imo personal responsibility and lifestyle adjustments are just the kind of grassroots behavior that could lead humanity out of this. why wait for the industrial/capital machine to see the light and change course?
this approach, however, would have to be widely adopted and it may take generations. it's not a quick fix but i suspect it would be longer lasting, being built on a societal foundation of healty eco-habits.
Agree. Personal responsibility ALONE will not fix the problem. But it's not either/or. While I applaud activism movements like Sunrise, I believe personal lifestyle adjustments are indispensable. After all, in any scenario, the systemic changes we are talking about will have to include (mandated) reduction in consumption. We might as well start now voluntarily, and think about how to keep our lives fun and enjoyable while consuming less.
I agree with the sentiment but a couple problems with this approach
1. When you put the onus on the individual, powerful organisations will jump at the opportunity to absolve themselves of blame. Look at recycling and how it was pushed by the plastics lobby or the idea of a “personal carbon footprint” that was pushed by oil companies. There is a fact that these are systemic problems, that require systemic solutions.
2. History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes. Which massive threat to human life has been solved through bottom-up grass roots action (I.e. not protest to drive systemic change)? Look at small pox, the ozone and cfcs, covid, lead pipes, asbestos, etc. these all required huge top down programmes to deliver results.
This idea that fighting global warming has to start from individual behavior disregards the fact that lifestyle choices have social implications and are likewise constrained by social situations. Individuals are tied to their environment and free will meets constraints in reality. There are people who wish to adopt more sustainable lifestyles, but can't because it would make them unable to find a job, see their family and friends, move around, etc. Individual choices have a marginal impact. And this impact ofter comes with a high cost in terms of comfort.
The idea that change must come from individuals has been around for a long time, without much effect so far. I hope governments can support people who want to live in a way that is closer to their values (sustainability) by actively disincentivize irresponsible and destructive behavior.
I used to subscribe to this approach of personal responsibility. But even if absolutely everyone made all the personal choices they can, using up all their energy and time, they would cut world emissions by between 10 and 20%. Climate change is simply not something we can fix this way, and if we focus on that tiny chunk of it, we ignore the really important conversation about the companies that generate the vast majority.
I definitely do not think people taking personal responsibility is the solution. Quite the opposite. I believe the only way it top-down enforcement of cutbacks for everyone. A giant reset button. I simply don't think we have the ability to do that. COVID was a nice try but we couldn't resist going back to "normal".
Buying an EV is a no-op that makes people feel good for sacrificing nothing. You need to get a bicycle instead.
I like the idea of a system that rewards people for doing the right thing. I'd like it even more if such a system existed.
I actually don't think the environmental problems we face will be solved until collectively we remove the burden of the everyday person to actually contribute. UBI.
Until then it's a cycle of, extract resources, hoard capital, and minimize everyday people- so that the first two steps can continue without anyone at the top feeling uncomfortable. Well, I believe it will become VERY uncomfortable if this continues.
I think the only way out is political top-down decisions rather than mental shifts. Habits are just too strong and the competitive disadvantage of frugality just too inconvenient for most of our primate brains. Environmentalism and passive-aggressively oppressing of habits via high moral self-standards is too easily strawmanned or misinterpreted as ideology by the mobs. -- The most ignorant win.
The largest impact will be by China, India and Africa, so we'll quickly need to popularize green energy such as solar and perhaps the kinds of nuclear technology which can't be used for weapons (nuclear waste might be preferable over damages caused by pollution and climate change).
We need to be decisive and strong, which might involve bold and expensive media events and populism.
The ones who are able to think in the long term need to stop fighting themselves for superficial issues, political correctness and minor details. We need to strengthen our arguments instead and keep in mind that we are following the same ultimate goal.
I've spent much of my life living in a far more sustainable fashion than most, but besides a personal reduction of guilt it didn't really have any broader impact. I think we need both: folks like yourself leading by example, as well as broad regulatory changes to compel systematic behavioral change (both individual and corporate).
Just having the former is necessary yet insufficient. As stated elsewhere: there's just too many people that are otherwise unwilling to make personal changes. The upside is that when everyone else has accepted or embraced these changes, there's strong social pressure for those dissenters to join. And you can help inspire the early adopters.
But fundamentally we really do need strong political and governmental action here.
You're talking in generalities. Even if it's not the majority of people, some people will change their lifestyles, or at least parts of it (buying eco friendly cars, using less AC, eating less meat, etc.) But in general, you're right, most people won't do enough. That's why there need to be institutional changes, like investments into green energy/tech and incentives for companies to pollute less.
That could work, but it is painfully slow,and it might as well backfire - making people live worse lives so that they might be politically motivated to make industry take some of the brunt is not an obvious next step.
Also, any reasonable changes to your personal buying behavior, and absolutely everyone on the planet's as well, assuming 0 changes in, say, industrial fishing dumping practices, will produce about a 0% change in ocean plastic pollution.
