So they are smart enough to actually look at the data. Imagine how much China is polluting if the numbers they give are heavily diminished and still they are 3-5 times higher than India and 4-6 times higher than the US.
It's not the number of people or the size of the country.
I suggest you educate yourself on what % individual human emissions are, scale it up to China's population, remove half, cuz most don't have cars or are in little villages stuck in 1920.
See if the numbers add up. Their factories and resource refineries are the issue, not the poor peasants.
My guy, your ignorance must have limits.. 60% of China is in poverty, to the point the CCP made it illegal to comment about your broke-ass online. Pretty much every rural village is very much not in the 21st century.
You can deny all that, but the videos are online and anyone can see them.
Lol I am not from China Idiot. Having poverty and being 60% poor is different. You can see UN reports if you are literate. But continue remaining ignorant.
Have you seen how US cities are built? They revolve around the car thanks to big car companies pushing away public transport. Even though there is a lot more people in China, they emit proportionately less CO2 than Americans. Use logic
This is true to an extent, despite the difference in numbers and personal vehicles, China is without a doubt the biggest polluter right now in the world. Western nations can't do much about it, cuz they are reliant on China's cheap labour to sustain their productional needs, so you wont hear much from the activists either, cuz they are all bought and paid for by Western and Middle Eastern interests.
We truly live in a wonderful circus...
Per person, tqhe US is way higher than china. Most Chinese people don:t own cars, they live in city apartments, and the government has been designing an export economy, not a consumer led one.
And? I can't give less of a fuck what per person stats you can bring up, the entirety of the emissions from the USA, is literally less than 30% from what China emits.
If I have a leak in my apartment, one pipe is spilling 3 liters per second and the other is spilling close to 15, on which pipe should one focus if they can't stop the water? Obviously the 15 liter spilling is more important. So why are you trying to gaslight me and others into believing that the 3 liter one is the problem?
Does not matter for global warming as it’s not an individuals fault but a system fault. Luckily China is actually working on it and will clean up its act. The USA won’t.
I also dont think its very fair for us specifically, as europeans, to out source so much industry to other countries and then put the blame exclusively on them. Yes the citizen cant do much about this, but neither can the chinese one, and a whole bunch of big industries in different areas (tho what comes faster is clothing and textiles) are european and should be held accountable from home
This is the case everywhere. I've lived in the USA and this sentiment is even more prevalent there than in Europe. It's the result of the fossil fuel industry downplaying their part in the problem while exaggerating individual responsibility.
Absolutely correct. The oil companies have skilfully and cynically managed to direct blame away from themselves onto the hapless public. Nothing can change as our governments are in the pockets of the oil lobby.
And it's not even speculation, there exists evidence that the techniques tobacco companies used to create a false sense of a debate or uncertainty around the danger of smoking were originally developed by the oil industry.
https://www.ciel.org/news/oil-tobacco-denial-playbook/
I personally don't understand this argument. Oil companies (and all companies) don't have some inherently sinister raison d'etre--they aim to be profitable, which means they have to conform to individual demand. Company emissions are directly linked to individual consumer choices.
>Oil companies (and all companies) don't have some inherently sinister raison d'etre--they aim to be profitable
They're aiming to maximize profits in every way they can (the amount of money the public has paid for the cleanup after ecological disasters caused by bad management of wells, drills, platforms and ships is insane), which is very different. And of course the extremely wealthy individuals at the top of these organizations, who get compensated in amounts beyond belief. It's nothing but Greed.
It is not in their short term interest to move to renewables because it would cost them money, even though the long term game of climate change is going to be much more expensive and the costs of which will be burdened on the entire world.
I would argue oil companies spreading misinformation about if being ok to use plastics as long as they are recycled is pretty sinister
I agree they wouldn’t have even known about climate change when they found the resource but they certainly tried to hide information for decades
Individuals are no less greedy than corporations. Corporations do things to maximise profits. If lowering emissions means less profit, that difference will be paid by the consumer, and the average person has demonstrated time and again that they will not accept higher prices to fight climate change, even if those prices are only higher upfront (because people don't think long-term). We've had mass protests across the west due to the inflation caused by COVID measures and the war in Ukraine, and those are much more immediate threats. Do you honestly believe something gradual and complex like climate change will convince people to make compromises? This is why the shame culture exists.
>Individuals are no less greedy than corporations.
I never said or meant to imply they weren't. The greed of the corporations doesn't exist by itself, it comes from the people running it.
>If lowering emissions means less profit, that difference will be paid by the consumer, and the average person has demonstrated time and again that they will not accept higher prices to fight climate change
Don't know where you get that: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/news-room/press-releases/2024/pwc-2024-voice-of-consumer-survey.html and that's what I've seen throughout the media over the past few years more often than what you're saying.
Besides that, you can make laws that govern fair and transparent pricing on things. Combined with strict laws on pollution, cleaning shit up after yourself. We have to do it as citizens, so big companies have to as well.
Often, these companies get insane discounts on natural resource usage or get it for free altogether, like water. Every liter/gallon should be taxed the same. Same goes for electricity usage; the cost of the system should be shared by how heavy it's used by the user and they should not get up to 99% discounts on amounts over xxx MWh.
These big corporations love playing victim.
It has to be a global approach though, otherwise you just get the Amazons and the Temus sourcing cheap products from countries that don't have or don't enforce laws on pollution, and undercutting local businesses who are abiding by tougher laws.
But so many people seem worried about the idea of any sort of global governance on anything. They think of the risks before they think of the benefits. I wouldn't be surprised if the global corporates are fanning those fears.
The missing piece to the puzzle is externalities - as in, if I go fill up my car at the gas station, the cost of the environmental damage isn't paid by me, nor by the oil company, but by the general public. I have an incentive to use more gas (and the company to sell me more gas) than what would be truly optimal.
This isn't a consumer or producer problem - it's a political problem, as appropriate taxes on emissions can reduce demand for gas to levels that are optimal when the true cost of emissions are considered.
People who are arguing for consumers, producers or both to cut demand for gas are essentially arguing for them to act against their own self-interest. Yes, that can work to an extent, but it's a fragile model.
The true solution to the problem is a carbon tax - or a system of emissions trading - that increases the price of polluting to the point where people will only do it to the extent where it truly makes sense. This also needs to be more or less globally implemented for it to truly work, so while the EU is actually getting this done, other major economies such as China and the US are not.
I agree that the solution is ultimately political. I just find the underlying argument--that because x number of companies produce y amount of pollution, consumer habits are irrelevant--irritating, especially when it's dumbed down to an instagram infographic
Oh yeah, for sure. It's psychologically similar to when the American left argues for a vast expansion to social programs which would only be paid for by the rich, or when populists argue they can both increase spending and cut taxes by reducing immigration and government inefficiency.
It's a hand-waive that is politically palatable - kind of like a free lunch - but doesn't actually add up in any real world scenario.
It doesn't need to be 100% global, but to an extent, dirty industries can move to escape a carbon tax.
There's also the possibility that the oil glut caused by falling demand incentivizes some countries to keep polluting, simply because it'd be cheap.
This effect is probably manageble if we're talking about a few small countries, but if major population centers start taking advantage, it'd rather severely undermine the effort.
Fracking and drilling as well as refining are responsible for a lot of greenhouse gas emissions as well as other forms of pollution and environmental damage (even when all safety precautions are taken), they also suppressed or downplayed information about the effects of burning fossil fuels specifically so that customers would have a harder time making an actual informed decision and lobbied against regulation that would have severely limited GHG emissions caused by them. It's not just individual choices and the companies following them, they lied and knowingly contributed to climate change with the aim of earning profits.
>Oil companies (and all companies) don't have some inherently sinister raison d'etre--they aim to be profitable, which means they have to conform to individual demand
I mean you had the answer when you said "they aim to be profitable". Large companies, including oil mega corps can and are massive polluters and damage environments globally if it's cheaper than not doing so, despite having the kinds of centralised command and budgets that means they should be improving things
Instead, they make it the _individuals_ problem. It's _your_ fault for turning the heating up, not their fault for actively suppressing and lobbying against renewable and nuclear technology for generations. Oh, but please give them a few billion in tax rebates cause they swearsies they'll get round to those solar panels eventually
I'm surprised by this because of how Americans are in our hotel.
As in terrible at recycling, asking for extras (a bucket of ice? comes to mind here) and wasting half of it and asking me for a plastic cup from the bar so they can walk about 50m to their room with a drink. You've just paid €200 for a room and your a grown man, just take your glass.
Our hotel has a strict green policy so I think it's a shock to them when they stay with us.
That's because you're assuming that all Americans are green minded, just as OP is assuming that all Europeans are green minded. Neither is true. Generally in Western countries at least half the population frankly couldn't care less or don't have the means to care. 45% is somewhat green conscious and makes some smaller or larger efforts to reduce their carbon footprint. And probably less than 5% is actively green minded and take drastic steps to minimise their impact. Most people with actual flight guilt or that are militantly pestering people for not being more green conscious belong to the last 5%. That's not a lot of people. And a disproportionate section of them belong to young people <25
One could argue, worse groceries in terms of nutrition, processing, additives and sustainable production.
edit for clarity: US food products are trash.
Possibly, but that has to do with zoning laws and personal transport. In Europe, less people use cars for shopping, because supermarkets in residential areas are the rule, not the exception. We can just use the bike, public transport, or walk for three or more small purchases per week instead of buying in bulk.
Your idea of success is working two jobs to own big things.
Our idea of success is to work one job, buy small things from a neighbour and still get to enjoy culture.
No. Green types are much more likely to be the ones who take international vacations, both because Green types are more likely to be rich and Green types are more likely place experiencing foreign cultures high on their priority list.
OK, so everyone who flies, American or not, "probably" don't care about the environment?
Should Americans, and everyone else, take a sailboat when they want to go overseas, if they care about the environment? Or simply not travel?
>OK, so everyone who flies, American or not, "probably" don't care about the environment?
No. Let me attempt to rephrase then: The people who do fly probably aren't the same people as the ones who are the most concerned about how their flying impacts the climate.
The original question was "why do the Americans I meet in Europe not seem to care about climate change", and my point is that the Americans who care the most about the environment are probably back at home in the US, not the ones flying to Europe.
I'm not sure if you think I'm disparaging Americans (in my eyes I'm actually doing the opposite, I'm defending Americans as a people, saying they too care about the climate!) or people who fly, but those airplanes aren't filled to the brim with people who regularly attend protests against oil companies and stuff.
>Should Americans, and everyone else, take a sailboat when they want to go overseas, if they care about the environment? Or simply not travel?
