recycling and other myths about tackling climate change
August 30, 2023 8:27 AM Subscribe
You're doing it wrong. People tend to overestimate the climate benefits of recycling. One study led by a researcher at the University of Leeds placed recycling second-to-last among more than 50 actions people can take to reduce their carbon footprint.
What doesn’t work
Pushing responsibility down on to the lifestyle choices of individuals.
posted by Artw at 8:38 AM on August 30, 2023 [118 favorites]
Pushing responsibility down on to the lifestyle choices of individuals.
posted by Artw at 8:38 AM on August 30, 2023 [118 favorites]
We recycle to keep shit out of landfills. Never have really considered recycling in terms of carbon footprint.
posted by Windopaene at 8:38 AM on August 30, 2023 [105 favorites]
posted by Windopaene at 8:38 AM on August 30, 2023 [105 favorites]
This sort of reporting irks me. This isn't 1986; fucking links and DOIs exist. "a researcher at the University of Leeds". Link the study you lazy scribblers.
posted by bonehead at 8:41 AM on August 30, 2023 [67 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 8:41 AM on August 30, 2023 [67 favorites]
Despite what the polls say, my understanding is that we are getting to a point where people realize that it's not going to be the actions of individuals that turn this thing around. You want me to fly less? Okay I hear you but I live in a flight path in a mid-sized city and in addition to airliners I see literally about fifty private jets land every day. Multiply that number by every mid- and large-size city in the US and you realize that, even if 95% of the US became monks overnight – going completely vegan, traveling on foot, reusing everything – we'd still have a long, long way to go to fix the planet.
Maybe it would be easier if we stop putting the responsibility of SAVING THE PLANET on the shoulders of the powerless, and expect more of the people who are in a position to actually solve the problem.
posted by nushustu at 8:42 AM on August 30, 2023 [87 favorites]
Maybe it would be easier if we stop putting the responsibility of SAVING THE PLANET on the shoulders of the powerless, and expect more of the people who are in a position to actually solve the problem.
posted by nushustu at 8:42 AM on August 30, 2023 [87 favorites]
ctrl-f plastic yielded one match, and that was talking about plastic straws.
huh.
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:43 AM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
huh.
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:43 AM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
The popularity of the term "carbon footprint" comes from a 2005 ad campaign from British Petroleum as a very deliberate effort to shift public perception away from questions of corporate liability and culpability to one of personal responsibility, and anybody who uses the term seriously should not be trusted.
posted by mhoye at 8:43 AM on August 30, 2023 [80 favorites]
posted by mhoye at 8:43 AM on August 30, 2023 [80 favorites]
Top of the list for me would be 'vote wisely'. Individual-level mitigation won't save us (although of course, is still worth doing).
posted by aeshnid at 8:48 AM on August 30, 2023 [16 favorites]
posted by aeshnid at 8:48 AM on August 30, 2023 [16 favorites]
I remember listening to a Throughline episode about this a year or so ago (called something like "I don't care if you recycle"), the gist of which was essentially that framing this as a personal responsibility issue at all has been a decades-long effort by corporations to take the pressure off of themselves (starting more or less with anti-littering campaigns.)
posted by Navelgazer at 8:49 AM on August 30, 2023 [21 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 8:49 AM on August 30, 2023 [21 favorites]
Beginning to nurse a suspicion that the point of recycling is he plastic is at least sorted into its own pockets in the landfill.
posted by Artw at 8:56 AM on August 30, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:56 AM on August 30, 2023 [8 favorites]
Living in apartment buildings a lot in the past I always figured single-stream recycling was just another way of things ending up in the landfill because whenever I would dump my carefully curated bin of actually recyclable things (basically just cardboard, the *right* kinds of plastic, aluminum cans) I would see the wildest shit in the recycling dumpsters: consumer electronics, rubber, tons of stretched plastic bags, and just plain trash. I dunno what happens to a dump of crap like that but surely it's more energy to sort out the trash from the recyclables than the recyclables end up being worth. My assumption is a lot of it just ends up on a barge to somewhere like Bangladesh and then half of it is in a landfill somewhere else.
posted by dis_integration at 8:57 AM on August 30, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by dis_integration at 8:57 AM on August 30, 2023 [12 favorites]
"grr argh, nothing you do matters and what you're doing is wrong anyway!"
posted by drewbage1847 at 8:59 AM on August 30, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by drewbage1847 at 8:59 AM on August 30, 2023 [10 favorites]
WaPo gift link to the original article. Mods, OK with me if you put this in the post.
posted by Frayed Knot at 9:01 AM on August 30, 2023
posted by Frayed Knot at 9:01 AM on August 30, 2023
Also related, and recently: How methane from food waste contributes to climate change. In which I made myself unpopular by pointing out that food waste is one of the smaller contributions to global warming individuals have control over. I do appreciate the responses several folks made along the lines of "sure it doesn't solve all the problems but it's a good thing I can do". Every bit helps!
This WaPo article is awfully thin though. The underlying poll data about what people think about individual climate change choices is interesting. Just wish the article came to a more interesting conclusion.
posted by Nelson at 9:02 AM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
This WaPo article is awfully thin though. The underlying poll data about what people think about individual climate change choices is interesting. Just wish the article came to a more interesting conclusion.
posted by Nelson at 9:02 AM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
The article does talk about voting and individual vs collective impact.
posted by tofu_crouton at 9:02 AM on August 30, 2023
posted by tofu_crouton at 9:02 AM on August 30, 2023
Producing virgin plastics is subsidized with planetary equity. Just charge the true cost.
posted by tigrrrlily at 9:03 AM on August 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by tigrrrlily at 9:03 AM on August 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
Sorry the 'flying less' thing isn't really landing well with me. Folks should be allowed to fly, people need to visit loved ones, people need to do it for business, and yes also tourism. IMO this is a worthy use of your 'carbon allotment' and air travel overall is <4% of global emissions. Maybe make private jets a lot more expensive.
We need to stop this asinine reporting of what individuals can do and turn the spotlight back to actions that can actually move the needle meaningfully: structural changes in agriculture and industry, stop handouts to the oil and gas industry, rapid phase out of use of fossil fuels for power.
posted by sid at 9:22 AM on August 30, 2023 [30 favorites]
We need to stop this asinine reporting of what individuals can do and turn the spotlight back to actions that can actually move the needle meaningfully: structural changes in agriculture and industry, stop handouts to the oil and gas industry, rapid phase out of use of fossil fuels for power.
posted by sid at 9:22 AM on August 30, 2023 [30 favorites]
Ah, I found it: Throughline: The Litter Myth
posted by Navelgazer at 9:24 AM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 9:24 AM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
Sorry the 'flying less' thing isn't really landing well with me.
I see what you did there.
Also, I completely disagree with you, but mainly I wanted to point out the pun.
posted by gurple at 9:32 AM on August 30, 2023 [12 favorites]
I see what you did there.
Also, I completely disagree with you, but mainly I wanted to point out the pun.
posted by gurple at 9:32 AM on August 30, 2023 [12 favorites]
Enough with shaming people for not doing X. Not while Taylor Swift and Sergey Brin take private jets everywhere. Not while the US military is pumping 51 million tons of CO2 into the air annually.
See your family when you can. Drive the car you want. Vote for better public transit and environmental policies in general. Don't twist yourself into a pretzel trying to separate recyclables that will likely just end up in a landfill anyway.
Besides, if you really want to make a difference, have fewer kids. You could probably burn tires in your front yard all day every day and still come out ahead vs bringing another person into the world.
posted by mikesch at 9:37 AM on August 30, 2023 [31 favorites]
See your family when you can. Drive the car you want. Vote for better public transit and environmental policies in general. Don't twist yourself into a pretzel trying to separate recyclables that will likely just end up in a landfill anyway.
Besides, if you really want to make a difference, have fewer kids. You could probably burn tires in your front yard all day every day and still come out ahead vs bringing another person into the world.
posted by mikesch at 9:37 AM on August 30, 2023 [31 favorites]
re: plastic:
Consumers have long treated the chasing-arrows logo as an indication that an item can be recycled, wrote Jennie Romer, a deputy assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, in an April letter to the F.T.C.posted by BungaDunga at 9:46 AM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
But when it comes to plastics that can be “deceptive and misleading,” Ms. Romer wrote. Manufacturers often pair the iconic logo with a resin identification code, with numbers from 1 to 7 that indicate the type of plastic in the product.
“Not all resin codes can be recycled currently in the United States,” she wrote. Many plastics, especially those numbered from 3 to 7, “are not financially viable to recycle.”
Private jets emit about 14x per passenger than commercial jets, so they're far worse 1:1. Private flights account for about 1.8 million metric tons of CO2/yr. However total CO2 from commercial air travel is around 850 million metric tons/yr. Another 150 tonnes comes from air shipping.
All told, however, air transport is about 2% of global CO2.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:48 AM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
All told, however, air transport is about 2% of global CO2.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:48 AM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
Here in Toronto it doesn't matter what resin code it is, if it's black plastic, you put it in the garbage, because black plastic isn't recyclable here.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:49 AM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:49 AM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
I'm also tired of the continual focus on individual actions. Big problems need big solutions, not hectoring people about marginal or non-existent impacts. It's counterproductive sometimes, where people think that because they are doing some individual things (recycling, not flying, etc.) that they are solving the problem.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:51 AM on August 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 9:51 AM on August 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
There is so little in articles like these that offers information about how governments, manufacturers, the economy, and corporations in general will be able to adapt to what's going to happen if a critical mass of people decide to live less resource-intensive lives.
posted by wondermouse at 9:53 AM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by wondermouse at 9:53 AM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
There were 3,160,000 SUVs purchased in the US last month alone. Some of those were electric/hybrid, most weren't.
That's 3,160,000 individual choices. So tell me that individual decisions don't matter.
Sure we need high-level action, but how much of the "the individual doesn't matter" stuff is just a way of keeping on with our crappy lifestyles?
posted by storybored at 9:57 AM on August 30, 2023 [42 favorites]
That's 3,160,000 individual choices. So tell me that individual decisions don't matter.
Sure we need high-level action, but how much of the "the individual doesn't matter" stuff is just a way of keeping on with our crappy lifestyles?
posted by storybored at 9:57 AM on August 30, 2023 [42 favorites]
I think there absolutely consumer choices we can make that matter, and do so without guilting people. The spur can be to save money instead. Going to CF then LED lights had a major impact on electrical demand and put a little bit of savings back in every rate payer's pocket.
I think we could see an even bigger shift as people are encouraged to move to heat pumps ("split AC"), as older AC and furnace units wear out. Those tend to be one or two decade scale changes, so it will happen more slowly, but that's potentially huge. There's also the consideration that new units be built with the more efficient tech too.
Going induction rather than gas or conventional electric will be big as well, but I don't think the tech is quite ready/affordable yet.
posted by bonehead at 9:59 AM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
I think we could see an even bigger shift as people are encouraged to move to heat pumps ("split AC"), as older AC and furnace units wear out. Those tend to be one or two decade scale changes, so it will happen more slowly, but that's potentially huge. There's also the consideration that new units be built with the more efficient tech too.
Going induction rather than gas or conventional electric will be big as well, but I don't think the tech is quite ready/affordable yet.
posted by bonehead at 9:59 AM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
One study led by a researcher at the University of Leeds placed recycling second-to-last among more than 50 actions people can take to reduce their carbon footprint.
An actual link to this study would be far more useful than anything else in the article.
posted by automatronic at 10:00 AM on August 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
An actual link to this study would be far more useful than anything else in the article.
posted by automatronic at 10:00 AM on August 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
>” 95% of the US became monks overnight – going completely vegan, traveling on foot, reusing everything – we'd still have a long, long way to go to fix the planet. ”
Care to crunch those numbers? Because I guarantee that 95% of the Global North population making this kind of change would save hundreds of thousands or millions of lives in the Global South in the long run regarding climate disaster
And it’s a Pascal’s Wager because fewer private automobiles on US roads would save tens of thousands of our own lives annually, reduce childhood asthma hospitalizations and just lead to cleaner air all around. Less meaty diets and increased walkability would save tens of thousands of Americans from heart disease. And speaking for myself, my life would be greatly enriched if we lived in such a culture where slow travel, mindful eating and walkable communities were the norm
Finally, things like flight shaming do filter up into the seemingly indifferent 1% of the biggest polluters. Just because Elon Musk is an unreachable narcissist doesn’t mean that’s true across the board. Peer and public pressure is pretty much the only thing that the extremely rich care about
We used to say things like “be the change you want to see in the world” but there is a new generation that points at the grotesqueness of extreme wealth, shrugs their shoulders and rationalizes their own waste as “not that bad.” Hate to break it to you, but if you’re on Metafilter at all then you’re part of the wealthiest top percentiles on the global scale and your waste is magnitudes higher than the majority of people on the planet. Act like it
posted by Skwirl at 10:09 AM on August 30, 2023 [36 favorites]
Care to crunch those numbers? Because I guarantee that 95% of the Global North population making this kind of change would save hundreds of thousands or millions of lives in the Global South in the long run regarding climate disaster
And it’s a Pascal’s Wager because fewer private automobiles on US roads would save tens of thousands of our own lives annually, reduce childhood asthma hospitalizations and just lead to cleaner air all around. Less meaty diets and increased walkability would save tens of thousands of Americans from heart disease. And speaking for myself, my life would be greatly enriched if we lived in such a culture where slow travel, mindful eating and walkable communities were the norm
Finally, things like flight shaming do filter up into the seemingly indifferent 1% of the biggest polluters. Just because Elon Musk is an unreachable narcissist doesn’t mean that’s true across the board. Peer and public pressure is pretty much the only thing that the extremely rich care about
We used to say things like “be the change you want to see in the world” but there is a new generation that points at the grotesqueness of extreme wealth, shrugs their shoulders and rationalizes their own waste as “not that bad.” Hate to break it to you, but if you’re on Metafilter at all then you’re part of the wealthiest top percentiles on the global scale and your waste is magnitudes higher than the majority of people on the planet. Act like it
posted by Skwirl at 10:09 AM on August 30, 2023 [36 favorites]
After some searching, I think the paper referred to is:
posted by automatronic at 10:20 AM on August 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
Ivanova, D., Barrett, J., Wiedenhofer, D., Macura, B., Callaghan, M. and Creutzig, F. 2020. Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environmental Research Letters. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589Direct link to PDF, and department press release.
posted by automatronic at 10:20 AM on August 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
Individual choice does matter. It's individual billionaires who make those choices. They're the ones that need convincing to change their behaviour. How should one do that, I wonder.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:31 AM on August 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:31 AM on August 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
Here’s something that occurred to me recently, and probably has already been stated better by someone paid to think about this stuff: we use energy to save time. Our time on this earth is limited, and we trade energy for time.
Cars, planes, etc. allow us to go far in not much time. Appliances use energy to give us time away from housework. Reducing our energy use increases our time costs.
Same for those billionaires using their private jets, they are saving time from commercial travel.