I would too, and I believe the solution is to drastically change people's over-consumerists life-styles. I live a 'minimalist' life-style and feel finally happy, my environmental footprint is probably lower than 5% of the average, the planet could easily host 10 billions people like this, but can't sustain 2 billions over-consumerists
Here’s the thing: actually, we need the behavior of a _very small_ number of humans to change: the rich. Not only is their personal CO2 consumption the majority of personal CO2 consumption, but the capital they control drives the behavior and policy of everything else. This is a far easier problem to solve. I’ll leave the solution to your imagination.
You can't fix this alone. You can't even lead by example and get results, because a sustainable lifestyle in terms of climate change essentially has you living under a bridge if you account for your share of infrastructure. Personal responsibility is just not going to be the solution, so we need to look elsewhere.
I need to clarify here that I agree with GP that taking personal action is empowering and can lead you down a virtuous path. I just think that the goal needs to be changing society, not changing your own life. So if you want to make a difference, you have to be part of society. You have to take part in the economy, even if that means you will personally directly contribute more to the problem than you would if you went full hermit in the woods. There's no simple solution, but if there is one at all, it has to involve a lot of people working together.
Demanding multiple extreme lifestyle changes from billions of people—most of whom don't like you and won't listen—seems like would make for the least effective and most damaging of all the available solutions.
I prefer solutions that involve changing the least number of stubborn and uneducated minds, and offer the most upside. Like industries that are run by professionals and are already accustomed to high regulatory requirements. Energy and construction industries seem like there's a lot of low-hanging fruit there, just for starters.
My attitude is, do everything I can and take personal responsibility for everything I do. If in 50 years we've reached the tipping point, at least I won't be filled with regret of things I could have done differently. Blaming corporations for problems just adds another voice to the crowd, whereas lifestyle changes can help - if only minutely.
1. Diet - been vegan since reading the catastrophic effects animals agriculture has on the environment. Currently 2 years in and feel healthy as an ox.
2. Transport - run everywhere, cycle if necessary, drive and fly almost never.
3. Consumerism - live minimalist to a point where I'm happy and fulfilled enough to live happy, but not living as a pauper. Being happy allows me to work more efficiently, so it's a cost-benefit thing.
4. Investment - use the money saved from said minimalism to invest in carbon positive businesses and charities. Turns out that when you stop spending money on things and live on rice and beans, money starts coming out of your ears.
5. Career - currently in the process of transitioning from a career in the aviation industry, to one in the renewable energy industry. I'll take a pay cut, but at least my skills can be put to better use. So yes, you can impact the energy industry directly. Provide talent, research better alternatives to fossil fuels, try to become an industry leader and change that industry.
In my eyes, saying there is nothing you can do is a cop-out. There is always something you can do. When people say there's nothing they can do, what they really should say is 'it will be exceedingly difficult to put into action the things I want to change'.
My philosophy is, if everything fails it's utterly my fault and no one else's - but, it's alright to fail and I likely will multiple times. The only thing I can change is myself and my actions.
I don't think focusing on individual responsibility will work. In order to make a meaningful difference we need to make sure that
a) everyone knows what the issues are and what changes need to be made
b) everyone is willing to make the sacrifices necessary
If we've learned anything from (the entire history of the human race) it's that people who know and care will shoulder the burden of making changes while those who don't will benefit from it all.
If we want to make a dent in our fossil fuel consumption, we need meaningful action at the national and global scale by major political powers. Taxes, regulation, criminal consequences are the only way to move the needle.
Individuals choosing to live an energy-conscious life is commendable, and if enough people did it it might even ripple some small effects upwards, but ultimately I don't think that would ever be enough to actually solve anything. It has to be a top-down solution where lawmakers force the big corporations to be energy/environment conscious, but of course with the politicians (in the U.S. at least) being in the pocket of those very companies that's a tall order.
We must change our lifestyles -- but does that solve this problem?
We have better tools for dealing with spills. Yes we should shrink the industry that causes spills by removing demand. But that larger, slower, systemic change is compatible with also having more responsible responses to the near-term and acute problem.
An American gun-shot wound victim still needs acute care, even if all agree that also systemically we need to get rid of guns.
And in fact, placing responsibility on the companies involved to dedicate real resources to cleaning up the mess they've made makes the business less profitable and helps the system move towards more responsible behavior. Paying to clean up is of a piece with paying for emissions, in that both recognize some portion of the externalities that are otherwise inflicted on the community.
I'm calling for a different group of people to sit and think. People with a bit of abstract math, systemic and various fields (food, geology, ecology, logistics) to assemble, and reflect on how to migrate people lifestyle gradually.
Spreading small degrowth groups around, creating nature cattering associations, educators to turn people from consumers to actors of their neighborhoods with pleasure and care.
I'm highly convinced it doesn't require much to tip off a whole population in our case. Because the system is already sick to me. People just need a smooth path out and the benefits are not far (better diet, more physical exercises, less loneliness, less stress, less toxic competition, more control over their life).
this approach, however, would have to be widely adopted and it may take generations. it's not a quick fix but i suspect it would be longer lasting, being built on a societal foundation of healty eco-habits.
reply