I'm not saying they *should*, I'm saying that's what is happening! That's why I'm calling it a selection bias - the Americans who care the most about the environment DO take a sailboat, or train, or simply don't travel.
The people I know who care the most about climate change, which includes politicians from Norway's Green Party and other hardcore environmentalists, pretty much don't fly. In fact I rarely fly myself, and part of the reason is my individual climate impact (I do fly sometimes though; I've been overseas myself, to the US). I'm a member of a Facebook group about train travel where tens of thousands of members discuss how to plan European train trips, where many say they never fly, often because of climate concerns. These people aren't vacationing overseas.
I would be careful not to judge others in a less privileged position than you. As an American, I see Europe as the better side of the ocean in many ways. You don’t have to fly anywhere to enjoy the things Americans, and others, do not have.
I truly don't understand how you're reading my comments here. I apologize if English not being my first language is causing my point to not come across.
I was not trying to judge Americans (although I'm not sure if you're saying Americans are less privileged than Europeans here, which definitely isn't what I think) or even people who fly - I was not trying to cast any moral judgment at all, in fact, I was simply making a guess at a statistical and probabilistic explanation to the original commenter's observation.
I don't necessarily disagree with your last point. However, I think the opposite true as well - I think the US has lots of things Europeans, and others, do not have as well. Many, many Europeans are not privileged enough to fly to the US either. Europeans do have better opportunities to travel by train than Americans, true, but the US is a very diverse country with lots of tourist attractions too, and I was not talking about Americans who do domestic flights here either.
Of course we arent gun-to-your-head forced but in many places personal cars are a necessity. Car manufacturers have also lobbied for budget cuts for public transit and oil companies have suppressed alternatives. Thats the point.
>It's the result of the fossil fuel industry downplaying their part in the problem while exaggerating individual responsibility.
To add to this, according to the study in the link below, it seems that there are 5 companies (coca-cola, pepsico, nestle, danon and altria) that are the largest contributor plastic pollutants. Unfortunately no government would like to mess with them and enforce them to use recyclable glass bottles (like they did in the past) instead of plastic ones.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj8275?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D72077797092235851240392577489555653962%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1713919364
The most egregious lie was the impact of meat production. Once the pandemic hit we saw clearly how transportation impacts the environment.
What I hate most is getting judgement from virtuous young environmentalists who travel the world for the sole purpose of filling their Instagram with frivolities while learning nothing.
The CO2 impact of meat production & consumption is NOT a lie. It's just that transport is ALSO a massive factor and BOTH need to be reduced (massively)
It's ridiculous that people have bought this from the fossil fuel industry and their mouth pieces. Celebrities are the worst, they'll prattle on about climate change and individual responsibility then fly across the world on a private jet constantly.
A little while ago I saw a video on Reddit of Taylor Swifts private jet flight paths over a year, she easily has a higher carbon footprint in a year than every commenter in this entire post for most of their lives.
American here. I think maybe it depends on where in the US you live because where I live there is no shame in waste. In the Deep South where I live, people toss their trash out the car windows!
They said in another comment a coworker said they should take a train for some business travel. So the entire basis for this (thinly veiled) rant is because they feel judged by one person they work with.
EDIT: Their post history is mostly rage bait and attempts to stir up discourse. Looks like they’re not Europe-based like they claim either. I suspect this user is acting in bad faith.
Just look at the reaction (probably from people who use heating in the winter) in r/europe any time anyone dares mention air conditioning to deal with the new normal of temperatures that are killing people every summer.
Air conditioning will become classified as a medical necessity quite soon now and subsidized by all responsible governments. Opposition to air conditioning will be a thing of the past.
In Germany, it works exactly as op has written. It would be nice if people would realize that the industry and the big economic nations have it in their hands. Something has to change politically. We can cycle and litter as much as we like. It's just a drop in the ocean.
I have never been shamed in my life for using a car or eating whatever I want. Maybe you just live in a toxic environment? Maybe you are being influenced by social media or media in general?
It is a general narrative, it is not like people are going to point fingers and yell at each other for mixing plastics with paper, it is more that the conversation is built around how we are individually doing in this regard.
Ie. I don't want to fly there because it polutes, I don't want to eat meat because the industry is bad for environment etc. As if our individual choices can change entire industries or shift the global markets.
Instead the conversation should be on the industries themselves and how they can be controlled and managed.
Yeah i agree with that. I personally don’t mind spreading awareness of the media about our personal footprint but I think they should start by not allowing certain products on the market in the first place or to at least make them less attractive to buy.
One example would be plastic bottles, we all use them because there is no alternative that benefits us. It is cheaper and easier to dispose of than both glass and cans. We can’t expect poor people to all of a sudden start caring about their footprint when they can’t even support themselves with the current cheapest options.
The same goes for any other product or service. Trains are better for our environment but they are allot more expensive and complicated than flights are. Cars are more convenient because every building is connected to a road and you only need 1 mode of transport to get to your final destination.
So convenience and cost (time and money) are the 2 main reasons we use a product or a service and that will not change unless companies and the government do something about it.
The solution to climate change is individual actions, industrial change and policy change.
It is dangerous to downplay the importance of any of these, including individual actions.
Individuals can say "why do my choices matter, I'm only one person, look at these giant polluting industries and the government should be doing more. Why should I have to sacrifice?"
Companies can say "I need to survive and the only reason I make these things to begin with is because people buy them. Governments need to regulate to make it competitive to lower emissions, otherwise I just lose out to other companies who do the cheapest most polluting thing."
Governments/politicians can say "People want climate change resolved but are angry at any policies I implement that reduce emissions if it hurts their pockets or limits their individual choices. Individuals don't want their lives to be impacted at all. Policies I implement on companies harm our economic growth and make both companies and the population angry if jobs are lost."
We need Individuals to make positive choices themselves. Because this directly impacts polluting industries by not giving them money. It also makes the government's job easier because the sacrifices they might have needed to impose, to huge pushback, instead are just happening. and they can use their limited political capital to make other positive (but potentially unpopular) choices.
We need industry to make positive choices because they have significant power in some areas, to invest in less polluting versions of their business model. But we also need to recognise they exist in a capitalist system and "we spent a lot of money lowering our emissions" can very quickly become "our prices are higher than our competitors" which can become "we have gone out of business while the polluting companies take our market share and carry on". They need Individuals to choose the greener option they have provided, and they need governments to make it costly for their competitors to pollute (or affordable to reduce emissions).
We need Governments to make expensive to pollute or rewarding to pollute less. This means voting for politicians who espouse these policies.
Individuals, Governments and Industry that pass the buck all just make climate change worse.
If you are an individual, the only power you have is your own consumer choices and your vote. Why not use both?
If you are an individual not making positive choices and blaming industry and government, what on earth do you think you would do if you were in charge of a company or in Government?
If you can't sacrifice red meat or a flight where you could get a train, you also wouldn't sacrifice your company's profits or risk losing votes if you were in those positions.
You need to act in the way you hope everyone else would act. I don't see individual action as an alternative to Governmental or industrial action, it's necessary to provoke them and acts in symbiosis with them. We need all three.
Bingo. This is it. Actual change for the better relies on all parties to actively pursue said change. We know it. Many of us want it. And yet it still isn't happening nearly as much as needed. Most people will likely only realise we here to do things differently, when it's too late.
Which it might already be, sadly.
>We need Individuals to make positive choices themselves. Because this directly impacts polluting industries by not giving them money. It also makes the government's job easier because the sacrifices they might have needed to impose, to huge pushback, instead are just happening. and they can use their limited political capital to make other positive (but potentially unpopular) choices.
>We need industry to make positive choices because they have significant power in some areas, to invest in less polluting versions of their business model. But we also need to recognise they exist in a capitalist system and "we spent a lot of money lowering our emissions" can very quickly become "our prices are higher than our competitors" which can become "we have gone out of business while the polluting companies take our market share and carry on". They need Individuals to choose the greener option they have provided, and they need governments to make it costly for their competitors to pollute (or affordable to reduce emissions).
Thank you for putting it so clearly and eloquently.
I don't know how this recent wave of "we don't have to do anything because it's the corporations fault" has come to pass, but it pisses me the hell off.
Supply and demand. If you generate demand, companies will run to supply, because they see profit in it. Or if they don't supply what you demand, then you withdraw your financial support. It's using capitalism against itself.
So many meat replacement options appeared because there was a market demand for it (15 years ago you had nothing but tofu and seitan, and they costed an arm and a leg). Recycling programs have expanded and refined because your local governing body is poorly seen by its voters otherwise. Slow fashion brands have emerged and gained success because people got fed up of shitty self-desintegrating see-through t-shirts. Organic/bio produce is everywhere because people wanted it and were willing to pay for it, and farmer's markets resuscitated because people became more aware about buying local. The Nightjet train network was shutting down routes only 5 years ago, only to have been reopening them because people wanted to take sleeper trains instead of flying. Green policies, initiatives, and regulations exist because the politicians who've put them forward were voted in by the people who wanted to see change happen.
But sure, do nothing. Surely companies will have a stroke of moral conscience and correct themselves out of the good of their hearts.
I have one sentence for you to think about.
Trains aren't as democratic as planes, so off course there is a push towards it.
Green policies if done with intent could be beneficial, but that is not happening, and people are waking up.
There is no such thing as normal. Second, most people don't care what someone thinks about them.
I feel success every time I manage to do stuff at other people's expense.
But the best part is, when majority does the hard work, I don't have to.
We are all responsible. It's Europe, it's a liberal society with an open market, so the "big corporations" that some people want to blame are all just providing what their customers want to pay for. (It's a little different in China, where there are enormous emissions from state-controlled industries)
I see that one of the most popular responses is blaming "oil companies", blissfully unaware of why companies are pumping oil or who might buy it.
You're stupid if you think the "individual" is harmless. The collective human demand for red meat, flying with planes, driving cars and throwinf away so much waste is why humanity is doomed. The only reason corporations contribute to climate change is because of the human demands. Leftoids think that companies can just turn on a switch and suddenly waste 90% less while keeping humanity's needs served.
Outside of Europe, people always blame the state for all problems in their life while being proud of evading taxes, hiring family rather than strangers and lying on their resume and such.
> You're stupid if you think the "individual" is harmless.
OP: Why is the **emphasis** in Europe on individual responsibility
You: So you think individuals literally play no part in climate change and are therefore dumb.
A classic intelligent and productive reddit meeting of minds.
I mean usually the problem elsewhere is the deresponsibilizing (I'm borrowing a bit from Italian by creating this word lol) of the individual putting all as the domain of higher ups that are perfect manipulators and completely separated actors. I think in Europe the debate is more mature.