I think that’s the issue we face. We are asking people to give up their limited time, and that’s really hard. Asking people never to go on vacation unless they can spare weeks or travel time. Asking people to live close to family or essentially never see them. Housework goes back to being a full-time job. These are decisions people had to make before we discovered oil, and people are reluctant to go back to those times.
posted by LizBoBiz at 10:36 AM on August 30, 2023 [14 favorites]
Cars, planes, etc. allow us to go far in not much time. Appliances use energy to give us time away from housework. Reducing our energy use increases our time costs.
Same for those billionaires using their private jets, they are saving time from commercial travel.
I think that’s the issue we face. We are asking people to give up their limited time, and that’s really hard. Asking people never to go on vacation unless they can spare weeks or travel time. Asking people to live close to family or essentially never see them. Housework goes back to being a full-time job. These are decisions people had to make before we discovered oil, and people are reluctant to go back to those times.
posted by LizBoBiz at 10:36 AM on August 30, 2023 [14 favorites]
>”Among the 10 actions Americans were polled on, experts said flying less and cutting out meat and dairy are among the best steps people can take. Most Americans don’t realize that — 51 percent say flying less would make a little or no difference, and about three-quarters say the same for cutting out meat and dairy.”
The point of the article isn’t that individual actions don’t matter. The point is that people are kind of dumb about the individual actions that *do* matter.
And, yes, industry absolutely has had a hand in creating that stupidity because the true answer is “consume less” but that would hurt profits for shareholders. Reframing the problem as “the megarich cancel out anything I could do to help” is also a narrative that helps the worst purveyors of capitalism and consumerism because, again, it tells you that it’s okay to keep buying what you’re buying.
Billionaires are megarich villains to us because they have unearned control over our lives and cause magnitudes more waste than we do. To the 1 billion people on Earth living on less than a dollar a day, *you are the megarich villain*. If you’re walking away from this conversation still thinking you’re the victim, I don’t know what more to tell you — just like I don’t know what to tell Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk to make them realize the harms they create in the world
posted by Skwirl at 10:37 AM on August 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
The point of the article isn’t that individual actions don’t matter. The point is that people are kind of dumb about the individual actions that *do* matter.
And, yes, industry absolutely has had a hand in creating that stupidity because the true answer is “consume less” but that would hurt profits for shareholders. Reframing the problem as “the megarich cancel out anything I could do to help” is also a narrative that helps the worst purveyors of capitalism and consumerism because, again, it tells you that it’s okay to keep buying what you’re buying.
Billionaires are megarich villains to us because they have unearned control over our lives and cause magnitudes more waste than we do. To the 1 billion people on Earth living on less than a dollar a day, *you are the megarich villain*. If you’re walking away from this conversation still thinking you’re the victim, I don’t know what more to tell you — just like I don’t know what to tell Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk to make them realize the harms they create in the world
posted by Skwirl at 10:37 AM on August 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
That's 3,160,000 individual choices. So tell me that individual decisions don't matter.
Okay: individual decisions don't matter.
Instead of hectoring someone for buying an SUV, what would actually make a real difference are the policy decisions that lead to the production of SUVs being either permissible or profitable. That didn't happen by accident.
We used to say things like “be the change you want to see in the world”
Yes, and that was a foolish psy-op to trick people into fighting with each other over meaningless personal decisions to keep us divided instead of united against the real causes.
it tells you that it’s okay to keep buying what you’re buying
Because it is. Have a steak, don't have a steak. Fly, don't fly. Meaningless distractions.
Stop this ridiculous nonsense, you've been psy-oped into carrying water for billionaires.
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:38 AM on August 30, 2023 [26 favorites]
Okay: individual decisions don't matter.
Instead of hectoring someone for buying an SUV, what would actually make a real difference are the policy decisions that lead to the production of SUVs being either permissible or profitable. That didn't happen by accident.
We used to say things like “be the change you want to see in the world”
Yes, and that was a foolish psy-op to trick people into fighting with each other over meaningless personal decisions to keep us divided instead of united against the real causes.
it tells you that it’s okay to keep buying what you’re buying
Because it is. Have a steak, don't have a steak. Fly, don't fly. Meaningless distractions.
Stop this ridiculous nonsense, you've been psy-oped into carrying water for billionaires.
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:38 AM on August 30, 2023 [26 favorites]
Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals (The Guardian, July 17, 2017; archived)
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:42 AM on August 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:42 AM on August 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
I try to avoid buying plastic because all plastic eventually becomes microplastics. The amount of microplastics already in our bodies is scary.
In general, avoiding buying something is more effective than recycling it.
posted by neuron at 10:45 AM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
In general, avoiding buying something is more effective than recycling it.
posted by neuron at 10:45 AM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Several comments removed. Please don't advocate for killing people, even billionaires, thanks.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:45 AM on August 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:45 AM on August 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
Uhm. People who buy huge SUVs just for funsies and who don’t think twice about their individual impact *ALSO DON’T VOTE FOR POSITIVE
CHANGE*.
That’s the point of “be the change”. It’s that if you train yourself to be a selfish prick on the micro scale of your daily life, you will also be a selfish prick on the macro scale. It’s not a message of impact. It’s a message of mindfulness and intentionality
Let me say it even more simply because it doesn’t seem to be sticking: The type of people who buy Hummers are the type of people who vote Republican. You may think you’re smarter than all that and can game the system and enjoy all the wasteful indulgences while also being philosophically pure and high-minded about progressive change but what tf are you going to do when that better world starts coming along and you no longer can eat steak and have to start taking the bus? You’re going to throw a hissy fit because that’s what spoiled people do when they lose their toys. Change starts with your own damn self or it doesn’t start at all. That is a human truth
posted by Skwirl at 10:47 AM on August 30, 2023 [22 favorites]
CHANGE*.
That’s the point of “be the change”. It’s that if you train yourself to be a selfish prick on the micro scale of your daily life, you will also be a selfish prick on the macro scale. It’s not a message of impact. It’s a message of mindfulness and intentionality
Let me say it even more simply because it doesn’t seem to be sticking: The type of people who buy Hummers are the type of people who vote Republican. You may think you’re smarter than all that and can game the system and enjoy all the wasteful indulgences while also being philosophically pure and high-minded about progressive change but what tf are you going to do when that better world starts coming along and you no longer can eat steak and have to start taking the bus? You’re going to throw a hissy fit because that’s what spoiled people do when they lose their toys. Change starts with your own damn self or it doesn’t start at all. That is a human truth
posted by Skwirl at 10:47 AM on August 30, 2023 [22 favorites]
There were 3,160,000 SUVs purchased in the US last month alone. Some of those were electric/hybrid, most weren't.
That's 3,160,000 individual choices. So tell me that individual decisions don't matter.
Sure we need high-level action, but how much of the "the individual doesn't matter" stuff is just a way of keeping on with our crappy lifestyles?
Americans didn't magically wake up one day in the early 2000s and decide that they prefer SUVs over sedans. The current trend is driven in large part by massive incentives given to manufacturers. This article gives a pretty good breakdown. Particularly juicy section quoted below, but the whole article is worth a read.
Why did the truck takeover snowball? A simple and true explanation would be that America has unusually cheap gasoline and many people find bigger vehicles to be more convenient.
But an even more true explanation might be that colossal car conglomerates with colossal advertising and lobbying budgets have strong incentives to sell us light trucks, the definition of which can fluctuate.
As a rough rule of thumb, cars typically have two rows of seats and a trunk or hatchback, while light trucks are typically built on a truck chassis. Or, in the case of many crossovers, they’re built on a car chassis with special features added for off-roading.
Whether a vehicle is classified as a car or a truck is, therefore, subject to some interpretation. For now, the important point is that trucks generally are more profitable than cars thanks to two big government incentives, both of them historical footnotes.
The first is the so-called chicken tax, a 25 percent tariff imposed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 on foreign-built work vehicles as part of a chicken-related trade war with Europe. If you’re making a pickup or cargo van in the United States, profits should be higher, because foreign factories can’t come close to undercutting you on price.
The second incentive lies in the fine print of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards adopted in 1975, Gerald Ford’s reluctant response to a crippling Middle East oil embargo that sent gas prices soaring. To protect American commerce, work trucks and light trucks were subject to less-strict CAFE standards than family sedans. Trucks are also exempt from the 1978 gas guzzler tax, which adds $1,000 to $7,700 to the price of sedans that get 22.5 or fewer miles to the gallon.
posted by sid at 10:49 AM on August 30, 2023 [26 favorites]
That's 3,160,000 individual choices. So tell me that individual decisions don't matter.
Sure we need high-level action, but how much of the "the individual doesn't matter" stuff is just a way of keeping on with our crappy lifestyles?
Americans didn't magically wake up one day in the early 2000s and decide that they prefer SUVs over sedans. The current trend is driven in large part by massive incentives given to manufacturers. This article gives a pretty good breakdown. Particularly juicy section quoted below, but the whole article is worth a read.
Why did the truck takeover snowball? A simple and true explanation would be that America has unusually cheap gasoline and many people find bigger vehicles to be more convenient.
But an even more true explanation might be that colossal car conglomerates with colossal advertising and lobbying budgets have strong incentives to sell us light trucks, the definition of which can fluctuate.
As a rough rule of thumb, cars typically have two rows of seats and a trunk or hatchback, while light trucks are typically built on a truck chassis. Or, in the case of many crossovers, they’re built on a car chassis with special features added for off-roading.
Whether a vehicle is classified as a car or a truck is, therefore, subject to some interpretation. For now, the important point is that trucks generally are more profitable than cars thanks to two big government incentives, both of them historical footnotes.
The first is the so-called chicken tax, a 25 percent tariff imposed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 on foreign-built work vehicles as part of a chicken-related trade war with Europe. If you’re making a pickup or cargo van in the United States, profits should be higher, because foreign factories can’t come close to undercutting you on price.
The second incentive lies in the fine print of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards adopted in 1975, Gerald Ford’s reluctant response to a crippling Middle East oil embargo that sent gas prices soaring. To protect American commerce, work trucks and light trucks were subject to less-strict CAFE standards than family sedans. Trucks are also exempt from the 1978 gas guzzler tax, which adds $1,000 to $7,700 to the price of sedans that get 22.5 or fewer miles to the gallon.
posted by sid at 10:49 AM on August 30, 2023 [26 favorites]
That's 3,160,000 individual choices. So tell me that individual decisions don't matter.
Okay: individual decisions don't matter.
This is not a binary. Both matter, and we can argue which matters more, but it is not up for debate that either can be ignored.
posted by aeshnid at 10:49 AM on August 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
Okay: individual decisions don't matter.
This is not a binary. Both matter, and we can argue which matters more, but it is not up for debate that either can be ignored.
posted by aeshnid at 10:49 AM on August 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
Going induction rather than gas or conventional electric will be big as well, but I don't think the tech is quite ready/affordable yet.
Huh? I got an induction stove about 7 years ago. It was only a modest cost bump over a gas stove. Buying some new cookware was almost as expensive as the stove cost differential. Works great.
posted by gurple at 10:50 AM on August 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
Huh? I got an induction stove about 7 years ago. It was only a modest cost bump over a gas stove. Buying some new cookware was almost as expensive as the stove cost differential. Works great.
posted by gurple at 10:50 AM on August 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
Between 2015 and 2021, one-tenth of Ecuadorian households installed induction stoves. ...with hydroelectricity powering the grid, the program was found to have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by a net 7 percent from 2015 to 2021.
I'm pretty sure induction stoves have arrived.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 10:55 AM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
I'm pretty sure induction stoves have arrived.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 10:55 AM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
> Here in Toronto it doesn't matter what resin code it is, if it's black plastic, you put it in the garbage, because black plastic isn't recyclable here.
In east London it doesn't matter what resin code it is, if it's not bottle shaped, you put it in the garbage, because they are just on the limit of caring
posted by doiheartwentyone at 10:56 AM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
In east London it doesn't matter what resin code it is, if it's not bottle shaped, you put it in the garbage, because they are just on the limit of caring
posted by doiheartwentyone at 10:56 AM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Well the important thing is that now all of us here, who started off on basically the same side, now are calling names and yelling that everyone is an asshole! Definitely the key to fighting existential crisis.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:57 AM on August 30, 2023 [22 favorites]
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:57 AM on August 30, 2023 [22 favorites]
Uhm. People who buy huge SUVs just for funsies and who don’t think twice about their individual impact *ALSO DON’T VOTE FOR POSITIVE
CHANGE*.
Skwirl
This is exactly my point. You've fallen into precisely the trap this line of thinking is engineered to create.
This individual responsibility nonsense transforms policy issues into culture war bullshit that divides people into silly camps like this. You're now dismissing swathes of people as just inherently bad assholes who can't be dealt with.
But this is the result of this line of thinking, not the cause. People who might otherwise be open to messages about their communities and children being poisoned for the benefit of the wealthy are turned off by these issues becoming personal cultural matters and end up at "Oh, so grilling a burger makes me a monster? Fuck you and your environmentalism."
Change starts with your own damn self or it doesn’t start at all. That is a human truth
Getting people to identify with different tribes that oppose is each other is a surefire way to keep them divided against you. That's a human truth.
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:57 AM on August 30, 2023 [24 favorites]
CHANGE*.
Skwirl
This is exactly my point. You've fallen into precisely the trap this line of thinking is engineered to create.
This individual responsibility nonsense transforms policy issues into culture war bullshit that divides people into silly camps like this. You're now dismissing swathes of people as just inherently bad assholes who can't be dealt with.
But this is the result of this line of thinking, not the cause. People who might otherwise be open to messages about their communities and children being poisoned for the benefit of the wealthy are turned off by these issues becoming personal cultural matters and end up at "Oh, so grilling a burger makes me a monster? Fuck you and your environmentalism."
Change starts with your own damn self or it doesn’t start at all. That is a human truth
Getting people to identify with different tribes that oppose is each other is a surefire way to keep them divided against you. That's a human truth.
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:57 AM on August 30, 2023 [24 favorites]
Emily Wang, 23, hasn’t flown since the fall of 2021. She said the decision was the logical outcome of her concern about climate change and the contribution of flying to her carbon footprint, though it required some lifestyle changes, such as reducing how often she travels from Massachusetts to see her parents in Michigan.
Going to propose a tax credit for cutting off parents that refuse to move near their kids
posted by credulous at 11:00 AM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
Going to propose a tax credit for cutting off parents that refuse to move near their kids
posted by credulous at 11:00 AM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
Top of the list for me would be 'vote wisely'.
Voting presents exactly the same paradox of individual choice as the lifestyle stuff. It clearly does matter, in aggregate, but in isolation it clearly doesn’t. Either way you need some sort of collective framework to resolve that contradiction.
posted by atoxyl at 11:07 AM on August 30, 2023 [12 favorites]
Voting presents exactly the same paradox of individual choice as the lifestyle stuff. It clearly does matter, in aggregate, but in isolation it clearly doesn’t. Either way you need some sort of collective framework to resolve that contradiction.
posted by atoxyl at 11:07 AM on August 30, 2023 [12 favorites]
Going to propose a tax credit for cutting off parents that refuse to move near their kids
I haven't seen my parents face-to-face in four years (talk to them every week by Zoom). Partly not flying because pandemic, partly because carbon.