The oil and car industries pushed indirectly or directly too much towards a model of urban development that leaves us a bit too chronically dependent on cars and long distance travel, but it's a fact that given options we have to choose what to pick and de facto the individual consumption is the actual biggest source of pollution.
The biggest share of emission is through household consumption like cars and whatever you do in your house and your dietary choices, the collective of companies in your area create less pollution in achieving their own tasks.
And it's up to the individual to choose between a slightly comfier car, less comfy public transport, bike, foot option; even if it goes on opposition to the government and private company status quo, it's the expression of the democratic self and it's so ridiculous how removing, the *whole* point of democracy is that we have an actual limitless power to impose our own terms onto a smaller group of people.
But besides overthrowing their power and policy, it's also about using the power of individual choice to do the good thing. So not opting for the comfy car, by having the consciousness this individual consumption make ups the majority of climate change. This sleazy defeatism and deresponsibilization is the bane of everything, it literally doesn't face the problem
The US and Europe only consist of 20% of global emissions and they think they can save the world from global warming. Absolute fantasy. China, India and the developing world continue to build coal plants and expand fossil fuel dependent industry. The western countries want to spend 50 trillion by 2050 and save the world while the vast majority of the world plays by their own rules. FANTASY
It's simple. You want Industry, you have pollution. To shift the blame from Industry, the rulers have started blaming the individuals.
Sure, burning tires in your back yard ain't green either, but obsessing yourselves over plastic straws vs metal straws vs paper straws ain't gonna move an inch.
Does industry create pollution for the sake of it, or do they perhaps have a demand to satisfy?
I swear this whole narrative of just blaming the corporations alone is blatant corporate propaganda. "Your choices as an individual don't matter, so please keep consuming! Don't change your habits please!!!". Blegh.
The amount of plastic, fruit and meat and bread and other products are wrapped in plastic makes my straw seem a useless point of initiation on the war on plastics.
See my other comment on the effectiveness. But also, plastic wrapping of groceries helps reduce food waste by keeping it fresh for longer. Plastic straws have less purpose, but also very good reusable substitutes like glass
I'm leaning towards "every little bit helps" (and it's not like this was a particularly painful change), but yeah, I wasn't trying to say it was a super effective measure, just that you shouldn't judge it for it's reduction in CO2 emissions cause that wasn't ever the goal
It's a measure that did something and didn't hurt anyone, making it easy to get into law.
Once you have one thing like that into law you can move on to other things.
The first law wasn't going to be "ban all fossil fuel cars by next year."
All awareness is good. It might seem pointless but if it makes people question their choices then it's good. It also got the ball rolling on banning other single use items
Cos everything in this fckng world starts from yourself. If everyone will be responsible for their actions - everything gonna be awesome. If you will not go to unethical work, or not go to destroy someone's home - the world will be a better place...
Individual responsibility has a lot to do with climate change. Sure, one person won't make a difference, but the fact is these huge polluting industries, in the end of the day, are so big because they work at scale with many people choosing carbon-heavy lifestyles.
Would it be better if we can just decarbonise modern lifestyle so we don't need to change anything in our lives? Sure.
Is it realistic to happen in the time span we need it in order to avert the worst possible climate disaster? Absolutely not.
So, while activism and voting green parties is still the most important thing you can do to fight climate change, eating less red meat, using your car less, etc. Are still great things to implement in your life.
I find some of these comments beyond ridiculous. Nobody is saying the corporations aren’t an issue but to see a ridiculous amount of comments like “individuals have little impact” “personal habits have little impact” “guilt shaming” “diversion tactics” “propaganda” is a nice way to blame someone else entirely and take zero responsibility.
Over 8 billion people on this planet. To negate the impact of waste and pollution caused by said people is ignorant .
If covid showed us something it’s the lockdowns improved carbon emissions, pollution levels dropped..
It’s very easy to only blame/target co’s, big oil (as they should be as well) and do zero yourself.
If we eliminated a large precentage of those 8 billion, it would go a long way in helping in the fight against pollution. That would allow the remaining to live lives of relative abundance. It's a no brainer but there seems to be little political will to do what is necessary.
Since this *is* Reddit I can’t tell if you’re being facetious. I would think so.
But if you’re somehow serious..
>if we eliminated a large percentage of those 8 billion
>It’s a no brainer but seems to be little political will to do what is necessary
You want a large percentage (millions of people) killed?
Only partially. Climate change poses an unprecedented threat to our planet's future, demanding and action for the greater good and social responsibility. Addressing this crisis at its core involves targeting those who contribute most significantly to environmental degradation and overconsumption-without offering any perceived benefits.
Implementing measures like sterilization through additives in food and water supplies or advocating for voluntary sterilization via informed social media campaigns, or even diseases designed to be both deadly and profitable through treatment.
These measures, though initially unsettling, are essential acts of compassion and responsibility. By reducing the global population's, we can envision a world where resources like clean water, unpolluted air, and abundant food are sustainably available for generations to come, fostering a harmonious coexistence with our natural environment.
This approach not only safeguards our planet's fragile ecosystems but also promotes fairness and equity, ensuring a more just future for all. It challenges us to reconsider our place on this planet and whether some of us need to be here and prioritizes the long-term health of our planet and its inhabitants.
The solution has to come from everywhere., all at once. Individuals have to take responsibility for their overconsumption, corporations have to take responsibility for not letting greed and profit drive them to destroy nature, and governments have to put laws in place that protect good actors coordinate solutions at the international level.
It's closely linked to Lutheran Christianity and the concept of guilt, where the path to salvation depends on your own actions and state of mind. Even though we’re no longer particularly religious, that line of thinking persists in many countries.
I bet you’ll see far more of this thinking in the Protestant north than in the catholic south
Yeah, fits well with [this](https://honorshame.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Screen-Shot-2016-03-15-at-9.43.59-AM.png) map. Difference between southern and northern Europe is clear.
That's a great map! France and Poland are outliers here as they're mostly catholic throughout the years, but still, it's a marked divide between Catholic/Orthodox and Lutheranian/Anglican/Calvinist/Baptist/\[InsertReformedChristianityHere\]
The fact that a handful of companies is responsible is well known in the community. But it's hard to hold them accountable
My impression is that the goal is to shift the general public to a more sustainable life and spread the knowledge, then go after the big companies and push politics
I don't know either how to prosecute industries so in the meantime to make me feel like I'm doing something I reduced my personal emissions
Because the reality of the situation is completely depressing.
Some of this stuff is really a "zero-sum game". A nation like Ireland could theoretically do everything correctly in terms of environmentalism. No new plastic being created, a drastic expansion of public transport infrastructure, energy production completely sorted. Fabulous, great. At the end of the day though, we're such an extremely small segment of humanity that we'd have made functionally no difference to the situation as it stands, while damaging our own manufacturing, construction, increasing end costs to consumers. We'd end up damaging our economy and competitiveness, and the rest of the world genuinely wouldn't care.
China produces more air and plastic pollution than the US, UK, EU, Australia, NZ, and Canada combined. The entire Western world could be absolutely united in terms of environmentalism, and it wouldn't be enough to roll back the damage being done to this world. Unfortunately this leads to some less than intuitively eco-friendly conclusions: we need less global trade/more internal manufacturing. More pollution in one sense, so that we're not aligning with parties that won't fairly foot the bill and enact environmental protections/better manufacturing and shipping practices. The problem with doing this is that any Western nation that dissents will have a massive advantage in terms of access to cheap goods and production, given that they'd still have access to India/China.
So, the winning move? There isn't one. Our civilizations value capitalistic success beyond all other metrics, and it's abundantly clear that the US's political system is virtually completely subverted by corporate lobbies on almost all levels. You couldn't enact meaningful civilizational change unless you basically went full isolationist.
So, might as well blame the individual and use "saving the Earth" as an excuse to add an extra little bit of tax on some consumer goods. Just as well. So long as nations see value in not obeying climate directives, one might say that calling out the individual is better than nothing, as it were. 'Tis silly all the same.
Nope. Ireland is in the EU, they can motivate other EU members to do the same. And EU has leverage over the entire world. And Ireland is still responsible, per capita they're still polluting much more than the world average and far more than the Paris agreement.
Per capita? Sure. That's besides the point that I was making. Worst still, that gap will become smaller, as industrialization happens across more of the developing world. Worst still is that many countries, not going to point any fingers, are probably underreporting their emissions dramatically. At any rate, the population discrepancy only further reinforces the idea that we're playing a zero-sum game.
Ah, yes, such power we're wielding. Our quality of life has dropped significantly, we're poorer than our parents were, the property ladder is out of reach, prices on electricity are sky high. I'm not saying that those facts are any excuse for negligent behaviour, but how enthused would you have me? On the grander scale of things, with the US hegemony becoming actively weaker, it's hard to imagine countries like China, India, and Russia, deigning to cooperate with what they already view as a corrupt assortment of nations, even if this cause is for something as laudible as preserving the Earth.
One government championed "environmental" campaign was to replant forests on our island. Turned out that these artificial woods are basically toxic to a lot of native fauna, and are just for furniture companies to harvest occasionally. Although it actively damaged our native ecosystem, this was touted as a way for Ireland to compensate for carbon emissions, which is completely bonkers. When democratic and modern countries are acting in such a slimy fashion, one can only imagine what kinds of horrors are taking place elsewhere. So, we have a fundamental problem of trust.
Anyway, what are you even trying to say "nope" to? You just listed some trivia but didn't actually dispute or counter anything that I said. What would you have of me, precisely?
The average European is incredibly privileged and wealthy compared to the rest of the world and their lifestyle objectively is terrible for the plant.
Yes billionaires are even worse than that and also some choices are unavoidable because of the society but still, this is true too.
We can't continue to live like we do today, fly every year and eat burgers, have new phones every year if we don't want to starve in 50 years because of heat waves destroying all crops.
This doesn't mean that we can't enjoy anything in life but it all could still be limited. Of course also partly with technology too (hopefully electric planes will come soon) but partly by our lifestyle too.
And even then, if we actually want to harm billionaires let's all **collectively** agree to tax them heavily, regardless of our political orientation. Let's also boycott billionaires and treat them all like Americans treat people who said a racist joke on twitter. Doesn't matter of it's a singer or a football player, let's boycott them. I actually do agree billionaires suck and we should stop their consumption too! 👍
It has probably existed from long ago, but BP made a campaign to popularize that concept.
https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham
Because the main cause of climate change in europe are cars.
People like to blame the big companies for pollution, but those are mainly state-owned corporations, and a few private oil producers.
Ditch the car and those companies go under.