I've been hinting for a decade that they should move closer. It's up to them if they want to stay down there in the climate-hell Sun Belt, but I don't feel guilty about not flying down there any more than I have to.
posted by gurple at 11:09 AM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
I haven't seen my parents face-to-face in four years (talk to them every week by Zoom). Partly not flying because pandemic, partly because carbon.
I've been hinting for a decade that they should move closer. It's up to them if they want to stay down there in the climate-hell Sun Belt, but I don't feel guilty about not flying down there any more than I have to.
posted by gurple at 11:09 AM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
Medals for individual superiority can be collected in the East Hall
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 11:11 AM on August 30, 2023 [21 favorites]
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 11:11 AM on August 30, 2023 [21 favorites]
The way we reduced the amount of lead in children's bloodstreams was by banning most uses of lead, rather than by individuals carefully researching the 'lead footprint' of every product they buy.
posted by Pyry at 11:17 AM on August 30, 2023 [84 favorites]
posted by Pyry at 11:17 AM on August 30, 2023 [84 favorites]
Since this thread is at risk of circling the same spots it always does, let's streamline things a bit:
Everybody put down:
* One individual thing they already do that makes them feel like they're doing better than the people around them
* One structural barrier keeping them from doing something significant they'd otherwise like to imagine doing
* One reason someone else's individual thing that's so easy for them would in fact be a significant barrier to you and how dare you suggest it?
I'll start:
* No children, no car
* Have you seen what Amtrak is like outside the NE Corridor?
* Giving up flying entirely would limit job prospects (even/especially since I work remote) & mean increasing social isolation outside of the friends I've convinced to move to my city. My father-in-law's getting really up there in years, you know?
posted by CrystalDave at 11:18 AM on August 30, 2023 [8 favorites]
Everybody put down:
* One individual thing they already do that makes them feel like they're doing better than the people around them
* One structural barrier keeping them from doing something significant they'd otherwise like to imagine doing
* One reason someone else's individual thing that's so easy for them would in fact be a significant barrier to you and how dare you suggest it?
I'll start:
* No children, no car
* Have you seen what Amtrak is like outside the NE Corridor?
* Giving up flying entirely would limit job prospects (even/especially since I work remote) & mean increasing social isolation outside of the friends I've convinced to move to my city. My father-in-law's getting really up there in years, you know?
posted by CrystalDave at 11:18 AM on August 30, 2023 [8 favorites]
This individual responsibility nonsense transforms policy issues into culture war bullshit that divides people into silly camps like this. .
in my experience, what truly divides people is extreme binary positions (either/or). Which is why I must be skeptical of any argument that says, more or less, the individual can do nothing, that only the BIG players matter. It takes both obviously.
We're dealing with complexity here, which makes simple seeming explanations not exactly land with me.
posted by philip-random at 11:20 AM on August 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
in my experience, what truly divides people is extreme binary positions (either/or). Which is why I must be skeptical of any argument that says, more or less, the individual can do nothing, that only the BIG players matter. It takes both obviously.
We're dealing with complexity here, which makes simple seeming explanations not exactly land with me.
posted by philip-random at 11:20 AM on August 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
I use the mantra "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" in that order. Take my own bags everywhere for groceries, refuse plastic bags when offered, stopped buying extravagantly packed items etc.
posted by indianbadger1 at 11:24 AM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by indianbadger1 at 11:24 AM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
I also think it would be dope if everyone spontaneously stopped doing climate change.
posted by Reyturner at 11:28 AM on August 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by Reyturner at 11:28 AM on August 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
I fully grasp the insidiousness of corporations trying to push the full responsibility on individuals and their choices. That doesn't have to mean individual choices are utterly meaningless though. Improving ones own choices and reducing ones own impact doesn't somehow imply letting companies or governments off the hook. Not sure where that notion comes from.
If everybody waits for someone worse or some worse entity or structure to change first... we'll be waiting for a long time. And time is the one thing we no longer have.
Setting an example is helpful. I know I've learned a lot from people around me and I've seen such learning spread and people change their habits when they first dismissed this kind of stuff and laughed at it. E.g. I see male co-workers drive hybrids and EVs that would have dismissed that possibility entirely not too long ago b/c of some stupid masculinity nonsense. It's not much but it's not nothing.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 11:30 AM on August 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
If everybody waits for someone worse or some worse entity or structure to change first... we'll be waiting for a long time. And time is the one thing we no longer have.
Setting an example is helpful. I know I've learned a lot from people around me and I've seen such learning spread and people change their habits when they first dismissed this kind of stuff and laughed at it. E.g. I see male co-workers drive hybrids and EVs that would have dismissed that possibility entirely not too long ago b/c of some stupid masculinity nonsense. It's not much but it's not nothing.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 11:30 AM on August 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
I think having an economic system dependent upon chasing endless growth in order to outrun the ever inflating currency is more deeply coupled to our environmental woes than people like to admit.
Ceaseless growth on a finite planet was never going to end well.
But unless we're going to overhaul the global economic model + private property + all corporate charters then:
We need to properly price carbon. Unavoidably, comprehensively and deeply.
We should also be mobilising to construct renewable energy projects on unprecedented scale but instead we're giving out fossil fuel subsidies. Individually people seem to care but most governments are ambling along.
posted by neonamber at 11:32 AM on August 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
Ceaseless growth on a finite planet was never going to end well.
But unless we're going to overhaul the global economic model + private property + all corporate charters then:
We need to properly price carbon. Unavoidably, comprehensively and deeply.
We should also be mobilising to construct renewable energy projects on unprecedented scale but instead we're giving out fossil fuel subsidies. Individually people seem to care but most governments are ambling along.
posted by neonamber at 11:32 AM on August 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
We all do what we can...
And there are a lot of us out there. Large numbers matter.
We have done all we can. We have 37 solar panels. We have a solar hot water system. We recycle everything. We have electric cars. We have Ridwell to deal with plastics. I haven't flown in over a decade, (more for medical phobias than carbon, but...). We are doing all that we can. But, what we can do seems irrelevant to what big things can do.
We can leave this place an empty stone, or that shining ball of blue, we can call our home...
posted by Windopaene at 11:34 AM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
And there are a lot of us out there. Large numbers matter.
We have done all we can. We have 37 solar panels. We have a solar hot water system. We recycle everything. We have electric cars. We have Ridwell to deal with plastics. I haven't flown in over a decade, (more for medical phobias than carbon, but...). We are doing all that we can. But, what we can do seems irrelevant to what big things can do.
We can leave this place an empty stone, or that shining ball of blue, we can call our home...
posted by Windopaene at 11:34 AM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
What also doesn't work:
Using corporate pollution as an excuse to absolve oneself from doing anything that might be a little inconvenient.
How many of you can control megacorps? Anyone? Yes we can vote but that hasn't been very effective either.
I am sick of seeing people refusing to talk about their own personal culpability and unwillingness to change anything in their lifestyle, because "personal choice doesn't matter".
If you refuse to talk about things you can do to help while loudly going on about things you can't control, you are probably part of the problem.
posted by SaltySalticid at 11:36 AM on August 30, 2023 [16 favorites]
Using corporate pollution as an excuse to absolve oneself from doing anything that might be a little inconvenient.
How many of you can control megacorps? Anyone? Yes we can vote but that hasn't been very effective either.
I am sick of seeing people refusing to talk about their own personal culpability and unwillingness to change anything in their lifestyle, because "personal choice doesn't matter".
If you refuse to talk about things you can do to help while loudly going on about things you can't control, you are probably part of the problem.
posted by SaltySalticid at 11:36 AM on August 30, 2023 [16 favorites]
Going to propose a tax credit for cutting off parents that refuse to move near their kids
Look I get that this is a joke but it's a pretty good example of how a lot of the proposed solutions to a LOT of problems, in addition to being 100% individual and 0% structural, are also needlessly punitive. Like ABSOLUTELY, the United States would create a bonus system for people cutting themselves off from their parents, and not a bonus system to assist families with relocation. And then be like, "I don't get it, nothing works?!?!? People must just be selfish assholes and there's no solutions!"
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 11:37 AM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
Look I get that this is a joke but it's a pretty good example of how a lot of the proposed solutions to a LOT of problems, in addition to being 100% individual and 0% structural, are also needlessly punitive. Like ABSOLUTELY, the United States would create a bonus system for people cutting themselves off from their parents, and not a bonus system to assist families with relocation. And then be like, "I don't get it, nothing works?!?!? People must just be selfish assholes and there's no solutions!"
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 11:37 AM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
The Most Capitalist Thing: "Hey everyone, if we each individually just buy the right things, we'll save the world!"
posted by star gentle uterus at 11:41 AM on August 30, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by star gentle uterus at 11:41 AM on August 30, 2023 [12 favorites]
It's interesting to see this conversation go the same way every time. I feel like you can't point out the propaganda massed against people realizing big business is the actual problem because then you sound like that guy calling people "sheeple." That's no good, but on the other hand, it is big business that is causing the most problems.
Now, I like the idea that yeah, no one answer is right, and it can't be either individuals doing stuff or big business doing stuff. Both are needed, but...
If I had to pick one to tell people to put their energy into, it would the one that held big businesses to account.
If we all stopped doing all the green things we were doing and spent that money on PACS aimed at forcing green changes and volunteered our time on activities aimed at forcing green changes, I have confidence that change would be more possible more quickly than people think.
Then we could settle back down to the personal changes we could make. I hate them all, but it'd be a lot easier for me to stomach eating less meat if I wasn't driving by a plant spitting pollution into the air 24 hours a day.
posted by BeReasonable at 11:44 AM on August 30, 2023 [10 favorites]
Now, I like the idea that yeah, no one answer is right, and it can't be either individuals doing stuff or big business doing stuff. Both are needed, but...
If I had to pick one to tell people to put their energy into, it would the one that held big businesses to account.
If we all stopped doing all the green things we were doing and spent that money on PACS aimed at forcing green changes and volunteered our time on activities aimed at forcing green changes, I have confidence that change would be more possible more quickly than people think.
Then we could settle back down to the personal changes we could make. I hate them all, but it'd be a lot easier for me to stomach eating less meat if I wasn't driving by a plant spitting pollution into the air 24 hours a day.
posted by BeReasonable at 11:44 AM on August 30, 2023 [10 favorites]
Speaking for myself, I'm by no means saying that individual actions are meaningless.
I'm more objecting to this article, and the majority of reporting on climate change, which tends to focus on:
1) Catastrophic effects that are no doubt coming, doom-and-gloom, and the 'disaster porn' thereof
2) The minutiae of how an individual can lessen their impact on the planet
Both of the above are important, but there's a glaring hole IMO. There's very little out there on how the power elite continually subsidize and perpetuate structural systems that lead to climate change.
Things I see very little / no reporting on, for example (Canadian lens here but likely applies to the states too):
- How our industrial agricultural system subsidizes over production and overuse of petroleum-derived fertilizers
- How our government continues hand massive subsidies to the oil and gas industry
- How all levels of govt have abandoned meaningful investment in public transit
posted by sid at 11:44 AM on August 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
I'm more objecting to this article, and the majority of reporting on climate change, which tends to focus on:
1) Catastrophic effects that are no doubt coming, doom-and-gloom, and the 'disaster porn' thereof
2) The minutiae of how an individual can lessen their impact on the planet
Both of the above are important, but there's a glaring hole IMO. There's very little out there on how the power elite continually subsidize and perpetuate structural systems that lead to climate change.
Things I see very little / no reporting on, for example (Canadian lens here but likely applies to the states too):
- How our industrial agricultural system subsidizes over production and overuse of petroleum-derived fertilizers
- How our government continues hand massive subsidies to the oil and gas industry
- How all levels of govt have abandoned meaningful investment in public transit
posted by sid at 11:44 AM on August 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
There were 3,160,000 SUVs purchased in the US last month alone.
Do we have a source for this? ~1% of the population of the country all buying a particular type of vehicle in July 2023 seems a little unlikely to me. The Yankees are playing the Tigers tomorrow afternoon; Comerica Park seats 41,000 people. Do we think that 24 hours from now the parking lot and nearby streets will have 4000 SUVs each with 800 miles on the odometer?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:48 AM on August 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
Do we have a source for this? ~1% of the population of the country all buying a particular type of vehicle in July 2023 seems a little unlikely to me. The Yankees are playing the Tigers tomorrow afternoon; Comerica Park seats 41,000 people. Do we think that 24 hours from now the parking lot and nearby streets will have 4000 SUVs each with 800 miles on the odometer?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:48 AM on August 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
Mod note:Several comments removed. Please don't advocate for killing people, even billionaires, thanks.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:45 PM on August 30
Got it. How about advocating for eating them instead?
posted by ZaphodB at 11:51 AM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:45 PM on August 30
Got it. How about advocating for eating them instead?
posted by ZaphodB at 11:51 AM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
Good catch, ricochet biscuit. According to an industry report there were only 1.3 million total new car sales in the US in July 2023, of which 79% (or about a million) were SUVs. Obviously that's way too many SUVS still, but it's not 3 million a month.
posted by fancypants at 11:53 AM on August 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by fancypants at 11:53 AM on August 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
I don't feel like I am hearing a lot of "well my personal choices don't matter so I'm going to burn a giant pile of tires for fun" so much as a deep sense of discouragement over the actions individuals CAN take, that we are now being told are pointless (ie recycling).
I didn't have children, I have solar panels, I recycle (and compost etc), cutting down on meat consumption etc.,
I do fly maybe once a year, but feel like the no kids offset covers that.
I have not stopped doing the things I can do, but I feel like its a gesture, unlikely to be ENOUGH without the concomitant BIG action on government and corporate levels. yes I vote, always. so far it hasn't stopped things like Citizens United from being a thing.
the mention above about 95% of us going Full Monk?? you know what I think? how about the top 5%, or 1% goes Full Monk? that would probably have a far greater impact, but hahaha who am I kidding?
posted by supermedusa at 12:00 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
I didn't have children, I have solar panels, I recycle (and compost etc), cutting down on meat consumption etc.,
I do fly maybe once a year, but feel like the no kids offset covers that.
I have not stopped doing the things I can do, but I feel like its a gesture, unlikely to be ENOUGH without the concomitant BIG action on government and corporate levels. yes I vote, always. so far it hasn't stopped things like Citizens United from being a thing.
the mention above about 95% of us going Full Monk?? you know what I think? how about the top 5%, or 1% goes Full Monk? that would probably have a far greater impact, but hahaha who am I kidding?
posted by supermedusa at 12:00 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Just about everyone now understands that the recycling program was mostly industry pushing the whole issue onto consumers. The lack of genuinely recyclable things, and failure to create efficient and widespread post-consumer processing channels, makes this clear. It's a program that has mostly failed, but nobody has a plan for a do-over.
Recycling that works? Reusable containers with an up-front deposit. In Ontario we have deposits on liquor and beer bottles & cans, and a working pickup regime, and the return rate is north of 90%
Stepping back - the squabbling here (whose fault: industry! zillionaires! personal! gummint!) show how far we are from significant change. Here's a proposal for the personal side: energy rationing. Citizens are allotted the right to consume X units of energy per year in transportation, domestic use (heating/cooling/cooking/appliances) and travel. If they exceed that allotment, they pay a premium on the additional energy consumed. There could be a market where the frugal could bank/sell/trade their unused allotment. Desirable actions like transit use, or trains over flying, could be incentivized by being exempt from the allotment system.
The idea being that we set individual ration limits that lead to reductions in overall use, but we let people choose how they'd use their allotment. Maybe an apartment dweller gives up their car, but likes to travel each year. Maybe a sports-car aficionado commutes to work by bicycle or transit, and does road trips on the weekend. Etc.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:01 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
Recycling that works? Reusable containers with an up-front deposit. In Ontario we have deposits on liquor and beer bottles & cans, and a working pickup regime, and the return rate is north of 90%
Stepping back - the squabbling here (whose fault: industry! zillionaires! personal! gummint!) show how far we are from significant change. Here's a proposal for the personal side: energy rationing. Citizens are allotted the right to consume X units of energy per year in transportation, domestic use (heating/cooling/cooking/appliances) and travel. If they exceed that allotment, they pay a premium on the additional energy consumed. There could be a market where the frugal could bank/sell/trade their unused allotment. Desirable actions like transit use, or trains over flying, could be incentivized by being exempt from the allotment system.
The idea being that we set individual ration limits that lead to reductions in overall use, but we let people choose how they'd use their allotment. Maybe an apartment dweller gives up their car, but likes to travel each year. Maybe a sports-car aficionado commutes to work by bicycle or transit, and does road trips on the weekend. Etc.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:01 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
the mention above about 95% of us going Full Monk?? you know what I think? how about the top 5%, or 1% goes Full Monk? that would probably have a far greater impact, but hahaha who am I kidding?
I mean that was exactly my point. How realistic is it that we get 95% of americans to do all of those things? And even if it happened, does it matter if the impact that they make in a year can be undone with 2 companies doing business as usual for 48 hours?
And again, c'mon. EVEN IF 95% of americans went full-monk, what you're actually saying is that america stopped doing capitalism, which, when that revolution comes? It won't be a bunch of shiny happy people putting solar panels on their roofs...
posted by nushustu at 12:06 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
I mean that was exactly my point. How realistic is it that we get 95% of americans to do all of those things? And even if it happened, does it matter if the impact that they make in a year can be undone with 2 companies doing business as usual for 48 hours?
And again, c'mon. EVEN IF 95% of americans went full-monk, what you're actually saying is that america stopped doing capitalism, which, when that revolution comes? It won't be a bunch of shiny happy people putting solar panels on their roofs...
posted by nushustu at 12:06 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
This individual responsibility nonsense transforms policy issues into culture war bullshit that divides people into silly camps like this.
Individual responsibility is why the US has mostly poor public transit. You think there is some grand billionaire (or neoliberal) conspiracy not to build apartments and stacked townhomes and urban infill, which are far more profitable and far easier for a single corporation to scale? That's on you, and your parents, and grand parents and neighbors. Maybe billionaires are advocating against such things in their own neighborhoods, but there aren't that many of them.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:09 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Individual responsibility is why the US has mostly poor public transit. You think there is some grand billionaire (or neoliberal) conspiracy not to build apartments and stacked townhomes and urban infill, which are far more profitable and far easier for a single corporation to scale? That's on you, and your parents, and grand parents and neighbors. Maybe billionaires are advocating against such things in their own neighborhoods, but there aren't that many of them.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:09 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
The idea being that we set targets that lead to reductions in overall use, but we let people choose how they'd use their allotment. Maybe an apartment dweller gives up their car, but likes to travel each year. Maybe a sports-car aficionado commutes to work by bicycle or transit, and does road trips on the weekend. Etc.
The only problem I can see with this is how it permits people to value a range of things instead of a narrow set of Correct Things to Value lol.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 12:12 PM on August 30, 2023
The only problem I can see with this is how it permits people to value a range of things instead of a narrow set of Correct Things to Value lol.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 12:12 PM on August 30, 2023
Want to cut your carbon footprint, water footprint, and energy footprint dramatically? Move to a moderately dense part of a city and advocate for building more density within your city. You can recycle too, but you'll generally naturally use far less materials than old you by doing so.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:12 PM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:12 PM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago (Scientific American, Oct. 26, 2015)
Fossil-fuel industry's 1984-2021 climate-change disinformation ads sampler at The Guardian in Nov. 2021.
Only 100 investor and state-owned fossil fuel companies are responsible for around 70 percent of the world’s historical GHG emissions (Harvard Business Review, Jan. 2, 2020)
It's often said that the decision-making execs of those companies could fit on two buses; good luck getting them on board.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:24 PM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
Fossil-fuel industry's 1984-2021 climate-change disinformation ads sampler at The Guardian in Nov. 2021.
Only 100 investor and state-owned fossil fuel companies are responsible for around 70 percent of the world’s historical GHG emissions (Harvard Business Review, Jan. 2, 2020)
It's often said that the decision-making execs of those companies could fit on two buses; good luck getting them on board.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:24 PM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
There were 3,160,000 SUVs purchased in the US last month alone.
>Do we have a source for this?
Whoops yes, a typo:
3,160,000 SUVs purchased in the US last year alone.
posted by storybored at 12:38 PM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
>Do we have a source for this?
Whoops yes, a typo:
3,160,000 SUVs purchased in the US last year alone.
posted by storybored at 12:38 PM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
If I had to pick one to tell people to put their energy into, it would the one that held big businesses to account.
I’m absolutely on the side that environmental discourse that expects individuals to make “the right choices” in a vacuum doesn’t work and is basically a stalling tactic. The problem with saying “actually it’s big business” is that it is disingenuous to suggest that it’s big business in a way that does not affect, is not mediated by, the rest of us who consume their products and services.
I mean, something like an incandescent lightbulb phaseout is a pretty favorable example of regulation targeted at producers - it has some mild negative impact on consumers in specific use cases but most of us don’t really care and in fact win in other areas and it forces innovation all around. But, no joke, I’ve seen people talking about that in “why punish the individual when big business is the problem??” terms. I’d rather be up front about “yeah, things will change, you’ll win some and lose some.”
posted by atoxyl at 12:39 PM on August 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
I’m absolutely on the side that environmental discourse that expects individuals to make “the right choices” in a vacuum doesn’t work and is basically a stalling tactic. The problem with saying “actually it’s big business” is that it is disingenuous to suggest that it’s big business in a way that does not affect, is not mediated by, the rest of us who consume their products and services.
I mean, something like an incandescent lightbulb phaseout is a pretty favorable example of regulation targeted at producers - it has some mild negative impact on consumers in specific use cases but most of us don’t really care and in fact win in other areas and it forces innovation all around. But, no joke, I’ve seen people talking about that in “why punish the individual when big business is the problem??” terms. I’d rather be up front about “yeah, things will change, you’ll win some and lose some.”
posted by atoxyl at 12:39 PM on August 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
Citizens are allotted the right to consume X units of energy per year in transportation, domestic use (heating/cooling/cooking/appliances) and travel.
I don’t get why you’re specifying use. There’s only so much atmospheric CO2 the planet can reabsorb in a year — divide that up per capita and let each of us use our share for anything.
posted by clew at 12:39 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
I don’t get why you’re specifying use. There’s only so much atmospheric CO2 the planet can reabsorb in a year — divide that up per capita and let each of us use our share for anything.
posted by clew at 12:39 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
If you refuse to talk about things you can do to help while loudly going on about things you can't control, you are probably part of the problem.
We need to all loudly go on about these things. If enough people understood and were pissed off enough it would absolutely make a difference. The problem isn't 'you', it's that a small cadre of sociopathic capitalist individuals have colluded to sentence our planet to hell. And yes if enough people knew about it, understood it, and were loud enough about it, there would be change because all those people fear mass uprising more than they love money.
If you have to choose one or the other, take all the energy you put into separating your recycling and put it towards spreading awareness of these issues and advocating for structural change. It would likely pay higher dividends.
posted by sid at 12:40 PM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
We need to all loudly go on about these things. If enough people understood and were pissed off enough it would absolutely make a difference. The problem isn't 'you', it's that a small cadre of sociopathic capitalist individuals have colluded to sentence our planet to hell. And yes if enough people knew about it, understood it, and were loud enough about it, there would be change because all those people fear mass uprising more than they love money.
If you have to choose one or the other, take all the energy you put into separating your recycling and put it towards spreading awareness of these issues and advocating for structural change. It would likely pay higher dividends.
posted by sid at 12:40 PM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I thought the "polls vs. reality" framing of the article was completely pointless, especially when their biggest takeaway was that recycling isn't a climate solution per se. For some reason the big papers like this format, the "you think it's X, but it's really Y."
posted by anhedonic at 12:42 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by anhedonic at 12:42 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
am i the only one who noticed the comment about the chicken-related trade war with europe in 1964? i might need to do a whole fpp on that.
posted by misanthropicsarah at 12:46 PM on August 30, 2023 [14 favorites]
posted by misanthropicsarah at 12:46 PM on August 30, 2023 [14 favorites]
You think there is some grand billionaire (or neoliberal) conspiracy not to build apartments and stacked townhomes and urban infill, which are far more profitable and far easier for a single corporation to scale?
If building apartments and stacked townhomes and urban infill was more profitable, these would be built.
As the recent Greenbelt graft scandal in Ontario has made plain, the big housing development play is still stuck in the mid 20th century: plop up Levittowns and suburbs on green land, and armtwist governments into servicing them, add roads etc. Infill is currently less profitable to developers. Problem.
I don’t get why you’re specifying use [in energy rationing]. There’s only so much atmospheric CO2 the planet can reabsorb in a year — divide that up per capita and let each of us use our share for anything.
Add an etc if you like.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:47 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
If building apartments and stacked townhomes and urban infill was more profitable, these would be built.
As the recent Greenbelt graft scandal in Ontario has made plain, the big housing development play is still stuck in the mid 20th century: plop up Levittowns and suburbs on green land, and armtwist governments into servicing them, add roads etc. Infill is currently less profitable to developers. Problem.
I don’t get why you’re specifying use [in energy rationing]. There’s only so much atmospheric CO2 the planet can reabsorb in a year — divide that up per capita and let each of us use our share for anything.
Add an etc if you like.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:47 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
The Get Out of Guilt Free card that comes with the decision not to procreate is fantastic and highly recommended. It frees up my worrying time to responsibly address related troublesome thoughts that occasionally cross my mind, like whether some other person ought to be allowed to procreate, take international flights, eat meat, drive a big car, etc.
posted by otsebyatina at 12:55 PM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by otsebyatina at 12:55 PM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
These are decisions people had to make before we discovered oil, and people are reluctant to go back to those times.
People aren't just reluctant, they're going to refuse to do it. This is not something people are going to be convinced is a good idea, and so they aren't going to vote for someone who campaigns on a "let's all get poorer" platform. The only way this happens, if it does, is a social collapse that nobody is able to stop.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:19 PM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
People aren't just reluctant, they're going to refuse to do it. This is not something people are going to be convinced is a good idea, and so they aren't going to vote for someone who campaigns on a "let's all get poorer" platform. The only way this happens, if it does, is a social collapse that nobody is able to stop.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:19 PM on August 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
This idea that not having children is somehow virtuous from a climate perspective is bizarre to me.
People merely existing doesn't cause the scale of climate change we're seeing today. It's the use of fossil fuels.
If you want children, you care about the climate, and you believe we have a fighting chance to avoid climate-caused apocalypse, by all means have them, and raise them to be shit disturbers who will stand up to the power elite.
posted by sid at 1:20 PM on August 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
People merely existing doesn't cause the scale of climate change we're seeing today. It's the use of fossil fuels.
If you want children, you care about the climate, and you believe we have a fighting chance to avoid climate-caused apocalypse, by all means have them, and raise them to be shit disturbers who will stand up to the power elite.
posted by sid at 1:20 PM on August 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
Environmental damages are the results of individual decisions made, but those decisions are made in the constraints and limits of a series of larger systems that do not give enough of a shit about the environment. It's not an either-or situation; it's a both-and.
I was at a sustainability organizations meeting a few years ago, and we were looking at targets that had been set for various sustainable outcomes. Almost all of them had been badly missed; many were trending in the wrong direction. But the one that had been met and exceeded was landfill use; the city was putting half as much garbage in the landfill as before. And what had changed was not consumer sentiment; I remember 40 years ago "reduce, reuse, recycle" being a well understood slogan. This 1995 US survey said that 95% of households engaged in some recycling! What had changed was the city had switched from a bunch of recycling depots you could drop your goods off at to a blue bin that was picked up from your house; and then had added a green bin for compost. It was millions of individual decisions, but they were only enabled by a structural change.
It's the same in so many ways; the SUV thing has been mentioned before, but here's the actual chart of sales; SUVs (in blue) were a small fraction of vehicle sales into the late 1990s, when they pulled broadly even with cars (red). This remained until around 2015, when they started pulling ahead, and now represent 80% of new vehicles. Each purchase is an individual decision, but they're made in the context of a larger system -- one in which as sid mentioned above car companies gamed the fuel efficiency laws by shifting consumer demand ($3 billion or so per year in advertising) and production. In 2003, if you walked into a Ford dealership wanting to buy a vehicle to hold you, your partner and your two teenagers, you might have left with the #7 selling vehicle of the year, the Ford Taurus. You can't buy a Taurus anymore; in fact, unless you want a muscle car (not exactly the climate-friendly choice) you literally can only buy SUVs from Ford; the Explorer is now their best selling "car", and it produces more CO2 than their Taurus did 20 years ago. But tnat doesn't mean that you personally have to buy the most polluting vehicle you can find; you can choose a hybrid, or a smaller vehicle, and you can choose to drive it less. (Although the city-building system probably traps you in a situation where you still have to drive a lot more than you should.)
We're stuck in a shitty system, and we need to acknowledge this and fight to improve it, but that doesn't mean that our individual decisions have no consequence.
posted by Superilla at 1:23 PM on August 30, 2023 [17 favorites]
I was at a sustainability organizations meeting a few years ago, and we were looking at targets that had been set for various sustainable outcomes. Almost all of them had been badly missed; many were trending in the wrong direction. But the one that had been met and exceeded was landfill use; the city was putting half as much garbage in the landfill as before. And what had changed was not consumer sentiment; I remember 40 years ago "reduce, reuse, recycle" being a well understood slogan. This 1995 US survey said that 95% of households engaged in some recycling! What had changed was the city had switched from a bunch of recycling depots you could drop your goods off at to a blue bin that was picked up from your house; and then had added a green bin for compost. It was millions of individual decisions, but they were only enabled by a structural change.