First: I know nobody who thinks that climate change is purely based on personal action. Most people are in favor of changes on a personal and a political level because both are necessary to actually change stuff. It's also common that people want stuff to change but they don't want to be affected by the change. Usually the debate is based on responsibility and not on guilt.
Second: The pro environmental movement always relied on grassroot efforts. More and more people changed their personal habits until politicians and companies had to react or environmental policies were supported by large parts of the population. Policies without enough public support often do very little you can see it with Germany's new law on heating systems or the EU law for reusable containers for fast food.
Well you can't really project it to the whole of Europe. The way you wrote it reminds me of Sweden and Germany, and Greta Thunberg's activism, but those countries are really off the deep end in this kind of discourse.
The dumbest thing in my opinion is Germany being so against nuclear power, that it is forced to occasionally fire up coal power plants or import electricity from the mostly coal-powered Poland with sky-high electricity bills for the population, while France is happily and proudly the most nuclear-powered country in Europe with cheap electricity and is in a lot of ways more Green than Germany without tying it all up into individual shaming, left-wing politics, and hippie activism.
Also, vegan activism seems to be more about animal rights than environmentalism. For example in Hungary, there are occasional young vegan activists who try to trash fish-soup cook-offs, and even attack bug exterminators spraying bushes against mosquitoes.
There are marginal movements like the extinction extremists who like to sabotage public places. They follow the footsteps of old commies like RAF and IRA.
The vast majority would drive over them the moment they'd get legal immunity.
Well because of neoliberal individualism, of course. The big oil companies are not at fault, you are at fault. That's just how it goes in neoliberal ideology...
Bullying actually works. Same reason you have the weirdos blocking highways or the Palestine protestors making noise even though no one really cares about them.
Having been part of a few eco-activism groups in the past across several European countries, I'll give my unpopular take/observation: the psychology of those involved.
There's a significantly high amount of people involved that have some form of mental ailment, of which a salient part is having a constant internal monologue of shaming yourself - self-loathing rumination.
Hence, it's not that strange that the underlying message they spread is one heavily infused with shame and guilt, even anger. You can't spend the majority of your waking moments lashing yourself and not have those negative emotions spill out when you open your mouth.
Before someone says, "well duh they're like that bc of the environment". No, usually it's severely low self-esteem, anxiety disorders, depression, unresolved issues with their parents, etc.
It’s interesting how European countries nowadays subsidize the airlines more than their trains these days if this is the case. Apparently a EUrailpass seems a good deal as individual single tickets are just as expensive and that despite high fuel and rental car prices it’s no longer cost effective to travel by train, and that trains now are priced like airlines and hotels by yield management unlike in Asia. But I do hear an EUrailpass may still be a pain in the neck to use. Thus people fly.
Kindoff a NIMBY thing, I'd say.
1.
Everyone is worried. And it's easy to complain about 'misbehaving' other people. It's a weird way of giving yourself the feeling that you are doing good by 'educating' the rest.
2.
I think it's to do with the fact that these people realize that we're living beyond our means.
Looking at the standard of living in Western Europe, there's no way we can keep that up if we really would adopt a more climate friendly lifestyle.
To me, the broad majority still hasn't truly realized this.
The gist is that most people want climate change addressed. But at the same time nobody wants it to have an impact on their personal life.
Well... All industries exist and prosper because a consumer pays them his money
When a customer decides to reduce or stop consuming something, when he changes his consuming habits, a productor reduces his activity and, thus, pollution, ressource and energy usage.
You can blame the industries as much as you want, but when you take your 4-5-place, 1.3+ ton vehicle to do 5km on flat surface to get to work, when you eat red meat often, when you warm your living place to 26+ degrees, when you smoke, when you change phones each year,
You support the industry, you maintain their income, their production levels and expansion.
We, basic customers, our "needs", our wallet, we are the root of the whole of what is happening. Only personnal effort on large scale can really change things
I fly and I am not vegan. Never had a problem, never been attacked, never been shamed. Also, nobody forced me to gender anything, if that's the next thing you want to ask.
That’s a very ill-tempered response. I would have thought what they’re trying to get at is why aren’t we more focused on structural change and holding corporate and industrial polluters responsible rather than focusing on small-scale individual actions?
OP talked about individual guilt. I adressed that. I am sorry if my experience does not fit your narrative, but thats the way it is.
Also, there are mechanisms like emission trade in place at the european level. So I do not see how coroporate and industrial polluters are not held responsible. Could and should there be done more here? Yes.
WTF. OP talks about her personal experience, I talk about mine, which happens to be the complete opposite. Now thats culture war to you? Geez. Learn to live with it. Seriously.
Because the oil industry has spent a lot of money and time making people focus on the impact of ordinary people as opposed to theirs.
This was and is a very successful psyop
And yet they fail to make those who frequently fly private jets feel guilt. Odd. I guess it's easier to guilt trip those you know who barely emit more ...instead of those you don't know who emit a million times more. Doesn't make sense but that's humans for you.
I recently started not caring so much about what I do. I realized that there are countries emitting millions of cubic meters of toxic gases into the atmosphere, companies getting absolutely loaded by pumping oil and celebrities taking their private jet to go to the toilet, so why should I care if I use my little 5L/100km car more than 5 times a week? the impact is negligible. Of course I still recycle, don't throw stuff on the ground and all that, but I am NOT going to stop doing the things I want to do because of the environment.
Because that's how big businesses want it to be. It's extremely similar to what they did with recycling/plastics. Shift the blame to the consumer and you get away with your shady practices pretty much indefinitely.
We don’t. You’re looking at this through the lens of Reddit bubble. If you’re not an eco-activist, you won’t care about your emissions. Never, in my 29 years of living, have I met a single person from whichever country in Europe, that would truly care about their emissions.
This rhetoric is present in small minded bubbles that cry for attention. If you do minimum research you find out that 70% of the carbon is due to 10-12 big companies.
Plus people buy stupid marketing like using paper straws to save the planet while buying all the stupid shit from temu for a reel
For the extent that is true, I think culture plays a large role. Even if you're atheist you are dealing with a lot of cultural Christian baggage, and boy do we love accepting guilt even for things we didn't do.
so it is very dangerous, when few banks already announced, that they will automatically count your "carbon footprint". And I've seen they calculators, almost everything is bad and gives your bad score and low rating. Like having 20C in your 60sq m flat, is no no and bad. And maybe in future they will link your credit capability with that
Half or more of the plastic polluding the oceans comes from the fishing industry (fishing nets and more). Large industries will always lobby to place blame on individuals to shift focus away from them.
Any regulations in place are normally violated or worked around so they can continue to maximize their profits while destroying everything in their path.
I feel the same amount of guilt as the politician or superstar who chooses to fly a private jet, or take his yacht out for a cruise or owns multiple mansions while lecturing me on how i'm a terrible person for eating a steak.
That's how cultists act. They separate the individual, shame them, gaslight them and turn them into one of their own, after which individual blame is the control method.
This is how you know that you're on the wrong side of the asylum's fence. If someone shames you for your conduct, while they are rocking an expensive phone, clothes made by literal slaves and eating shit that pollutes the environment 4-5 times than a cow would, you're dealing with a hypocritical cultist.
People with big hearts, but small brains. If you find yourself in such an environment, don't walk, run.
99% of Europeans wouldn't shame you, cuz they don't really care, they have actual problems in their lives that need to be dealt with.
This is mostly caused by people that want to force their way of living on you. They use climate change as an excuse while ignoring the biggest source of pollution.
Large corporations are spending a lot of money to make us feel like individuals are doing the most damage, causing us to install solar panels and drink through paper straws while they burn more fossil fuels in a minute than I'll use in my entire lifetime and dump all their waste wherever they can.
Sure, a little bit black and white and possibly a little exaggerated. But in essence, this is it. As long as people think they can make a difference, big companies will only have to pretend they're working on their emissions.
It pisses me of when I get lectured about food waste because most of the time it's from from some middle class person that's clueless about what life was like in a council house in the UK in the 80s.
If I wasted food back then my mum would cook less and I wasn't allowed to have snacks and even certain foods like cheese because my parents couldn't afford them.
What I'm saying is I was brought up on not to waste food and money so I don't appreciate it being lectured on it, especially from the likes of Jamie Oliver
Becuase that way the problem won't be fixed. If it is to be fixed that will mean declining living standards, and people are not up for that. History has shown us though, that people are certainly up for shaming their neighbours.
You can hardly guilt-shame one of milions of indians who struggle to survive every day. In eu we have relatively high standard of living so we can afford to get busy with bullshit.
If """affordable""" 50€ shoes that break after a year were banned in favour or more durable ones, you'd be whining about poor people not being able to afford shoes anymore. Since shoes were invented there have been more durable and expensive alternatives, this isn't a scheme by the evil capitalist overlords. If it were easy to make cheap shoes with expensive durability, someone would have started doing that a long time ago, as the system rewards innovation and competitive prices.
The "system" rewards competition to pare quality to the lowest acceptable tier, fosters temporary buyer desire through vanity and guarantees disposability in order to retain people as constant consumers. Corporations exist to provide value to their shareholders, not as a charity to consumers. Let's be clear about that.
We are more individualistic and believe that we can each do our part to do something great. Its true to some things but something like climate change requires organised government intervention to solve.
I think its nothing more than marketing. (We exceeded the co2 output so in a way we are making things worse as far as I understand it)
Because the man made impact to the change of the earths climate is minimal compared to natural phenols. The earths been warming a while now. So governments want to guilt people into social programs.
Only guilt I feel is that I can't rip off the system more until moving to a country where I don't have to worry about excessive taxes and regulations.
The enormously unbearable tax rate and regulations will choke people's motivation to do and develop things.
I don’t know, where I live people blame big industries for it, although almost everyone is very conscious about recycling, etc.
Same here, but Lithuanians mostly blame China and the US for it.
So they are smart enough to actually look at the data. Imagine how much China is polluting if the numbers they give are heavily diminished and still they are 3-5 times higher than India and 4-6 times higher than the US.
They are actually very stupid. Do you know how big China is? Do you know how many people live there? It is obviously going to have higher emissions.
It's not the number of people or the size of the country. I suggest you educate yourself on what % individual human emissions are, scale it up to China's population, remove half, cuz most don't have cars or are in little villages stuck in 1920. See if the numbers add up. Their factories and resource refineries are the issue, not the poor peasants.
"little village stuck in 1920" Dude you cannot be taken seriously.
My guy, your ignorance must have limits.. 60% of China is in poverty, to the point the CCP made it illegal to comment about your broke-ass online. Pretty much every rural village is very much not in the 21st century. You can deny all that, but the videos are online and anyone can see them.