It's the same in so many ways; the SUV thing has been mentioned before, but here's the actual chart of sales; SUVs (in blue) were a small fraction of vehicle sales into the late 1990s, when they pulled broadly even with cars (red). This remained until around 2015, when they started pulling ahead, and now represent 80% of new vehicles. Each purchase is an individual decision, but they're made in the context of a larger system -- one in which as sid mentioned above car companies gamed the fuel efficiency laws by shifting consumer demand ($3 billion or so per year in advertising) and production. In 2003, if you walked into a Ford dealership wanting to buy a vehicle to hold you, your partner and your two teenagers, you might have left with the #7 selling vehicle of the year, the Ford Taurus. You can't buy a Taurus anymore; in fact, unless you want a muscle car (not exactly the climate-friendly choice) you literally can only buy SUVs from Ford; the Explorer is now their best selling "car", and it produces more CO2 than their Taurus did 20 years ago. But tnat doesn't mean that you personally have to buy the most polluting vehicle you can find; you can choose a hybrid, or a smaller vehicle, and you can choose to drive it less. (Although the city-building system probably traps you in a situation where you still have to drive a lot more than you should.)
We're stuck in a shitty system, and we need to acknowledge this and fight to improve it, but that doesn't mean that our individual decisions have no consequence.
posted by Superilla at 1:23 PM on August 30, 2023 [17 favorites]
The free market cannot get us out of this mess - even if it could, there is no incentive there. Governments have to be willing to regulate and tax almost every industry as appropriate and even that will only get us part of the way there - but I get the feeling the neoliberal rot is so deep that many governments are just an extension of the free market anyway... I'm not jaded, you're jaded!
posted by piyushnz at 1:28 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by piyushnz at 1:28 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
raise them to be shit disturbers who will stand up to the power elite
I find it unlikely that any children I have would be net carbon-negative (I'm not!), and I'm not sure I'd want to bring a child into the world and then tell them "hey, so, you're X years old now, you've emitted Y carbon just being alive, now it's your job to get out there and reduce global emissions by more than you've produced so far, and on an ongoing basis, more than you produce yourself."
posted by BungaDunga at 1:28 PM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
I find it unlikely that any children I have would be net carbon-negative (I'm not!), and I'm not sure I'd want to bring a child into the world and then tell them "hey, so, you're X years old now, you've emitted Y carbon just being alive, now it's your job to get out there and reduce global emissions by more than you've produced so far, and on an ongoing basis, more than you produce yourself."
posted by BungaDunga at 1:28 PM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
This is a Marathon, not a sprint.
A lot of this is inducing people to *think* about their choices and choose better.
I'm reminded of the decades long effort to fight Apartheid in South Africa. I heard so many people say about the actions outside of South Africa, "it doesn't matter", "they don't care", etc.
Until they did.
If you can't do anything else, you can shift the Overton Window with these efforts.
(And stop choking that you can't solve it NOW)
posted by aleph at 1:32 PM on August 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
A lot of this is inducing people to *think* about their choices and choose better.
I'm reminded of the decades long effort to fight Apartheid in South Africa. I heard so many people say about the actions outside of South Africa, "it doesn't matter", "they don't care", etc.
Until they did.
If you can't do anything else, you can shift the Overton Window with these efforts.
(And stop choking that you can't solve it NOW)
posted by aleph at 1:32 PM on August 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
I’ve seen no mention so far of the market supply/demand equation and how individuals avoiding a bad thing X just drive the cost of that X down for others, who are now incentivized to use more of it. If I and my environmentalist friends drive less, that’s less demand for gasoline, so it becomes slightly cheaper overall and that encourages other people to drive more; the same gasoline ends up getting burned either way. If a plane is flying from my city to another and I choose not to buy a ticket because of the carbon cost, it leaves the seat available and the airline is just going to sell it to someone else for slightly cheaper, because that plane is already mostly booked and the airline will do anything to fill every seat to maximize revenue on the cost of their flight. If I move out of a suburb because city living is more efficient, I’m not tearing down the house I left behind; someone else is going to occupy it and live just as inefficiently as I would have if I had stayed there.
IMO, as long as capitalism exists and most people in the market are more motivated by price than by environmental costs, there’s no way for individuals to affect carbon emission in the aggregate by changing their own habits. Sure, enough people working together might eventually lower the demand for, say, an air route by enough that it’s no longer profitable for the company to operate that route… but until you get to that level of mass action, it seems to me that there’s literally nothing that your individual actions can do except shift a few tons from your carbon footprint onto someone else’s. The total amount burned remains the same, unless there is government action to counteract the natural tendency of the market.
posted by purple_frogs at 1:42 PM on August 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
IMO, as long as capitalism exists and most people in the market are more motivated by price than by environmental costs, there’s no way for individuals to affect carbon emission in the aggregate by changing their own habits. Sure, enough people working together might eventually lower the demand for, say, an air route by enough that it’s no longer profitable for the company to operate that route… but until you get to that level of mass action, it seems to me that there’s literally nothing that your individual actions can do except shift a few tons from your carbon footprint onto someone else’s. The total amount burned remains the same, unless there is government action to counteract the natural tendency of the market.
posted by purple_frogs at 1:42 PM on August 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
"If we all stopped doing all the green things we were doing and spent that money on PACS aimed at forcing green changes and volunteered our time on activities aimed at forcing green changes, I have confidence that change would be more possible more quickly than people think."
Part of why I make "green" decisions is I don't like putting money in the pockets of those large businesses and individuals who profit from climate degradation; money not going to them is money that won't go to fighting reasonable climate legislation and climate-focused candidates.
posted by mistersix at 1:50 PM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
Part of why I make "green" decisions is I don't like putting money in the pockets of those large businesses and individuals who profit from climate degradation; money not going to them is money that won't go to fighting reasonable climate legislation and climate-focused candidates.
posted by mistersix at 1:50 PM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
IMO, as long as capitalism
Is there any actual evidence that the non-capitalistic countries that exist now or in the past would do a better job?
Anyway I'm a relatively low impact person but it is so hard to not be cynical about every side of these arguments. The great grandchildren will be uncomfortable removing their personal water reclamation suits and perhaps with a bit of genetic tweaking will be comfortable in the toasty mountains.
posted by sammyo at 2:45 PM on August 30, 2023 [8 favorites]
Is there any actual evidence that the non-capitalistic countries that exist now or in the past would do a better job?
Anyway I'm a relatively low impact person but it is so hard to not be cynical about every side of these arguments. The great grandchildren will be uncomfortable removing their personal water reclamation suits and perhaps with a bit of genetic tweaking will be comfortable in the toasty mountains.
posted by sammyo at 2:45 PM on August 30, 2023 [8 favorites]
The thing that gets me about this kind of "no, corporations!/no, billionaires!/no, governments!/NO YOU, YES YOU, READING THIS, EFF YOU" squabbling: the OVERWHELMING majority of people who need to reduce their emissions--the 10% (5%?) mentioned in the article--are likely nowhere NEAR this level of engagement or reflection on the matter.
I ask people about their CO2-related lifestyle choices as part of my job, usually on behalf of municipalities (VERY occasionally corporations) who are trying to develop various ecological-responsibility-adjacent programs. Time and again, respondents* break down, roughly, into 3 groups:
- 5% to 10% say they are already revolving their entire lives around existing as carbon-neutrally as possible: they invest the entirety of the energy, cognitive load, and income not directly used for staying alive into maintaining this lifestyle (biking in bike-hostile rural regions, fitting strict veganism around severe food intolerances, etc.).
- 10% to 15% are actively hostile to the very concept of environmentalism: the proverbial coal-rollers. They usually use the comments sections of surveys/town-hall portion of planning processes to call us names and whinge about being SHAMED by the GLOBAL ELITE for their PERFECTLY NORMAL LIFESTYLE THANK YOU, and IF UR SO MUCH BETTER THAN ME HOW ABOUT U JUMP INTO THE OCEAN SO U STOP BREATHING OUT CARBON DIOXIDE, HUH??? (I am not making this up, the latter is a huge favorite with this crowd so it must get a lot of play on various right-leaning media programs.)
- The remaining 75% to 85% know there's a serious problem; they are concerned/alarmed for their and their families' futures, and they're willing to adjust their behavior...
"...probably, I mean if it's not too disruptive, idk, because my in-laws live in Florida so obviously we fly down at the holidays and sometimes in the summer, and I need the SUV to get Kid 1 and Kid 2 to sports practice because Kid 1 wants to apply to Stanford in 2027 and we're working on their extracurriculars, and my husband's doing keto because his doctor wants him to lose 20 lbs by January so we buy a lot of lean beef at Costco (but it's grass-fed!!!), and my mom needs me to swing by 3x a week in $Exurb with her meds and groceries because her arthritis is getting pretty bad so me taking the train to work just doesn't jibe with that, and and and..."**
People, even relatively well-off people (i.e., what still passes for the middle class in North America and W. Europe), are already fucking exhausted. They are not out of fucks, but they are, by and large, out of spoons, and to devote too many to any one thing means they risk flying off the hamster wheel modern capitalism has had them on since birth. (Poor and working-class people I won't even touch on here, since they are 1) in a place so far beyond "exhausted" that the light from Exhausted will take another 100 years to even reach them, 2) creating way, way less of a problem than their wealthier peers, and as such are not the primary target for programs like these.)
To me as a planner, the solution to the goddamn neverending bottom-up/top-down debate is to work at the nexus of that issue: government's job (or, as is sometimes the case, the job of companies/employers), in addition to major policy overhauls we all know need to happen, is to MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO DO THE RIGHT THINGS ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS, by minimizing the cognitive and temporal costs of doing them (as in Superilla's recycling pickup example above).
People of all political persuasions are feeling pretty beat-down and hopeless; if we can put even a few of these solutions within reach, people might be able to actually see AND BELIEVE in both their practicality their benefits, and begin to be able to re-engage and take/demand more meaningful action. It also might help us regain a sense of agency, which is in itself a powerful antidote to despair and also the EXACT thing fuckhead techbro billionaires and their handmaidens in government would like us not to develop.
* Note that these are the people we can even get to answer the survey/show up to the meetings: an even larger group is too distracted, too busy, too apathetic, too whatever to engage with whatever project is going on.
**I have a European version of this anecdote which involves suburban international schools and cities not reachable in under 4 hours by HSR, but you get the drift.
posted by peakes at 3:00 PM on August 30, 2023 [27 favorites]
I ask people about their CO2-related lifestyle choices as part of my job, usually on behalf of municipalities (VERY occasionally corporations) who are trying to develop various ecological-responsibility-adjacent programs. Time and again, respondents* break down, roughly, into 3 groups:
- 5% to 10% say they are already revolving their entire lives around existing as carbon-neutrally as possible: they invest the entirety of the energy, cognitive load, and income not directly used for staying alive into maintaining this lifestyle (biking in bike-hostile rural regions, fitting strict veganism around severe food intolerances, etc.).
- 10% to 15% are actively hostile to the very concept of environmentalism: the proverbial coal-rollers. They usually use the comments sections of surveys/town-hall portion of planning processes to call us names and whinge about being SHAMED by the GLOBAL ELITE for their PERFECTLY NORMAL LIFESTYLE THANK YOU, and IF UR SO MUCH BETTER THAN ME HOW ABOUT U JUMP INTO THE OCEAN SO U STOP BREATHING OUT CARBON DIOXIDE, HUH??? (I am not making this up, the latter is a huge favorite with this crowd so it must get a lot of play on various right-leaning media programs.)
- The remaining 75% to 85% know there's a serious problem; they are concerned/alarmed for their and their families' futures, and they're willing to adjust their behavior...
"...probably, I mean if it's not too disruptive, idk, because my in-laws live in Florida so obviously we fly down at the holidays and sometimes in the summer, and I need the SUV to get Kid 1 and Kid 2 to sports practice because Kid 1 wants to apply to Stanford in 2027 and we're working on their extracurriculars, and my husband's doing keto because his doctor wants him to lose 20 lbs by January so we buy a lot of lean beef at Costco (but it's grass-fed!!!), and my mom needs me to swing by 3x a week in $Exurb with her meds and groceries because her arthritis is getting pretty bad so me taking the train to work just doesn't jibe with that, and and and..."**
People, even relatively well-off people (i.e., what still passes for the middle class in North America and W. Europe), are already fucking exhausted. They are not out of fucks, but they are, by and large, out of spoons, and to devote too many to any one thing means they risk flying off the hamster wheel modern capitalism has had them on since birth. (Poor and working-class people I won't even touch on here, since they are 1) in a place so far beyond "exhausted" that the light from Exhausted will take another 100 years to even reach them, 2) creating way, way less of a problem than their wealthier peers, and as such are not the primary target for programs like these.)
To me as a planner, the solution to the goddamn neverending bottom-up/top-down debate is to work at the nexus of that issue: government's job (or, as is sometimes the case, the job of companies/employers), in addition to major policy overhauls we all know need to happen, is to MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO DO THE RIGHT THINGS ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS, by minimizing the cognitive and temporal costs of doing them (as in Superilla's recycling pickup example above).
People of all political persuasions are feeling pretty beat-down and hopeless; if we can put even a few of these solutions within reach, people might be able to actually see AND BELIEVE in both their practicality their benefits, and begin to be able to re-engage and take/demand more meaningful action. It also might help us regain a sense of agency, which is in itself a powerful antidote to despair and also the EXACT thing fuckhead techbro billionaires and their handmaidens in government would like us not to develop.
* Note that these are the people we can even get to answer the survey/show up to the meetings: an even larger group is too distracted, too busy, too apathetic, too whatever to engage with whatever project is going on.
**I have a European version of this anecdote which involves suburban international schools and cities not reachable in under 4 hours by HSR, but you get the drift.
posted by peakes at 3:00 PM on August 30, 2023 [27 favorites]
Recycling metal is always good, even recycling spoons.
As someone living close to the alumina refinery, and the steel plant, in Louisiana, recycling aluminum and steel helps reduce e the pollution burden on environmental justice communities.
Recycling plastic has always been a nothing; now, Chevron and Exxon will build new "advanced recycling" factories in these same Black and Brown communities in TX and LA. Burning the plastic is now re branded as "advanced recycling" and will INCREASE co2 and hazardous pollution in Louisiana.
What happens in the 500-odd petrochemical factories in Texas and Louisiana affect USA climate policy, but because there s rarely any coverage of these states or these facilities in the news, discussions of climate policy are always abstracted from the local impacts.
posted by eustatic at 3:16 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
As someone living close to the alumina refinery, and the steel plant, in Louisiana, recycling aluminum and steel helps reduce e the pollution burden on environmental justice communities.
Recycling plastic has always been a nothing; now, Chevron and Exxon will build new "advanced recycling" factories in these same Black and Brown communities in TX and LA. Burning the plastic is now re branded as "advanced recycling" and will INCREASE co2 and hazardous pollution in Louisiana.
What happens in the 500-odd petrochemical factories in Texas and Louisiana affect USA climate policy, but because there s rarely any coverage of these states or these facilities in the news, discussions of climate policy are always abstracted from the local impacts.
posted by eustatic at 3:16 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
I’ve seen no mention so far of the market supply/demand equation and how individuals avoiding a bad thing X just drive the cost of that X down for others, who are now incentivized to use more of it. If I and my environmentalist friends drive less, that’s less demand for gasoline, so it becomes slightly cheaper overall and that encourages other people to drive more; the same gasoline ends up getting burned either way. [emphasis added]
The problem with this thinking is that markets are not a perfect control mechanism. Our choices are too coupled together, and information flow through the system too muddied, for everything to cancel out as you appear to imagine they will. In order to start driving less, you may have to change other aspects of your life to accommodate that. But once you make such changes, you might find yourself less moved to change your choices on the basis of the price of gas.