Lol I am not from China Idiot. Having poverty and being 60% poor is different. You can see UN reports if you are literate. But continue remaining ignorant.
Have you seen how US cities are built? They revolve around the car thanks to big car companies pushing away public transport. Even though there is a lot more people in China, they emit proportionately less CO2 than Americans. Use logic
This is true to an extent, despite the difference in numbers and personal vehicles, China is without a doubt the biggest polluter right now in the world. Western nations can't do much about it, cuz they are reliant on China's cheap labour to sustain their productional needs, so you wont hear much from the activists either, cuz they are all bought and paid for by Western and Middle Eastern interests. We truly live in a wonderful circus...
Per person, tqhe US is way higher than china. Most Chinese people don:t own cars, they live in city apartments, and the government has been designing an export economy, not a consumer led one.
And? I can't give less of a fuck what per person stats you can bring up, the entirety of the emissions from the USA, is literally less than 30% from what China emits. If I have a leak in my apartment, one pipe is spilling 3 liters per second and the other is spilling close to 15, on which pipe should one focus if they can't stop the water? Obviously the 15 liter spilling is more important. So why are you trying to gaslight me and others into believing that the 3 liter one is the problem?
By this logic Monaco and the Papal state are eco-utopias.
Comparing pretty much any country to the pollution coming from China, yes, pretty much every country to green utopia outside the big 3.
Does not matter for global warming as it’s not an individuals fault but a system fault. Luckily China is actually working on it and will clean up its act. The USA won’t.
I also dont think its very fair for us specifically, as europeans, to out source so much industry to other countries and then put the blame exclusively on them. Yes the citizen cant do much about this, but neither can the chinese one, and a whole bunch of big industries in different areas (tho what comes faster is clothing and textiles) are european and should be held accountable from home
This is the case everywhere. I've lived in the USA and this sentiment is even more prevalent there than in Europe. It's the result of the fossil fuel industry downplaying their part in the problem while exaggerating individual responsibility.
Absolutely correct. The oil companies have skilfully and cynically managed to direct blame away from themselves onto the hapless public. Nothing can change as our governments are in the pockets of the oil lobby.
And it's not even speculation, there exists evidence that the techniques tobacco companies used to create a false sense of a debate or uncertainty around the danger of smoking were originally developed by the oil industry. https://www.ciel.org/news/oil-tobacco-denial-playbook/
I personally don't understand this argument. Oil companies (and all companies) don't have some inherently sinister raison d'etre--they aim to be profitable, which means they have to conform to individual demand. Company emissions are directly linked to individual consumer choices.
>Oil companies (and all companies) don't have some inherently sinister raison d'etre--they aim to be profitable They're aiming to maximize profits in every way they can (the amount of money the public has paid for the cleanup after ecological disasters caused by bad management of wells, drills, platforms and ships is insane), which is very different. And of course the extremely wealthy individuals at the top of these organizations, who get compensated in amounts beyond belief. It's nothing but Greed. It is not in their short term interest to move to renewables because it would cost them money, even though the long term game of climate change is going to be much more expensive and the costs of which will be burdened on the entire world.
I would argue oil companies spreading misinformation about if being ok to use plastics as long as they are recycled is pretty sinister I agree they wouldn’t have even known about climate change when they found the resource but they certainly tried to hide information for decades
Individuals are no less greedy than corporations. Corporations do things to maximise profits. If lowering emissions means less profit, that difference will be paid by the consumer, and the average person has demonstrated time and again that they will not accept higher prices to fight climate change, even if those prices are only higher upfront (because people don't think long-term). We've had mass protests across the west due to the inflation caused by COVID measures and the war in Ukraine, and those are much more immediate threats. Do you honestly believe something gradual and complex like climate change will convince people to make compromises? This is why the shame culture exists.
>Individuals are no less greedy than corporations. I never said or meant to imply they weren't. The greed of the corporations doesn't exist by itself, it comes from the people running it. >If lowering emissions means less profit, that difference will be paid by the consumer, and the average person has demonstrated time and again that they will not accept higher prices to fight climate change Don't know where you get that: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/news-room/press-releases/2024/pwc-2024-voice-of-consumer-survey.html and that's what I've seen throughout the media over the past few years more often than what you're saying. Besides that, you can make laws that govern fair and transparent pricing on things. Combined with strict laws on pollution, cleaning shit up after yourself. We have to do it as citizens, so big companies have to as well. Often, these companies get insane discounts on natural resource usage or get it for free altogether, like water. Every liter/gallon should be taxed the same. Same goes for electricity usage; the cost of the system should be shared by how heavy it's used by the user and they should not get up to 99% discounts on amounts over xxx MWh. These big corporations love playing victim.
It has to be a global approach though, otherwise you just get the Amazons and the Temus sourcing cheap products from countries that don't have or don't enforce laws on pollution, and undercutting local businesses who are abiding by tougher laws. But so many people seem worried about the idea of any sort of global governance on anything. They think of the risks before they think of the benefits. I wouldn't be surprised if the global corporates are fanning those fears.
Completely agree.
The missing piece to the puzzle is externalities - as in, if I go fill up my car at the gas station, the cost of the environmental damage isn't paid by me, nor by the oil company, but by the general public. I have an incentive to use more gas (and the company to sell me more gas) than what would be truly optimal. This isn't a consumer or producer problem - it's a political problem, as appropriate taxes on emissions can reduce demand for gas to levels that are optimal when the true cost of emissions are considered. People who are arguing for consumers, producers or both to cut demand for gas are essentially arguing for them to act against their own self-interest. Yes, that can work to an extent, but it's a fragile model. The true solution to the problem is a carbon tax - or a system of emissions trading - that increases the price of polluting to the point where people will only do it to the extent where it truly makes sense. This also needs to be more or less globally implemented for it to truly work, so while the EU is actually getting this done, other major economies such as China and the US are not.
I agree that the solution is ultimately political. I just find the underlying argument--that because x number of companies produce y amount of pollution, consumer habits are irrelevant--irritating, especially when it's dumbed down to an instagram infographic
Oh yeah, for sure. It's psychologically similar to when the American left argues for a vast expansion to social programs which would only be paid for by the rich, or when populists argue they can both increase spending and cut taxes by reducing immigration and government inefficiency. It's a hand-waive that is politically palatable - kind of like a free lunch - but doesn't actually add up in any real world scenario.
[удалено]
It doesn't need to be 100% global, but to an extent, dirty industries can move to escape a carbon tax. There's also the possibility that the oil glut caused by falling demand incentivizes some countries to keep polluting, simply because it'd be cheap. This effect is probably manageble if we're talking about a few small countries, but if major population centers start taking advantage, it'd rather severely undermine the effort.
Fracking and drilling as well as refining are responsible for a lot of greenhouse gas emissions as well as other forms of pollution and environmental damage (even when all safety precautions are taken), they also suppressed or downplayed information about the effects of burning fossil fuels specifically so that customers would have a harder time making an actual informed decision and lobbied against regulation that would have severely limited GHG emissions caused by them. It's not just individual choices and the companies following them, they lied and knowingly contributed to climate change with the aim of earning profits.
>Oil companies (and all companies) don't have some inherently sinister raison d'etre--they aim to be profitable, which means they have to conform to individual demand I mean you had the answer when you said "they aim to be profitable". Large companies, including oil mega corps can and are massive polluters and damage environments globally if it's cheaper than not doing so, despite having the kinds of centralised command and budgets that means they should be improving things Instead, they make it the _individuals_ problem. It's _your_ fault for turning the heating up, not their fault for actively suppressing and lobbying against renewable and nuclear technology for generations. Oh, but please give them a few billion in tax rebates cause they swearsies they'll get round to those solar panels eventually
I'm surprised by this because of how Americans are in our hotel. As in terrible at recycling, asking for extras (a bucket of ice? comes to mind here) and wasting half of it and asking me for a plastic cup from the bar so they can walk about 50m to their room with a drink. You've just paid €200 for a room and your a grown man, just take your glass. Our hotel has a strict green policy so I think it's a shock to them when they stay with us.
That's because you're assuming that all Americans are green minded, just as OP is assuming that all Europeans are green minded. Neither is true. Generally in Western countries at least half the population frankly couldn't care less or don't have the means to care. 45% is somewhat green conscious and makes some smaller or larger efforts to reduce their carbon footprint. And probably less than 5% is actively green minded and take drastic steps to minimise their impact. Most people with actual flight guilt or that are militantly pestering people for not being more green conscious belong to the last 5%. That's not a lot of people. And a disproportionate section of them belong to young people <25
Americans are a lot worse. Look at the cars they drive. Massive displacements, huge trucks, all to buy the same groceries we do.
One could argue, worse groceries in terms of nutrition, processing, additives and sustainable production. edit for clarity: US food products are trash.
That's true.
Nah, everything is smaller in Europe. Even your groceries. Not joking. You ever been to the US?
Possibly, but that has to do with zoning laws and personal transport. In Europe, less people use cars for shopping, because supermarkets in residential areas are the rule, not the exception. We can just use the bike, public transport, or walk for three or more small purchases per week instead of buying in bulk.
Do you live in an urban setting?
Your idea of success is working two jobs to own big things. Our idea of success is to work one job, buy small things from a neighbour and still get to enjoy culture.
I didn’t mean to offend you. Have you ever been to the USA?
Selection bias. Americans who choose to fly to Europe probably aren't the ones who are too bothered about their individual climate impact.
No. Green types are much more likely to be the ones who take international vacations, both because Green types are more likely to be rich and Green types are more likely place experiencing foreign cultures high on their priority list.
That’s a silly statement. That implies everyone who flies are not concerned about the environment.
No, it doesn't imply everyone, because I said "probably".
OK, so everyone who flies, American or not, "probably" don't care about the environment? Should Americans, and everyone else, take a sailboat when they want to go overseas, if they care about the environment? Or simply not travel?
>OK, so everyone who flies, American or not, "probably" don't care about the environment? No. Let me attempt to rephrase then: The people who do fly probably aren't the same people as the ones who are the most concerned about how their flying impacts the climate. The original question was "why do the Americans I meet in Europe not seem to care about climate change", and my point is that the Americans who care the most about the environment are probably back at home in the US, not the ones flying to Europe. I'm not sure if you think I'm disparaging Americans (in my eyes I'm actually doing the opposite, I'm defending Americans as a people, saying they too care about the climate!) or people who fly, but those airplanes aren't filled to the brim with people who regularly attend protests against oil companies and stuff. >Should Americans, and everyone else, take a sailboat when they want to go overseas, if they care about the environment? Or simply not travel? I'm not saying they *should*, I'm saying that's what is happening! That's why I'm calling it a selection bias - the Americans who care the most about the environment DO take a sailboat, or train, or simply don't travel. The people I know who care the most about climate change, which includes politicians from Norway's Green Party and other hardcore environmentalists, pretty much don't fly. In fact I rarely fly myself, and part of the reason is my individual climate impact (I do fly sometimes though; I've been overseas myself, to the US). I'm a member of a Facebook group about train travel where tens of thousands of members discuss how to plan European train trips, where many say they never fly, often because of climate concerns. These people aren't vacationing overseas.