IMO, as long as capitalism exists and most people in the market are more motivated by price than by environmental costs, there’s no way for individuals to affect carbon emission in the aggregate by changing their own habits.
I'm trying to get my partner to consider a hybrid heat-pump system to replace our aging AC and natural gas furnace, and when we have to replace our minivan, to replace it with an EV. The idea that this will affect natural gas prices enough to spur the construction of an equal and opposite gas furnace seems implausible. My hope* is that the popular will, and popular appetites, will move on, and I think that this is made more likely if people considering the choice of EV vs. ICE or natgas vs. heat-pump consider it a possible lever with which to affect climate change.
I'd also like to mention that there doesn't need to be a dichotomy between personal choices and the actions of industry and governments. You may be able to influence the choices made by your employer, for example. You may even have some decision-making power at work that allows you make better climate choices on behalf of your employer.
*I use hope in the Rebecca Solnit sense here.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 3:23 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
The problem with this thinking is that markets are not a perfect control mechanism. Our choices are too coupled together, and information flow through the system too muddied, for everything to cancel out as you appear to imagine they will. In order to start driving less, you may have to change other aspects of your life to accommodate that. But once you make such changes, you might find yourself less moved to change your choices on the basis of the price of gas.
IMO, as long as capitalism exists and most people in the market are more motivated by price than by environmental costs, there’s no way for individuals to affect carbon emission in the aggregate by changing their own habits.
I'm trying to get my partner to consider a hybrid heat-pump system to replace our aging AC and natural gas furnace, and when we have to replace our minivan, to replace it with an EV. The idea that this will affect natural gas prices enough to spur the construction of an equal and opposite gas furnace seems implausible. My hope* is that the popular will, and popular appetites, will move on, and I think that this is made more likely if people considering the choice of EV vs. ICE or natgas vs. heat-pump consider it a possible lever with which to affect climate change.
I'd also like to mention that there doesn't need to be a dichotomy between personal choices and the actions of industry and governments. You may be able to influence the choices made by your employer, for example. You may even have some decision-making power at work that allows you make better climate choices on behalf of your employer.
*I use hope in the Rebecca Solnit sense here.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 3:23 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
Of note is Texas' recent decision to fight Offshore Wind in the Gulf.
This movement of petrochemical manufacturing to Wind Power from Methane Gas would be the quickest way to decarbonize the USA, but it would also reduce much of the market for gas.
And so, Texas is claiming that Wind Power is a Biden plan to hurt the environment, lol
The USA won't move on climate, probably, until changing the politics of Texas.
posted by eustatic at 3:23 PM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
This movement of petrochemical manufacturing to Wind Power from Methane Gas would be the quickest way to decarbonize the USA, but it would also reduce much of the market for gas.
And so, Texas is claiming that Wind Power is a Biden plan to hurt the environment, lol
The USA won't move on climate, probably, until changing the politics of Texas.
posted by eustatic at 3:23 PM on August 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
“(And stop choking that you can't solve it NOW)”
There’s so much messaging about how we’re running out of time, though.
posted by Selena777 at 4:04 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
There’s so much messaging about how we’re running out of time, though.
posted by Selena777 at 4:04 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Is there any actual evidence that the non-capitalistic countries that exist now or in the past would do a better job?
a favorite example of how non-capitalist countries can mess up pretty badly along these lines is the Soviet Union's illegal whaling
posted by BungaDunga at 4:54 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
a favorite example of how non-capitalist countries can mess up pretty badly along these lines is the Soviet Union's illegal whaling
posted by BungaDunga at 4:54 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
There’s so much messaging about how we’re running out of time, though.
Oh, we have!
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:58 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Oh, we have!
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:58 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
I think there absolutely consumer choices we can make that matter, and do so without guilting people. The spur can be to save money instead. Going to CF then LED lights had a major impact on electrical demand and put a little bit of savings back in every rate payer's pocket.
In my part of the world, this was driven mostly by legislation outlawing incandescents. It was not consumer choices.
In general, we are arguing about what the best demand side solutions are. Why not go for supply side solutions? Nobody can choose to e.g. burn oil if we just don't extract it, if we ban its sale.
posted by Dysk at 4:58 PM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
In my part of the world, this was driven mostly by legislation outlawing incandescents. It was not consumer choices.
In general, we are arguing about what the best demand side solutions are. Why not go for supply side solutions? Nobody can choose to e.g. burn oil if we just don't extract it, if we ban its sale.
posted by Dysk at 4:58 PM on August 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
am i the only one who noticed the comment about the chicken-related trade war with europe in 1964? i might need to do a whole fpp on that.
previously
posted by pwnguin at 4:59 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
previously
posted by pwnguin at 4:59 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
"There’s so much messaging about how we’re running out of time, though."
Naah. I'm hopeful that we will continue as we are in changing this.
At this point it's mostly about how bad it will be before the changes start kicking in. And then how fast we'll be able to bring it back. (And how much will we lose in the doing...and...)
posted by aleph at 5:13 PM on August 30, 2023
Naah. I'm hopeful that we will continue as we are in changing this.
At this point it's mostly about how bad it will be before the changes start kicking in. And then how fast we'll be able to bring it back. (And how much will we lose in the doing...and...)
posted by aleph at 5:13 PM on August 30, 2023
I find value in accepting the inevitable...humans will become extinct.
But...what we do in the meantime, matters. Accepting our demise is not giving up.
That's my paradox.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:16 PM on August 30, 2023
But...what we do in the meantime, matters. Accepting our demise is not giving up.
That's my paradox.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:16 PM on August 30, 2023
" inevitable...humans will become extinct."
Naah, not inevitable. Unless you're talking long term. And even then I think it's more likely we'll change so much by then that we won't recognize us. And *that* might be a lot sooner than long term.
posted by aleph at 6:28 PM on August 30, 2023
Naah, not inevitable. Unless you're talking long term. And even then I think it's more likely we'll change so much by then that we won't recognize us. And *that* might be a lot sooner than long term.
posted by aleph at 6:28 PM on August 30, 2023
Yes, inevitable. The scale of time of the universe says yes. Humans will be extinct.
Long term indeed.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:40 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Long term indeed.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:40 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
As stated above, TFA was just "people are woefully misinformed about which personal actions can affect climate the most". A lot of people apparently think recycling makes a huge difference on climate, and it doesn't. It's certainly good for resource consumption, but not as good as reduce/reuse.
The fact that we always spin these posts into a bigger discussion unrelated to the article is evidence that we all *know* this is a world-defining time and that we *need* to be talking about this all the time! So good for us!
Individual actions are important because they give the actor a sense of well-being and contentment, and are practice at living in a less materialistic, less wasteful way. Just like anything else, you have to practice conservation and living smaller in order to internalize it and hopefully pass it on to people around you. But people are born into systems and act within a range that works within that system. In the U.S. that system is capitalism and an eroded social fabric caused by disappointment in religion, glorification of escaping a small town to make it big (usually while supporting the market growth machine), and just the general lack of a cohesive *social* contract and connectivity that can match the dumb beast of capitalism.
Having sort of blamed capitalism, though, I don't think that's the root problem. It just happens to be egregiously wasteful and silly and it's what we have today. But the real problem is growth. Economic growth, being tied mainly to energy consumption, is bad. Population growth, being tied to economic growth and consumption, is bad. We are not just heating the earth - we are using up the fresh water, destroying the soil, polluting the land, and squeezing out all other species. Yes, yes, people in developing countries contribute much less to climate change. But what are they "developing" towards? Better standards of living, internet, bigger homes, A/C, cars, etc. That's driven somewhat by capitalism and marketing, but people legitimately want creature comforts. When a few hundred million people in northern India and parts of Africa/ME hit that unlivable wet bulb temp, they are going to migrate to less affected nations, which just happen to be Western/developed/high energy use/capitalist; and like my wonderful Indian neighbors in NC, they are going to CONSUME THE SHIT OUT OF SOME RESOURCES TOO. They are going to buy SUVs because that's all that gets made because the profit margin is high; they are going to live in large houses because that's all that gets built; they are going to comfortably slip into an air-conditioned, comparatively luxurious lifestyle that lets climate and pollution concerns fade into the background; and so on.
Clean energy is better than fossil fuel energy, but in a way it just exacerbates the problem because it makes limitless growth feel doable again for a while. I'm not trying to depress everyone, but I'm staking a claim that life expands to consume all available resources because that's what life does. We are (we think) the first species on Earth to realize that unlimited consumption and expansion might be bad, but overcoming the evolutionary urge is another thing entirely. We should absolutely try to do that, but it's a much tougher problem than just finding better energy sources. Individual human units (that's people) tend to want to reproduce more, eat more., do more, use more ... and we don't have any really large-scale, technologically advanced countries that are decoupled from growth in a healthy way. Countries like China that seem to offer an alternative to market capitalism have exploded in growth (again, bad) by not only embracing capitalism behind smoke and mirrors, but by building a shit-ton of coal plants and packing everyone into cities, which ... is itself a problem. I don't know that I believe that dense cities = efficiency = good. Our huge modern cities are enabled by the magic of fossil fuels and the associated leaps in technology, but really they are just packing more people into the world than it could possibly support long-term, and those people are 100% screwed if we get to a point where living low-tech off the land is necessary, Station Eleven-style. I guess we can state that given there are way too many people and we aren't genocidal monsters I hope, packing them all into cities where they have no sense of connection to the land is the best we can do, but man ... that's not very satisfying to me. It feels like human battery hens and industrial cattle farms.
However ... the little things we do, whether it's voting, protesting, eating less meat, etc. are absolutely part of the solution. We are headed for some rough times, and we will need to have the racial brain-muscle memory to do more with less. Darning socks. Eating the same meals over and over from local ingredients. Staying geographically close to families and tribes. Being uncomfortable and not throwing in the towel. In some form, we will come through this.
(One more thought - although I'm an atheist, sometimes I think some earth-centric religion needs to come along and just railroad us into a better path. I think of myself as a facts and reason person, but am I really? Are Trump voters? We need something incredibly visceral and stirring, like a fundamentalist church without the patriarchy and abuse, or Scientology without the grift. Something shamanistic and grounded. Someone start that shit up!)
posted by caviar2d2 at 6:57 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
The fact that we always spin these posts into a bigger discussion unrelated to the article is evidence that we all *know* this is a world-defining time and that we *need* to be talking about this all the time! So good for us!
Individual actions are important because they give the actor a sense of well-being and contentment, and are practice at living in a less materialistic, less wasteful way. Just like anything else, you have to practice conservation and living smaller in order to internalize it and hopefully pass it on to people around you. But people are born into systems and act within a range that works within that system. In the U.S. that system is capitalism and an eroded social fabric caused by disappointment in religion, glorification of escaping a small town to make it big (usually while supporting the market growth machine), and just the general lack of a cohesive *social* contract and connectivity that can match the dumb beast of capitalism.
Having sort of blamed capitalism, though, I don't think that's the root problem. It just happens to be egregiously wasteful and silly and it's what we have today. But the real problem is growth. Economic growth, being tied mainly to energy consumption, is bad. Population growth, being tied to economic growth and consumption, is bad. We are not just heating the earth - we are using up the fresh water, destroying the soil, polluting the land, and squeezing out all other species. Yes, yes, people in developing countries contribute much less to climate change. But what are they "developing" towards? Better standards of living, internet, bigger homes, A/C, cars, etc. That's driven somewhat by capitalism and marketing, but people legitimately want creature comforts. When a few hundred million people in northern India and parts of Africa/ME hit that unlivable wet bulb temp, they are going to migrate to less affected nations, which just happen to be Western/developed/high energy use/capitalist; and like my wonderful Indian neighbors in NC, they are going to CONSUME THE SHIT OUT OF SOME RESOURCES TOO. They are going to buy SUVs because that's all that gets made because the profit margin is high; they are going to live in large houses because that's all that gets built; they are going to comfortably slip into an air-conditioned, comparatively luxurious lifestyle that lets climate and pollution concerns fade into the background; and so on.
Clean energy is better than fossil fuel energy, but in a way it just exacerbates the problem because it makes limitless growth feel doable again for a while. I'm not trying to depress everyone, but I'm staking a claim that life expands to consume all available resources because that's what life does. We are (we think) the first species on Earth to realize that unlimited consumption and expansion might be bad, but overcoming the evolutionary urge is another thing entirely. We should absolutely try to do that, but it's a much tougher problem than just finding better energy sources. Individual human units (that's people) tend to want to reproduce more, eat more., do more, use more ... and we don't have any really large-scale, technologically advanced countries that are decoupled from growth in a healthy way. Countries like China that seem to offer an alternative to market capitalism have exploded in growth (again, bad) by not only embracing capitalism behind smoke and mirrors, but by building a shit-ton of coal plants and packing everyone into cities, which ... is itself a problem. I don't know that I believe that dense cities = efficiency = good. Our huge modern cities are enabled by the magic of fossil fuels and the associated leaps in technology, but really they are just packing more people into the world than it could possibly support long-term, and those people are 100% screwed if we get to a point where living low-tech off the land is necessary, Station Eleven-style. I guess we can state that given there are way too many people and we aren't genocidal monsters I hope, packing them all into cities where they have no sense of connection to the land is the best we can do, but man ... that's not very satisfying to me. It feels like human battery hens and industrial cattle farms.
However ... the little things we do, whether it's voting, protesting, eating less meat, etc. are absolutely part of the solution. We are headed for some rough times, and we will need to have the racial brain-muscle memory to do more with less. Darning socks. Eating the same meals over and over from local ingredients. Staying geographically close to families and tribes. Being uncomfortable and not throwing in the towel. In some form, we will come through this.
(One more thought - although I'm an atheist, sometimes I think some earth-centric religion needs to come along and just railroad us into a better path. I think of myself as a facts and reason person, but am I really? Are Trump voters? We need something incredibly visceral and stirring, like a fundamentalist church without the patriarchy and abuse, or Scientology without the grift. Something shamanistic and grounded. Someone start that shit up!)
posted by caviar2d2 at 6:57 PM on August 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
>Skwirl: Change starts with your own damn self or it doesn’t start at all. That is a human truth
> star gentle uterus: Getting people to identify with different tribes that oppose is each other is a surefire way to keep them divided against you. That's a human truth
You’ve fully missed the point and I apologize because apparently I am not explaining it correctly.
Every action of our lives is rehearsal for the person we are going to become tomorrow. To become a caring person we must act with caring in large ways and small. To become an effective agent of global change we must be an effective agent of local change and to be an effective agent of local change we must be capable of *changing ourself*. Making sacrifices to our lifestyle that mimic the lifestyles that will be necessary in a carbon neutral world is not about impact. It is about rehearsal and it is about modeling
I am not saying that there is a class of people who are x, act like x and will always be x. I’m not talking about *classes* of people at all and it only looks that way because you are ignoring the pertinent part of my argument to take the final quote out of context
I’m saying that for me, I, as an individual to become a person who is effective at change I must act like a person who believes in that change. I must live that change that I want for tomorrow as best as I can today. I’m not talking about groups of people. I’m talking about the importance of walking the talk
I don’t think this is a difficult idea to grasp? It’s inherent in several world philosophies and religions. In western ethics it’s called virtue ethics. In Buddhism it’s “right thought, right speech, and right action.” Many indigenous American cultures recognize the importance between thought, action, environment and spirit. What is it about this idea that escapes you?