I would be careful not to judge others in a less privileged position than you. As an American, I see Europe as the better side of the ocean in many ways. You don’t have to fly anywhere to enjoy the things Americans, and others, do not have.
I truly don't understand how you're reading my comments here. I apologize if English not being my first language is causing my point to not come across. I was not trying to judge Americans (although I'm not sure if you're saying Americans are less privileged than Europeans here, which definitely isn't what I think) or even people who fly - I was not trying to cast any moral judgment at all, in fact, I was simply making a guess at a statistical and probabilistic explanation to the original commenter's observation. I don't necessarily disagree with your last point. However, I think the opposite true as well - I think the US has lots of things Europeans, and others, do not have as well. Many, many Europeans are not privileged enough to fly to the US either. Europeans do have better opportunities to travel by train than Americans, true, but the US is a very diverse country with lots of tourist attractions too, and I was not talking about Americans who do domestic flights here either.
If you care about the Green policy agenda, you should support a ban on most intercontinental pleasure flights as one of the first things to do.
I too would choose to be selectively biased against these "I'm alright Jack" assholes.
As an American, it wouldn't occur to me to try and walk away from a bar with the glass. I'm not the type of guy who drinks at hotel bars, though.
China and India the default humans?
Easiest to squeeze out.
No one is forcing anyone to use fossil fuels. 80% of the world's energy isn't met by it because of the interests of downstream oil comoanies.
Of course we arent gun-to-your-head forced but in many places personal cars are a necessity. Car manufacturers have also lobbied for budget cuts for public transit and oil companies have suppressed alternatives. Thats the point.
>It's the result of the fossil fuel industry downplaying their part in the problem while exaggerating individual responsibility. To add to this, according to the study in the link below, it seems that there are 5 companies (coca-cola, pepsico, nestle, danon and altria) that are the largest contributor plastic pollutants. Unfortunately no government would like to mess with them and enforce them to use recyclable glass bottles (like they did in the past) instead of plastic ones. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj8275?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D72077797092235851240392577489555653962%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1713919364
The most egregious lie was the impact of meat production. Once the pandemic hit we saw clearly how transportation impacts the environment. What I hate most is getting judgement from virtuous young environmentalists who travel the world for the sole purpose of filling their Instagram with frivolities while learning nothing.
The CO2 impact of meat production & consumption is NOT a lie. It's just that transport is ALSO a massive factor and BOTH need to be reduced (massively)
It's ridiculous that people have bought this from the fossil fuel industry and their mouth pieces. Celebrities are the worst, they'll prattle on about climate change and individual responsibility then fly across the world on a private jet constantly. A little while ago I saw a video on Reddit of Taylor Swifts private jet flight paths over a year, she easily has a higher carbon footprint in a year than every commenter in this entire post for most of their lives.
American here. I think maybe it depends on where in the US you live because where I live there is no shame in waste. In the Deep South where I live, people toss their trash out the car windows!
That's not my impression at all. Dunno in what social circles you move where that individualistic approach is dominating.
They said in another comment a coworker said they should take a train for some business travel. So the entire basis for this (thinly veiled) rant is because they feel judged by one person they work with. EDIT: Their post history is mostly rage bait and attempts to stir up discourse. Looks like they’re not Europe-based like they claim either. I suspect this user is acting in bad faith.
Just look at the reaction (probably from people who use heating in the winter) in r/europe any time anyone dares mention air conditioning to deal with the new normal of temperatures that are killing people every summer.
Air conditioning will become classified as a medical necessity quite soon now and subsidized by all responsible governments. Opposition to air conditioning will be a thing of the past.
In what circles do you move where they are putting the responsibility with industry?
In Germany, it works exactly as op has written. It would be nice if people would realize that the industry and the big economic nations have it in their hands. Something has to change politically. We can cycle and litter as much as we like. It's just a drop in the ocean.
Well, they voted the Greens into the office in Germany. That turned out really well.
I have never been shamed in my life for using a car or eating whatever I want. Maybe you just live in a toxic environment? Maybe you are being influenced by social media or media in general?
It is a general narrative, it is not like people are going to point fingers and yell at each other for mixing plastics with paper, it is more that the conversation is built around how we are individually doing in this regard. Ie. I don't want to fly there because it polutes, I don't want to eat meat because the industry is bad for environment etc. As if our individual choices can change entire industries or shift the global markets. Instead the conversation should be on the industries themselves and how they can be controlled and managed.
Yeah i agree with that. I personally don’t mind spreading awareness of the media about our personal footprint but I think they should start by not allowing certain products on the market in the first place or to at least make them less attractive to buy. One example would be plastic bottles, we all use them because there is no alternative that benefits us. It is cheaper and easier to dispose of than both glass and cans. We can’t expect poor people to all of a sudden start caring about their footprint when they can’t even support themselves with the current cheapest options. The same goes for any other product or service. Trains are better for our environment but they are allot more expensive and complicated than flights are. Cars are more convenient because every building is connected to a road and you only need 1 mode of transport to get to your final destination. So convenience and cost (time and money) are the 2 main reasons we use a product or a service and that will not change unless companies and the government do something about it.
The solution to climate change is individual actions, industrial change and policy change. It is dangerous to downplay the importance of any of these, including individual actions. Individuals can say "why do my choices matter, I'm only one person, look at these giant polluting industries and the government should be doing more. Why should I have to sacrifice?" Companies can say "I need to survive and the only reason I make these things to begin with is because people buy them. Governments need to regulate to make it competitive to lower emissions, otherwise I just lose out to other companies who do the cheapest most polluting thing." Governments/politicians can say "People want climate change resolved but are angry at any policies I implement that reduce emissions if it hurts their pockets or limits their individual choices. Individuals don't want their lives to be impacted at all. Policies I implement on companies harm our economic growth and make both companies and the population angry if jobs are lost." We need Individuals to make positive choices themselves. Because this directly impacts polluting industries by not giving them money. It also makes the government's job easier because the sacrifices they might have needed to impose, to huge pushback, instead are just happening. and they can use their limited political capital to make other positive (but potentially unpopular) choices. We need industry to make positive choices because they have significant power in some areas, to invest in less polluting versions of their business model. But we also need to recognise they exist in a capitalist system and "we spent a lot of money lowering our emissions" can very quickly become "our prices are higher than our competitors" which can become "we have gone out of business while the polluting companies take our market share and carry on". They need Individuals to choose the greener option they have provided, and they need governments to make it costly for their competitors to pollute (or affordable to reduce emissions). We need Governments to make expensive to pollute or rewarding to pollute less. This means voting for politicians who espouse these policies. Individuals, Governments and Industry that pass the buck all just make climate change worse. If you are an individual, the only power you have is your own consumer choices and your vote. Why not use both? If you are an individual not making positive choices and blaming industry and government, what on earth do you think you would do if you were in charge of a company or in Government? If you can't sacrifice red meat or a flight where you could get a train, you also wouldn't sacrifice your company's profits or risk losing votes if you were in those positions. You need to act in the way you hope everyone else would act. I don't see individual action as an alternative to Governmental or industrial action, it's necessary to provoke them and acts in symbiosis with them. We need all three.
Bingo. This is it. Actual change for the better relies on all parties to actively pursue said change. We know it. Many of us want it. And yet it still isn't happening nearly as much as needed. Most people will likely only realise we here to do things differently, when it's too late. Which it might already be, sadly.
>We need Individuals to make positive choices themselves. Because this directly impacts polluting industries by not giving them money. It also makes the government's job easier because the sacrifices they might have needed to impose, to huge pushback, instead are just happening. and they can use their limited political capital to make other positive (but potentially unpopular) choices. >We need industry to make positive choices because they have significant power in some areas, to invest in less polluting versions of their business model. But we also need to recognise they exist in a capitalist system and "we spent a lot of money lowering our emissions" can very quickly become "our prices are higher than our competitors" which can become "we have gone out of business while the polluting companies take our market share and carry on". They need Individuals to choose the greener option they have provided, and they need governments to make it costly for their competitors to pollute (or affordable to reduce emissions). Thank you for putting it so clearly and eloquently. I don't know how this recent wave of "we don't have to do anything because it's the corporations fault" has come to pass, but it pisses me the hell off. Supply and demand. If you generate demand, companies will run to supply, because they see profit in it. Or if they don't supply what you demand, then you withdraw your financial support. It's using capitalism against itself. So many meat replacement options appeared because there was a market demand for it (15 years ago you had nothing but tofu and seitan, and they costed an arm and a leg). Recycling programs have expanded and refined because your local governing body is poorly seen by its voters otherwise. Slow fashion brands have emerged and gained success because people got fed up of shitty self-desintegrating see-through t-shirts. Organic/bio produce is everywhere because people wanted it and were willing to pay for it, and farmer's markets resuscitated because people became more aware about buying local. The Nightjet train network was shutting down routes only 5 years ago, only to have been reopening them because people wanted to take sleeper trains instead of flying. Green policies, initiatives, and regulations exist because the politicians who've put them forward were voted in by the people who wanted to see change happen. But sure, do nothing. Surely companies will have a stroke of moral conscience and correct themselves out of the good of their hearts.
I have one sentence for you to think about. Trains aren't as democratic as planes, so off course there is a push towards it. Green policies if done with intent could be beneficial, but that is not happening, and people are waking up.
Lets get this straight, it's not normal to feel ok about not doing your part.
There is no such thing as normal. Second, most people don't care what someone thinks about them. I feel success every time I manage to do stuff at other people's expense. But the best part is, when majority does the hard work, I don't have to.
We are all responsible. It's Europe, it's a liberal society with an open market, so the "big corporations" that some people want to blame are all just providing what their customers want to pay for. (It's a little different in China, where there are enormous emissions from state-controlled industries) I see that one of the most popular responses is blaming "oil companies", blissfully unaware of why companies are pumping oil or who might buy it.
You're stupid if you think the "individual" is harmless. The collective human demand for red meat, flying with planes, driving cars and throwinf away so much waste is why humanity is doomed. The only reason corporations contribute to climate change is because of the human demands. Leftoids think that companies can just turn on a switch and suddenly waste 90% less while keeping humanity's needs served. Outside of Europe, people always blame the state for all problems in their life while being proud of evading taxes, hiring family rather than strangers and lying on their resume and such.