Put another way: if we are successful in radical revolution and political change by waving a magic wand then what happens tomorrow when steaks are properly priced without subsidy? When gasoline, SUVs and parking spaces are properly priced without subsidy? When flight-based vacations are properly priced without subsidy? How will you live in a world with $500 steak dinners and $30 per hour parking if you haven’t spent a day in your life practicing to live without those things? How do you think other unpracticed people will react on that day?
Put another another way: a person becomes the type of person who votes to limit or eliminate government subsidized parking *after* they’ve become the type of person who rides the bus to work. A person becomes the type of person to vote to regulate Monsanto and Cargill *after* they’ve become the type of person who eats less environmentally costly foods. I’m explicitly arguing that there are no tribes of people. I’m explicitly arguing that the culture war barriers that seemingly divide us are fluid and crossable but only through role modeling and personal change
posted by Skwirl at 7:05 PM on August 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
> star gentle uterus: Getting people to identify with different tribes that oppose is each other is a surefire way to keep them divided against you. That's a human truth
You’ve fully missed the point and I apologize because apparently I am not explaining it correctly.
Every action of our lives is rehearsal for the person we are going to become tomorrow. To become a caring person we must act with caring in large ways and small. To become an effective agent of global change we must be an effective agent of local change and to be an effective agent of local change we must be capable of *changing ourself*. Making sacrifices to our lifestyle that mimic the lifestyles that will be necessary in a carbon neutral world is not about impact. It is about rehearsal and it is about modeling
I am not saying that there is a class of people who are x, act like x and will always be x. I’m not talking about *classes* of people at all and it only looks that way because you are ignoring the pertinent part of my argument to take the final quote out of context
I’m saying that for me, I, as an individual to become a person who is effective at change I must act like a person who believes in that change. I must live that change that I want for tomorrow as best as I can today. I’m not talking about groups of people. I’m talking about the importance of walking the talk
I don’t think this is a difficult idea to grasp? It’s inherent in several world philosophies and religions. In western ethics it’s called virtue ethics. In Buddhism it’s “right thought, right speech, and right action.” Many indigenous American cultures recognize the importance between thought, action, environment and spirit. What is it about this idea that escapes you?
Put another way: if we are successful in radical revolution and political change by waving a magic wand then what happens tomorrow when steaks are properly priced without subsidy? When gasoline, SUVs and parking spaces are properly priced without subsidy? When flight-based vacations are properly priced without subsidy? How will you live in a world with $500 steak dinners and $30 per hour parking if you haven’t spent a day in your life practicing to live without those things? How do you think other unpracticed people will react on that day?
Put another another way: a person becomes the type of person who votes to limit or eliminate government subsidized parking *after* they’ve become the type of person who rides the bus to work. A person becomes the type of person to vote to regulate Monsanto and Cargill *after* they’ve become the type of person who eats less environmentally costly foods. I’m explicitly arguing that there are no tribes of people. I’m explicitly arguing that the culture war barriers that seemingly divide us are fluid and crossable but only through role modeling and personal change
posted by Skwirl at 7:05 PM on August 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
" The scale of time of the universe says yes. Humans will be extinct."
Snuggle up close to the Event Horizon of a humongous Blackhole and Time can slow down as much as you want, compared to the rest of the Universe. Come out every once in a while to take a peek and go back to head for the *very* far Future. *You* could (possibly) make it to the end of the Universe if you had the tech, much less the species.
(I'll stop with the derail now)
posted by aleph at 7:07 PM on August 30, 2023
Snuggle up close to the Event Horizon of a humongous Blackhole and Time can slow down as much as you want, compared to the rest of the Universe. Come out every once in a while to take a peek and go back to head for the *very* far Future. *You* could (possibly) make it to the end of the Universe if you had the tech, much less the species.
(I'll stop with the derail now)
posted by aleph at 7:07 PM on August 30, 2023
Recycling is very important in my city. By sorting our garbage we are saving our Municipal Waste Program enough so that they don't have to reduce the number of garbage pick ups. Doesn't do a damn thing for the environment, but does help the city balance its budget. The plastic waste still gets shipped abroad to be incinerated as a dirty fuel generating electricity.
Giving us a maximum on the household garbage they will pick up, and charging us for bag tags to pick up any extra bags apparently isn't helping them reduce expenses a whole lot, because whatever they gain in bag tag fees they appear to be losing dealing with illegal dumping. A lot of its not even illegal, as people are not bringing their garbage home and are instead stuffing it into public trashcans. It amuses me that residents in the bad part of town are entitled to put out twice the amount of garbage that residents in the better neighborhoods can. - They have known for years that the garbage there is going to end up on the curb, whether or not they pick it up.
posted by Jane the Brown at 7:35 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Giving us a maximum on the household garbage they will pick up, and charging us for bag tags to pick up any extra bags apparently isn't helping them reduce expenses a whole lot, because whatever they gain in bag tag fees they appear to be losing dealing with illegal dumping. A lot of its not even illegal, as people are not bringing their garbage home and are instead stuffing it into public trashcans. It amuses me that residents in the bad part of town are entitled to put out twice the amount of garbage that residents in the better neighborhoods can. - They have known for years that the garbage there is going to end up on the curb, whether or not they pick it up.
posted by Jane the Brown at 7:35 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
How about advocating for eating them instead?
The "Leeds study" (Ivanova et al., 2020) referenced above is pretty clear that moving to a lower meat or even meat free diet is one of the better choices we can make. So, I think you'll have to be happy with a carbon neutral composting option.
posted by bonehead at 7:52 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
The "Leeds study" (Ivanova et al., 2020) referenced above is pretty clear that moving to a lower meat or even meat free diet is one of the better choices we can make. So, I think you'll have to be happy with a carbon neutral composting option.
posted by bonehead at 7:52 PM on August 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Thank you all the people here who specified American, Global North, etc when that's what you mean, instead of just saying "everyone" or "people".
caviar2d2 is absolutely correct in pointing out that the rest of us here in "developing" countries are part of this situation in complicated and disquieting ways, but I'm pretty sure most of the "everyone"s in this thread don't include us, or weren't intended to.
posted by Zumbador at 10:35 PM on August 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
caviar2d2 is absolutely correct in pointing out that the rest of us here in "developing" countries are part of this situation in complicated and disquieting ways, but I'm pretty sure most of the "everyone"s in this thread don't include us, or weren't intended to.
posted by Zumbador at 10:35 PM on August 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
These are decisions people had to make before we discovered oil, and people are reluctant to go back to those times.
The belief that people in the past couldn't possibly have been as happy as us with our smartphones and SUVs is one of the biggest lies capitalism has ever sold us.
Getting people to believe that if they just bought the new shiny thing they'd be happier than they were yesterday is marketing 101, so obviously people without any of the things we've ever desired must have been truly miserable.
posted by deadwax at 12:41 AM on August 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
The belief that people in the past couldn't possibly have been as happy as us with our smartphones and SUVs is one of the biggest lies capitalism has ever sold us.
Getting people to believe that if they just bought the new shiny thing they'd be happier than they were yesterday is marketing 101, so obviously people without any of the things we've ever desired must have been truly miserable.
posted by deadwax at 12:41 AM on August 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
Pollution problems are inherently about collectively regulating and enforcing those regulations on material behavior of everyone. If 9 out of 10 people voluntarily abstain from putting arsenic in the well water, and the 10th person gets paid or get's joy out of killing people and puts arsenic in the well. Well, that's the system we live in now. We have arsenic in the water, (and rice etc).
If 95% of people abstain from meat, and the government then keeps using tax money to buy the meat and throw it into the trash, then their veganism is moot (from an environmental perspective). And yes, governments buy and dump milk, wine, meat, cheese, jet fuel, etc. Your political economy is centrally planned and regulated. That we call those planners and regulators "entrepreneurs" or billionaires or lobbyists or special interests or the DOE etc, instead of commissars and technocrats is irrelevant. The mascots and slogans are different, the power is what matters. And the polluters use your tax money, your economic participation, your desperation and your ability to be persuaded to convince you to support them and suffer the externalities.
Project Drawdown gives reasonable estimates of the impact of various policies, even it can't bring itself to contemplate policies that actually enforce changes in demand, the distribution of benefits to those who actually need it more (i.e. lower total consumption and raise the per-capita consumption for the poor) etc. And in the absence of that regulation, the personal choices are made moot. Because you can avoid flying, but you can't personally avoid having your government bail out the airlines when demand collapses. You can't vote for a different political system, you can only vote for the choices you are given and no country gives its hostages (er, I mean citizens) the choice to vote to ban the wealthy and powerful from ruining the planet.
That can't be gotten from votes, that power comes from [Redacted].
posted by AnchoriteOfPalgrave at 12:57 AM on August 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
If 95% of people abstain from meat, and the government then keeps using tax money to buy the meat and throw it into the trash, then their veganism is moot (from an environmental perspective). And yes, governments buy and dump milk, wine, meat, cheese, jet fuel, etc. Your political economy is centrally planned and regulated. That we call those planners and regulators "entrepreneurs" or billionaires or lobbyists or special interests or the DOE etc, instead of commissars and technocrats is irrelevant. The mascots and slogans are different, the power is what matters. And the polluters use your tax money, your economic participation, your desperation and your ability to be persuaded to convince you to support them and suffer the externalities.
Project Drawdown gives reasonable estimates of the impact of various policies, even it can't bring itself to contemplate policies that actually enforce changes in demand, the distribution of benefits to those who actually need it more (i.e. lower total consumption and raise the per-capita consumption for the poor) etc. And in the absence of that regulation, the personal choices are made moot. Because you can avoid flying, but you can't personally avoid having your government bail out the airlines when demand collapses. You can't vote for a different political system, you can only vote for the choices you are given and no country gives its hostages (er, I mean citizens) the choice to vote to ban the wealthy and powerful from ruining the planet.
That can't be gotten from votes, that power comes from [Redacted].
posted by AnchoriteOfPalgrave at 12:57 AM on August 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
Our political economies regulate us, subsidize certain behaviors, punish others and empower some of us in ways that make all of us hostage to an ecological murder-suicide pact of competitive geopolitics and industrialism. To have a sustainable world, we would need to change how people are regulated, subsidized, rewarded and punished to lower the total aggregate pollution and consumption and habitat destruction. The environment cares only about the total consumption/pollution.
To have a just and moral world, we also need to change how people are regulated, subsidized, rewarded and punished to ensure a viable/ generous minimum material welfare standard, so that the currently poor and powerless and exploited can have the good life too. As a consequence of the finiteness of the world and its materials and the per-capita minimum needs, material redistribution is required. the environment cares about the total footprint, population size determines the average per-capita footprint, justice requires the redistribution of that per-capita footprint to be more equal.
We have neither a just nor a sustainable world, we can't individually choose to have one, we must collectively persuade, replace or defeat the unjust and unsustainable system. Action is not optional.
Also, I think its illegal on the internet to point out that babies (who hopefully become adults) use resources, and that the babies of high-consuming wealthly OECD families use resources at a per-capita rate higher that what the world could sustain if the entire world lived at OECD levels. For every rival fungible material good that people need to live, the decision to hoard more of it for your family is the decision to deny it to another family until some method is invented that can make more of the material or reduce our demand for that material. We hoard first and hope that the poor can have abundance created later. Thus the decision to have additional children (instead of adopting or having only one or no children) would have moral consequences unless technological innovation and economic growth couldn't also perpetually deliver a material increase in the sustainable human population such that our consumption wouldn't also require that the poor stay poor and or die even more than they are now. That made sense when we were few and the world large and our powers to consume minuscule compared to the scale of the ecosystem, that is collective suicide and a genocide committed against the poor and powerless in an age where we know the consequences of our unsustainable global aggregate pollution and habitat destruction.
But don't worry, infinite material growth on a finite planet is totally doable, we'll just invent technology that increases the effectiveness and efficiency of our means of converting materials into satisfaction of our needs forever and everything will be fine and no trade-offs or zero-sum situations will arise. Our collective wealthy lifestyles need not have any moral downsides and we owe the poor who are already alive nothing but hope in future technology and economic growth. It will trickle down to them any minute now, no icky moral regulation or redistribution is needed or permitted.
The decision to have additional children is understandable emotionally and politically and from a historical/evolutionary lense. Its just immoral and evil in the world that industrialism has trapped us in. We didn't individually build or choose this trap. we were born into this trap and the nature of this trap is abhorrent to us all, that's why we so often seek to ignore the trap and why we must defeat this immoral and unjust and unsustainable system that deprives the poor and destroys our life-support system so that a few people can have more than their fair share and impose the costs on everyone. It is only immoral to have additional children in a system that deprives all children of their minimum material needs and a sustainable planet. Instead of fighting our individual lifestyle choices, fight that system.
posted by AnchoriteOfPalgrave at 1:28 AM on August 31, 2023
To have a just and moral world, we also need to change how people are regulated, subsidized, rewarded and punished to ensure a viable/ generous minimum material welfare standard, so that the currently poor and powerless and exploited can have the good life too. As a consequence of the finiteness of the world and its materials and the per-capita minimum needs, material redistribution is required. the environment cares about the total footprint, population size determines the average per-capita footprint, justice requires the redistribution of that per-capita footprint to be more equal.
We have neither a just nor a sustainable world, we can't individually choose to have one, we must collectively persuade, replace or defeat the unjust and unsustainable system. Action is not optional.
Also, I think its illegal on the internet to point out that babies (who hopefully become adults) use resources, and that the babies of high-consuming wealthly OECD families use resources at a per-capita rate higher that what the world could sustain if the entire world lived at OECD levels. For every rival fungible material good that people need to live, the decision to hoard more of it for your family is the decision to deny it to another family until some method is invented that can make more of the material or reduce our demand for that material. We hoard first and hope that the poor can have abundance created later. Thus the decision to have additional children (instead of adopting or having only one or no children) would have moral consequences unless technological innovation and economic growth couldn't also perpetually deliver a material increase in the sustainable human population such that our consumption wouldn't also require that the poor stay poor and or die even more than they are now. That made sense when we were few and the world large and our powers to consume minuscule compared to the scale of the ecosystem, that is collective suicide and a genocide committed against the poor and powerless in an age where we know the consequences of our unsustainable global aggregate pollution and habitat destruction.
But don't worry, infinite material growth on a finite planet is totally doable, we'll just invent technology that increases the effectiveness and efficiency of our means of converting materials into satisfaction of our needs forever and everything will be fine and no trade-offs or zero-sum situations will arise. Our collective wealthy lifestyles need not have any moral downsides and we owe the poor who are already alive nothing but hope in future technology and economic growth. It will trickle down to them any minute now, no icky moral regulation or redistribution is needed or permitted.