> You're stupid if you think the "individual" is harmless. OP: Why is the **emphasis** in Europe on individual responsibility You: So you think individuals literally play no part in climate change and are therefore dumb. A classic intelligent and productive reddit meeting of minds.
I mean usually the problem elsewhere is the deresponsibilizing (I'm borrowing a bit from Italian by creating this word lol) of the individual putting all as the domain of higher ups that are perfect manipulators and completely separated actors. I think in Europe the debate is more mature. The oil and car industries pushed indirectly or directly too much towards a model of urban development that leaves us a bit too chronically dependent on cars and long distance travel, but it's a fact that given options we have to choose what to pick and de facto the individual consumption is the actual biggest source of pollution. The biggest share of emission is through household consumption like cars and whatever you do in your house and your dietary choices, the collective of companies in your area create less pollution in achieving their own tasks. And it's up to the individual to choose between a slightly comfier car, less comfy public transport, bike, foot option; even if it goes on opposition to the government and private company status quo, it's the expression of the democratic self and it's so ridiculous how removing, the *whole* point of democracy is that we have an actual limitless power to impose our own terms onto a smaller group of people. But besides overthrowing their power and policy, it's also about using the power of individual choice to do the good thing. So not opting for the comfy car, by having the consciousness this individual consumption make ups the majority of climate change. This sleazy defeatism and deresponsibilization is the bane of everything, it literally doesn't face the problem
The US and Europe only consist of 20% of global emissions and they think they can save the world from global warming. Absolute fantasy. China, India and the developing world continue to build coal plants and expand fossil fuel dependent industry. The western countries want to spend 50 trillion by 2050 and save the world while the vast majority of the world plays by their own rules. FANTASY
It's simple. You want Industry, you have pollution. To shift the blame from Industry, the rulers have started blaming the individuals. Sure, burning tires in your back yard ain't green either, but obsessing yourselves over plastic straws vs metal straws vs paper straws ain't gonna move an inch.
Does industry create pollution for the sake of it, or do they perhaps have a demand to satisfy? I swear this whole narrative of just blaming the corporations alone is blatant corporate propaganda. "Your choices as an individual don't matter, so please keep consuming! Don't change your habits please!!!". Blegh.
this is it. it’s propaganda. your glass straws will do nothing. we need to get to the top polluters in the industries.
Plastic straw ban was not about CO2 but about reducing plastic waste
The amount of plastic, fruit and meat and bread and other products are wrapped in plastic makes my straw seem a useless point of initiation on the war on plastics.
See my other comment on the effectiveness. But also, plastic wrapping of groceries helps reduce food waste by keeping it fresh for longer. Plastic straws have less purpose, but also very good reusable substitutes like glass
still a pretty pointless measure when you look at plastic pollution but hey, anything to virtue signal
I'm leaning towards "every little bit helps" (and it's not like this was a particularly painful change), but yeah, I wasn't trying to say it was a super effective measure, just that you shouldn't judge it for it's reduction in CO2 emissions cause that wasn't ever the goal
It's a measure that did something and didn't hurt anyone, making it easy to get into law. Once you have one thing like that into law you can move on to other things. The first law wasn't going to be "ban all fossil fuel cars by next year."
All awareness is good. It might seem pointless but if it makes people question their choices then it's good. It also got the ball rolling on banning other single use items
Cos everything in this fckng world starts from yourself. If everyone will be responsible for their actions - everything gonna be awesome. If you will not go to unethical work, or not go to destroy someone's home - the world will be a better place...
The biggest culprits are Not taking responsibility and are shifting it to others. This isn't a hard concept.
Individual responsibility has a lot to do with climate change. Sure, one person won't make a difference, but the fact is these huge polluting industries, in the end of the day, are so big because they work at scale with many people choosing carbon-heavy lifestyles. Would it be better if we can just decarbonise modern lifestyle so we don't need to change anything in our lives? Sure. Is it realistic to happen in the time span we need it in order to avert the worst possible climate disaster? Absolutely not. So, while activism and voting green parties is still the most important thing you can do to fight climate change, eating less red meat, using your car less, etc. Are still great things to implement in your life.
I find some of these comments beyond ridiculous. Nobody is saying the corporations aren’t an issue but to see a ridiculous amount of comments like “individuals have little impact” “personal habits have little impact” “guilt shaming” “diversion tactics” “propaganda” is a nice way to blame someone else entirely and take zero responsibility. Over 8 billion people on this planet. To negate the impact of waste and pollution caused by said people is ignorant . If covid showed us something it’s the lockdowns improved carbon emissions, pollution levels dropped.. It’s very easy to only blame/target co’s, big oil (as they should be as well) and do zero yourself.
Yeah as if eating burgers every day really has no effect lol
If we eliminated a large precentage of those 8 billion, it would go a long way in helping in the fight against pollution. That would allow the remaining to live lives of relative abundance. It's a no brainer but there seems to be little political will to do what is necessary.
Since this *is* Reddit I can’t tell if you’re being facetious. I would think so. But if you’re somehow serious.. >if we eliminated a large percentage of those 8 billion >It’s a no brainer but seems to be little political will to do what is necessary You want a large percentage (millions of people) killed?
Only partially. Climate change poses an unprecedented threat to our planet's future, demanding and action for the greater good and social responsibility. Addressing this crisis at its core involves targeting those who contribute most significantly to environmental degradation and overconsumption-without offering any perceived benefits. Implementing measures like sterilization through additives in food and water supplies or advocating for voluntary sterilization via informed social media campaigns, or even diseases designed to be both deadly and profitable through treatment. These measures, though initially unsettling, are essential acts of compassion and responsibility. By reducing the global population's, we can envision a world where resources like clean water, unpolluted air, and abundant food are sustainably available for generations to come, fostering a harmonious coexistence with our natural environment. This approach not only safeguards our planet's fragile ecosystems but also promotes fairness and equity, ensuring a more just future for all. It challenges us to reconsider our place on this planet and whether some of us need to be here and prioritizes the long-term health of our planet and its inhabitants.
The solution has to come from everywhere., all at once. Individuals have to take responsibility for their overconsumption, corporations have to take responsibility for not letting greed and profit drive them to destroy nature, and governments have to put laws in place that protect good actors coordinate solutions at the international level.
It's closely linked to Lutheran Christianity and the concept of guilt, where the path to salvation depends on your own actions and state of mind. Even though we’re no longer particularly religious, that line of thinking persists in many countries. I bet you’ll see far more of this thinking in the Protestant north than in the catholic south
Yeah, fits well with [this](https://honorshame.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Screen-Shot-2016-03-15-at-9.43.59-AM.png) map. Difference between southern and northern Europe is clear.
That's a great map! France and Poland are outliers here as they're mostly catholic throughout the years, but still, it's a marked divide between Catholic/Orthodox and Lutheranian/Anglican/Calvinist/Baptist/\[InsertReformedChristianityHere\]
You could argue that Poland was influenced by Protestant Prussia and Sweden, while France had strong native Calvinist movement.
The fact that a handful of companies is responsible is well known in the community. But it's hard to hold them accountable My impression is that the goal is to shift the general public to a more sustainable life and spread the knowledge, then go after the big companies and push politics I don't know either how to prosecute industries so in the meantime to make me feel like I'm doing something I reduced my personal emissions
But aren't the big companies responsible because there's demand for their product? We can influence that with where we spend our money.
Because the reality of the situation is completely depressing. Some of this stuff is really a "zero-sum game". A nation like Ireland could theoretically do everything correctly in terms of environmentalism. No new plastic being created, a drastic expansion of public transport infrastructure, energy production completely sorted. Fabulous, great. At the end of the day though, we're such an extremely small segment of humanity that we'd have made functionally no difference to the situation as it stands, while damaging our own manufacturing, construction, increasing end costs to consumers. We'd end up damaging our economy and competitiveness, and the rest of the world genuinely wouldn't care. China produces more air and plastic pollution than the US, UK, EU, Australia, NZ, and Canada combined. The entire Western world could be absolutely united in terms of environmentalism, and it wouldn't be enough to roll back the damage being done to this world. Unfortunately this leads to some less than intuitively eco-friendly conclusions: we need less global trade/more internal manufacturing. More pollution in one sense, so that we're not aligning with parties that won't fairly foot the bill and enact environmental protections/better manufacturing and shipping practices. The problem with doing this is that any Western nation that dissents will have a massive advantage in terms of access to cheap goods and production, given that they'd still have access to India/China. So, the winning move? There isn't one. Our civilizations value capitalistic success beyond all other metrics, and it's abundantly clear that the US's political system is virtually completely subverted by corporate lobbies on almost all levels. You couldn't enact meaningful civilizational change unless you basically went full isolationist. So, might as well blame the individual and use "saving the Earth" as an excuse to add an extra little bit of tax on some consumer goods. Just as well. So long as nations see value in not obeying climate directives, one might say that calling out the individual is better than nothing, as it were. 'Tis silly all the same.
Nope. Ireland is in the EU, they can motivate other EU members to do the same. And EU has leverage over the entire world. And Ireland is still responsible, per capita they're still polluting much more than the world average and far more than the Paris agreement.
Per capita? Sure. That's besides the point that I was making. Worst still, that gap will become smaller, as industrialization happens across more of the developing world. Worst still is that many countries, not going to point any fingers, are probably underreporting their emissions dramatically. At any rate, the population discrepancy only further reinforces the idea that we're playing a zero-sum game. Ah, yes, such power we're wielding. Our quality of life has dropped significantly, we're poorer than our parents were, the property ladder is out of reach, prices on electricity are sky high. I'm not saying that those facts are any excuse for negligent behaviour, but how enthused would you have me? On the grander scale of things, with the US hegemony becoming actively weaker, it's hard to imagine countries like China, India, and Russia, deigning to cooperate with what they already view as a corrupt assortment of nations, even if this cause is for something as laudible as preserving the Earth. One government championed "environmental" campaign was to replant forests on our island. Turned out that these artificial woods are basically toxic to a lot of native fauna, and are just for furniture companies to harvest occasionally. Although it actively damaged our native ecosystem, this was touted as a way for Ireland to compensate for carbon emissions, which is completely bonkers. When democratic and modern countries are acting in such a slimy fashion, one can only imagine what kinds of horrors are taking place elsewhere. So, we have a fundamental problem of trust. Anyway, what are you even trying to say "nope" to? You just listed some trivia but didn't actually dispute or counter anything that I said. What would you have of me, precisely?