The decision to have additional children is understandable emotionally and politically and from a historical/evolutionary lense. Its just immoral and evil in the world that industrialism has trapped us in. We didn't individually build or choose this trap. we were born into this trap and the nature of this trap is abhorrent to us all, that's why we so often seek to ignore the trap and why we must defeat this immoral and unjust and unsustainable system that deprives the poor and destroys our life-support system so that a few people can have more than their fair share and impose the costs on everyone. It is only immoral to have additional children in a system that deprives all children of their minimum material needs and a sustainable planet. Instead of fighting our individual lifestyle choices, fight that system.
posted by AnchoriteOfPalgrave at 1:28 AM on August 31, 2023
Going to propose a tax credit for cutting off parents that refuse to move near their kids
I know this is a joke, but like which kids? My sister lives in Denver, my brother in Houston, and I live in Germany. Adult “kids” don’t always live together. And since it’s the older generation that makes the laws, it’s more likely a tax on kids who move away from their parents.
And so, Texas is claiming that Wind Power is a Biden plan to hurt the environment, lol
This makes me extra sad because Texas had been a top producer of wind power (i.e. at one point #2 in the world, behind only Germany; now 5th) for many many years before Biden. In fact, Bush was the governor that started the whole thing in 1999! Goddamn I hate republicans and their fucking shitty selective memories.
posted by LizBoBiz at 2:32 AM on August 31, 2023 [4 favorites]
I know this is a joke, but like which kids? My sister lives in Denver, my brother in Houston, and I live in Germany. Adult “kids” don’t always live together. And since it’s the older generation that makes the laws, it’s more likely a tax on kids who move away from their parents.
And so, Texas is claiming that Wind Power is a Biden plan to hurt the environment, lol
This makes me extra sad because Texas had been a top producer of wind power (i.e. at one point #2 in the world, behind only Germany; now 5th) for many many years before Biden. In fact, Bush was the governor that started the whole thing in 1999! Goddamn I hate republicans and their fucking shitty selective memories.
posted by LizBoBiz at 2:32 AM on August 31, 2023 [4 favorites]
Sure we need high-level action, but how much of the "the individual doesn't matter" stuff is just a way of keeping on with our crappy lifestyles?Exactly right. It’s important to maintain perspective but individual choices really do add up, especially when you look at how they affect everyone else. Buying an SUV (electric or not) is saying “screw you” to everyone else on many levels and it’s one that so many people have chosen to pay a premium to do that it canceled out multiple decades of fuel economy improvements. People do that because they see other people around them doing it, just as they do for beef-heavy food culture and weekend flights. Marketing encourages that, of course, but it doesn’t act in a vacuum.
posted by adamsc at 4:24 AM on August 31, 2023 [6 favorites]
I was going to vote against the mining and oil interests and vote in favor of a private jet tax and banning plastic bags, but then some liberal said I should reduce the amount of meat and dairy I eat.
posted by AlSweigart at 7:59 AM on August 31, 2023
posted by AlSweigart at 7:59 AM on August 31, 2023
As the recent Greenbelt graft scandal in Ontario has made plain, the big housing development play is still stuck in the mid 20th century: plop up Levittowns and suburbs on green land, and armtwist governments into servicing them, add roads etc. Infill is currently less profitable to developers. Problem.
I just read that and completely disagree with your assessment, but either way, Ontario has a housing crisis (straight from the article) and individuals or local processes are blocking new housing. Also the Ontario Canada housing market is about to move to $70 billion in sales per year with a total value over $1trillion dollars just for the single-family homes, so $8billion in potential directed land gains is comparably not very much. It's about scale. For scale, if they actually built the 1.5m homes required at the median home price of $1m CA$ for Ontario, that would create $1.5 trillion in total value.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:08 AM on August 31, 2023
I just read that and completely disagree with your assessment, but either way, Ontario has a housing crisis (straight from the article) and individuals or local processes are blocking new housing. Also the Ontario Canada housing market is about to move to $70 billion in sales per year with a total value over $1trillion dollars just for the single-family homes, so $8billion in potential directed land gains is comparably not very much. It's about scale. For scale, if they actually built the 1.5m homes required at the median home price of $1m CA$ for Ontario, that would create $1.5 trillion in total value.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:08 AM on August 31, 2023
I just read that and completely disagree with your assessment
I'd be very interested in your take.
While this whole Greenbelt giveaway scandal was breaking, I read stuff from a number of commenters on different sides of the whole thing.
One of the most interesting was from a small construction company owner in Ontario. The gist of his comment was that he and 90% of his industry were set up to build... suburbs. Take rural undeveloped land (farms, pastures etc), reshape it, and build new detached/semidetached, automobile-centered housing tracts. So the implication there is that this is what they're wanting to build, because there's still too much incentive or profit in building last century's style of housing, instead of housing more in tune with actual people requirements, climate concerns etc.
I acknowledge your point that there's a problem with some municipal red tape, but on the other hand the involved municipalities (eg Hamilton) have voiced concern and disagreement with carving land from the Greenbelt, and have stated that those lands are not necessary to meet provincial housing goals. It's hard to see how some long-commute-distance McMansions or mock-Georgian townhouses encroaching into the Rouge valley will improve affordability or availability in Toronto.
Ontario housing is a tough problem, but I don't think that releasing some protected Greenbelt land to a select few developer buddies to build more 20th century car-dependent suburbs is the best way forward. It's also apparent that our governments need to get back into creating affordable geared-to-income housing for the working poor.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:38 AM on August 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
I'd be very interested in your take.
While this whole Greenbelt giveaway scandal was breaking, I read stuff from a number of commenters on different sides of the whole thing.
One of the most interesting was from a small construction company owner in Ontario. The gist of his comment was that he and 90% of his industry were set up to build... suburbs. Take rural undeveloped land (farms, pastures etc), reshape it, and build new detached/semidetached, automobile-centered housing tracts. So the implication there is that this is what they're wanting to build, because there's still too much incentive or profit in building last century's style of housing, instead of housing more in tune with actual people requirements, climate concerns etc.
I acknowledge your point that there's a problem with some municipal red tape, but on the other hand the involved municipalities (eg Hamilton) have voiced concern and disagreement with carving land from the Greenbelt, and have stated that those lands are not necessary to meet provincial housing goals. It's hard to see how some long-commute-distance McMansions or mock-Georgian townhouses encroaching into the Rouge valley will improve affordability or availability in Toronto.
Ontario housing is a tough problem, but I don't think that releasing some protected Greenbelt land to a select few developer buddies to build more 20th century car-dependent suburbs is the best way forward. It's also apparent that our governments need to get back into creating affordable geared-to-income housing for the working poor.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:38 AM on August 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
One of the most interesting was from a small construction company owner in Ontario. The gist of his comment was that he and 90% of his industry were set up to build... suburbs. Take rural undeveloped land (farms, pastures etc), reshape it, and build new detached/semidetached, automobile-centered housing tracts.
My take is that medium density development are probably more profitable in the long run but our construction industry is mired by inertia and changing all their practices to suit denser developments is more trouble than it's worth without incentives in place.
This is getting more into conspiracy theory area but I wouldn't be surprised if many developers are also investors and so have a vested interest in keeping home prices very high.
posted by sid at 9:09 AM on August 31, 2023
My take is that medium density development are probably more profitable in the long run but our construction industry is mired by inertia and changing all their practices to suit denser developments is more trouble than it's worth without incentives in place.
This is getting more into conspiracy theory area but I wouldn't be surprised if many developers are also investors and so have a vested interest in keeping home prices very high.
posted by sid at 9:09 AM on August 31, 2023
I was going to vote against the mining and oil interests and vote in favor of a private jet tax and banning plastic bags, but then some liberal said I should reduce the amount of meat and dairy I eat.
So I ended up voting against the mining and oil interests, in favor of the jet tax and the plastic bag ban, and reduced the amount of meat and dairy I eat.
posted by storybored at 2:00 PM on August 31, 2023
So I ended up voting against the mining and oil interests, in favor of the jet tax and the plastic bag ban, and reduced the amount of meat and dairy I eat.
posted by storybored at 2:00 PM on August 31, 2023
I seem to recall that when we were agitating against the packaging pollution that was beginning to be everywhere in the 1970s, we weren't agitating for a national recycling program.
We were asking the government to regulate the plastics industry.
Why are people buying gas-guzzling SUVs? Here's a better question: why are people allowed to make and sell (and market and advertise) gas-guzzling SUVs?
Why can't we regulate what's produced instead of trying to staunch the damage from its production?
Oh right; because we don't pass laws that inconvenience rich people.
In the meantime, here's some news:
Microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, cause behavioral changes
posted by MrVisible at 2:55 PM on August 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
We were asking the government to regulate the plastics industry.
Why are people buying gas-guzzling SUVs? Here's a better question: why are people allowed to make and sell (and market and advertise) gas-guzzling SUVs?
Why can't we regulate what's produced instead of trying to staunch the damage from its production?
Oh right; because we don't pass laws that inconvenience rich people.
In the meantime, here's some news:
Microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, cause behavioral changes
posted by MrVisible at 2:55 PM on August 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
Here's a better question: why are people allowed to make and sell (and market and advertise) gas-guzzling SUVs?
While most modern SUVs are dumb and pointless, they have their origins in off-road-capable vehicles, which were traditionally beloved of farmers, who actually did have occasion to do a bunch of off-road driving in the course of their work. The modern Chelsea tractor doesn't necessarily have those capabilities, but some of them do, and as a product category, they do have reason to exist. There's just no reason for anyone who isn't regularly driving around muddy fields to own one, nor is there any reason to make what are fundamentally on-road cars big and heavy just to mimic the appearance and styling cues of something off-road. There's even less reason for that to have become the default for 'car'.
posted by Dysk at 3:37 PM on August 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
While most modern SUVs are dumb and pointless, they have their origins in off-road-capable vehicles, which were traditionally beloved of farmers, who actually did have occasion to do a bunch of off-road driving in the course of their work. The modern Chelsea tractor doesn't necessarily have those capabilities, but some of them do, and as a product category, they do have reason to exist. There's just no reason for anyone who isn't regularly driving around muddy fields to own one, nor is there any reason to make what are fundamentally on-road cars big and heavy just to mimic the appearance and styling cues of something off-road. There's even less reason for that to have become the default for 'car'.
posted by Dysk at 3:37 PM on August 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
People I know who currently have big SUVs have them either to stay safe when every other car on the road is a big SUV, or because they didn't think too hard about it and that's what everyone they know drives.
posted by tofu_crouton at 3:56 PM on August 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by tofu_crouton at 3:56 PM on August 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
I so love the term "Chelsea tractor".
I've been noticing that in many of the newer midsized SUVS, they're equipped with turbo-charged 4-cylinder engines, and moving away from workhorse 6 and 8 cyl engines (though those can still be had in full-size pickups and larger SUVs). And they're often unibody and with less-robust "all-wheel-drive" capability, instead of a sturdier frame and 4wd hi-lo drivetrain. That's moving away from the pretense that someone is buying an SUV because they need the power or off-road capability. Most of them are like minivans with extra testosterone.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:00 AM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
I've been noticing that in many of the newer midsized SUVS, they're equipped with turbo-charged 4-cylinder engines, and moving away from workhorse 6 and 8 cyl engines (though those can still be had in full-size pickups and larger SUVs). And they're often unibody and with less-robust "all-wheel-drive" capability, instead of a sturdier frame and 4wd hi-lo drivetrain. That's moving away from the pretense that someone is buying an SUV because they need the power or off-road capability. Most of them are like minivans with extra testosterone.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:00 AM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
Well it doesn’t really matter if you stop flying in Europe, they’ll just fly the planes empty anyways (story is from 2022, but the rules haven’t changed and it’s still happening)
So maybe we shouldn’t feel so bad about the flights we’re taking? Since the airlines will fly empty fucking planes while the world burns.
posted by LizBoBiz at 3:40 AM on September 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
So maybe we shouldn’t feel so bad about the flights we’re taking? Since the airlines will fly empty fucking planes while the world burns.
posted by LizBoBiz at 3:40 AM on September 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
They didn't change their flights because they thought the situation was temporary. They would behave differently if they saw a long-term decrease in flights during certain periods. They already do respond to flight demand in that way.
I am currently reading the book The Path of Aliveness by Christian Dillo, about Zen Buddhism. I thought this was timely. "We can shrink away from any overwhelming problem by ignoring it or by feeling helpless and depressed. Or we can face it directly, hold the sincere vision of, in this case, reversing global warming, knowing that it is near impossible, and proactively do what is possible in our sphere of influence. My teacher, Baker Roshi, used to summarize this bodhisattvic approach to life with the slogan, “Direction functions as an endpoint.” This view has been one of the most important teachings in my life, helping me to feel fully alive in the face of personal and collective suffering."
posted by tofu_crouton at 5:11 AM on September 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
I am currently reading the book The Path of Aliveness by Christian Dillo, about Zen Buddhism. I thought this was timely. "We can shrink away from any overwhelming problem by ignoring it or by feeling helpless and depressed. Or we can face it directly, hold the sincere vision of, in this case, reversing global warming, knowing that it is near impossible, and proactively do what is possible in our sphere of influence. My teacher, Baker Roshi, used to summarize this bodhisattvic approach to life with the slogan, “Direction functions as an endpoint.” This view has been one of the most important teachings in my life, helping me to feel fully alive in the face of personal and collective suffering."
posted by tofu_crouton at 5:11 AM on September 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
This many empty flights should not happen, temporary situation or not. I understand sometimes they might happen in order to get a plane somewhere it needs to be, but this is not that. The issue is EU rules that essentially require airlines to make the choice that an empty flight is better than no flight.
posted by LizBoBiz at 6:07 AM on September 2, 2023
posted by LizBoBiz at 6:07 AM on September 2, 2023
None of this means the situation is unchangeable so we should all fly as much as we want forever. Rich people flying (and I would guess that many Metafilters users are in the top 10% richest people in the world) is one of those things that does make a noticeable contribution to climate change. It hasn't been like that since the dawn of time and doesn't need to be like that going forward.
The oligarchy benefits when we feel helpless and feel as if the situation is inevitable.
posted by tofu_crouton at 8:02 AM on September 2, 2023
The oligarchy benefits when we feel helpless and feel as if the situation is inevitable.
posted by tofu_crouton at 8:02 AM on September 2, 2023
Europe has literally already systematically cut back on flights
posted by tofu_crouton at 8:03 AM on September 2, 2023
posted by tofu_crouton at 8:03 AM on September 2, 2023
Noted in the article, it’s only 3 routes. Better than nothing, but not some huge push to cut flights in Europe.
posted by LizBoBiz at 10:22 AM on September 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
« Older "You should decide what you want out of such... | Adam And Kevin Ruin Theme Parks Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
liberalism.jpg
(Though undercutting that immediately with a statement about space needed versus space used is pretty delicious if one is able to pick it up. So, echoing the shade from the Swedish sustainability researcher, maybe 10% of Washington Post readers?)
posted by supercres at 8:35 AM on August 30, 2023 [23 favorites]