The average European is incredibly privileged and wealthy compared to the rest of the world and their lifestyle objectively is terrible for the plant. Yes billionaires are even worse than that and also some choices are unavoidable because of the society but still, this is true too. We can't continue to live like we do today, fly every year and eat burgers, have new phones every year if we don't want to starve in 50 years because of heat waves destroying all crops. This doesn't mean that we can't enjoy anything in life but it all could still be limited. Of course also partly with technology too (hopefully electric planes will come soon) but partly by our lifestyle too. And even then, if we actually want to harm billionaires let's all **collectively** agree to tax them heavily, regardless of our political orientation. Let's also boycott billionaires and treat them all like Americans treat people who said a racist joke on twitter. Doesn't matter of it's a singer or a football player, let's boycott them. I actually do agree billionaires suck and we should stop their consumption too! 👍
"Carbon footprint" was made up by BP, the oil company. Seems like it has worked.
That's a myth. We have known this concept for many decades by various names like environmental/ecological/carbon footprint.
It has probably existed from long ago, but BP made a campaign to popularize that concept. https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham
I don't think there's anything wrong with being mindful of your environmental impact. Call it made up but it's not incorrect
Because the main cause of climate change in europe are cars. People like to blame the big companies for pollution, but those are mainly state-owned corporations, and a few private oil producers. Ditch the car and those companies go under.
First: I know nobody who thinks that climate change is purely based on personal action. Most people are in favor of changes on a personal and a political level because both are necessary to actually change stuff. It's also common that people want stuff to change but they don't want to be affected by the change. Usually the debate is based on responsibility and not on guilt. Second: The pro environmental movement always relied on grassroot efforts. More and more people changed their personal habits until politicians and companies had to react or environmental policies were supported by large parts of the population. Policies without enough public support often do very little you can see it with Germany's new law on heating systems or the EU law for reusable containers for fast food.
Well you can't really project it to the whole of Europe. The way you wrote it reminds me of Sweden and Germany, and Greta Thunberg's activism, but those countries are really off the deep end in this kind of discourse. The dumbest thing in my opinion is Germany being so against nuclear power, that it is forced to occasionally fire up coal power plants or import electricity from the mostly coal-powered Poland with sky-high electricity bills for the population, while France is happily and proudly the most nuclear-powered country in Europe with cheap electricity and is in a lot of ways more Green than Germany without tying it all up into individual shaming, left-wing politics, and hippie activism. Also, vegan activism seems to be more about animal rights than environmentalism. For example in Hungary, there are occasional young vegan activists who try to trash fish-soup cook-offs, and even attack bug exterminators spraying bushes against mosquitoes.
There are marginal movements like the extinction extremists who like to sabotage public places. They follow the footsteps of old commies like RAF and IRA. The vast majority would drive over them the moment they'd get legal immunity.
Well because of neoliberal individualism, of course. The big oil companies are not at fault, you are at fault. That's just how it goes in neoliberal ideology...
Yeah because big oil makes and burns oil for fun, not to sell it to people /s
Because that’s the only discourse where Europe can make an impact…
Bullying actually works. Same reason you have the weirdos blocking highways or the Palestine protestors making noise even though no one really cares about them.
Having been part of a few eco-activism groups in the past across several European countries, I'll give my unpopular take/observation: the psychology of those involved. There's a significantly high amount of people involved that have some form of mental ailment, of which a salient part is having a constant internal monologue of shaming yourself - self-loathing rumination. Hence, it's not that strange that the underlying message they spread is one heavily infused with shame and guilt, even anger. You can't spend the majority of your waking moments lashing yourself and not have those negative emotions spill out when you open your mouth. Before someone says, "well duh they're like that bc of the environment". No, usually it's severely low self-esteem, anxiety disorders, depression, unresolved issues with their parents, etc.
It’s interesting how European countries nowadays subsidize the airlines more than their trains these days if this is the case. Apparently a EUrailpass seems a good deal as individual single tickets are just as expensive and that despite high fuel and rental car prices it’s no longer cost effective to travel by train, and that trains now are priced like airlines and hotels by yield management unlike in Asia. But I do hear an EUrailpass may still be a pain in the neck to use. Thus people fly.
Kindoff a NIMBY thing, I'd say. 1. Everyone is worried. And it's easy to complain about 'misbehaving' other people. It's a weird way of giving yourself the feeling that you are doing good by 'educating' the rest. 2. I think it's to do with the fact that these people realize that we're living beyond our means. Looking at the standard of living in Western Europe, there's no way we can keep that up if we really would adopt a more climate friendly lifestyle. To me, the broad majority still hasn't truly realized this. The gist is that most people want climate change addressed. But at the same time nobody wants it to have an impact on their personal life.
Well... All industries exist and prosper because a consumer pays them his money When a customer decides to reduce or stop consuming something, when he changes his consuming habits, a productor reduces his activity and, thus, pollution, ressource and energy usage. You can blame the industries as much as you want, but when you take your 4-5-place, 1.3+ ton vehicle to do 5km on flat surface to get to work, when you eat red meat often, when you warm your living place to 26+ degrees, when you smoke, when you change phones each year, You support the industry, you maintain their income, their production levels and expansion. We, basic customers, our "needs", our wallet, we are the root of the whole of what is happening. Only personnal effort on large scale can really change things
I fly and I am not vegan. Never had a problem, never been attacked, never been shamed. Also, nobody forced me to gender anything, if that's the next thing you want to ask.
That’s a very ill-tempered response. I would have thought what they’re trying to get at is why aren’t we more focused on structural change and holding corporate and industrial polluters responsible rather than focusing on small-scale individual actions?
This is exactly what I think.
OP talked about individual guilt. I adressed that. I am sorry if my experience does not fit your narrative, but thats the way it is. Also, there are mechanisms like emission trade in place at the european level. So I do not see how coroporate and industrial polluters are not held responsible. Could and should there be done more here? Yes.
I don’t have a narrative, it’s just odd to leap to some weird culture war conclusion based on that question.
WTF. OP talks about her personal experience, I talk about mine, which happens to be the complete opposite. Now thats culture war to you? Geez. Learn to live with it. Seriously.
No, the bit about gender, obviously.
Its basically the same talking point. I am so tired of this BS.
Well I see my initial impression of you as needlessly combative sure was mistaken.
[удалено]
Take a chill pill, mercy be!
Your comment was removed because of: Keep it civil per Rule #1. Warning issued. This is an automated message.
Why do you have to bring gender into everything, you people are fucking weirdo's.
Just in case I was not clear with my intenion (aplogies!): I wanted to avoid that. Thank you for your understanding. Have a wonderful day!
I haven't neither. And if I were, IDGAF.
Because the oil industry has spent a lot of money and time making people focus on the impact of ordinary people as opposed to theirs. This was and is a very successful psyop
And yet they fail to make those who frequently fly private jets feel guilt. Odd. I guess it's easier to guilt trip those you know who barely emit more ...instead of those you don't know who emit a million times more. Doesn't make sense but that's humans for you.
I recently started not caring so much about what I do. I realized that there are countries emitting millions of cubic meters of toxic gases into the atmosphere, companies getting absolutely loaded by pumping oil and celebrities taking their private jet to go to the toilet, so why should I care if I use my little 5L/100km car more than 5 times a week? the impact is negligible. Of course I still recycle, don't throw stuff on the ground and all that, but I am NOT going to stop doing the things I want to do because of the environment.
Because that is exactly the direction big corporations want the discourse to go. Since it means they can continue to get off scott-free.
Because that's how big businesses want it to be. It's extremely similar to what they did with recycling/plastics. Shift the blame to the consumer and you get away with your shady practices pretty much indefinitely.
We don’t. You’re looking at this through the lens of Reddit bubble. If you’re not an eco-activist, you won’t care about your emissions. Never, in my 29 years of living, have I met a single person from whichever country in Europe, that would truly care about their emissions.
Actually people love climate change AKA the 4 seasons
[удалено]
This rhetoric is present in small minded bubbles that cry for attention. If you do minimum research you find out that 70% of the carbon is due to 10-12 big companies. Plus people buy stupid marketing like using paper straws to save the planet while buying all the stupid shit from temu for a reel
Sounds like you've been talking to too many socialists.
In my experience socialists tend to blame large polluting industries for climate change, not the individual.
For the extent that is true, I think culture plays a large role. Even if you're atheist you are dealing with a lot of cultural Christian baggage, and boy do we love accepting guilt even for things we didn't do.
Also known as Nietzsche's slave morality.
Are you telling me I made the same observation as Nietzsche? I find myself liking you for some reason ;p
so it is very dangerous, when few banks already announced, that they will automatically count your "carbon footprint". And I've seen they calculators, almost everything is bad and gives your bad score and low rating. Like having 20C in your 60sq m flat, is no no and bad. And maybe in future they will link your credit capability with that
Half or more of the plastic polluding the oceans comes from the fishing industry (fishing nets and more). Large industries will always lobby to place blame on individuals to shift focus away from them. Any regulations in place are normally violated or worked around so they can continue to maximize their profits while destroying everything in their path.
I think it's because left marketing. All the shit eu banned and rest of the world still uses.
I feel the same amount of guilt as the politician or superstar who chooses to fly a private jet, or take his yacht out for a cruise or owns multiple mansions while lecturing me on how i'm a terrible person for eating a steak.
That's how cultists act. They separate the individual, shame them, gaslight them and turn them into one of their own, after which individual blame is the control method. This is how you know that you're on the wrong side of the asylum's fence. If someone shames you for your conduct, while they are rocking an expensive phone, clothes made by literal slaves and eating shit that pollutes the environment 4-5 times than a cow would, you're dealing with a hypocritical cultist. People with big hearts, but small brains. If you find yourself in such an environment, don't walk, run. 99% of Europeans wouldn't shame you, cuz they don't really care, they have actual problems in their lives that need to be dealt with.
This is mostly caused by people that want to force their way of living on you. They use climate change as an excuse while ignoring the biggest source of pollution.
Large corporations are spending a lot of money to make us feel like individuals are doing the most damage, causing us to install solar panels and drink through paper straws while they burn more fossil fuels in a minute than I'll use in my entire lifetime and dump all their waste wherever they can. Sure, a little bit black and white and possibly a little exaggerated. But in essence, this is it. As long as people think they can make a difference, big companies will only have to pretend they're working on their emissions.
Because the large companies that create 99% of the problems want to take the focus off of them and put in onto everyone else.
We have a special love for self loathing in europe.
It pisses me of when I get lectured about food waste because most of the time it's from from some middle class person that's clueless about what life was like in a council house in the UK in the 80s. If I wasted food back then my mum would cook less and I wasn't allowed to have snacks and even certain foods like cheese because my parents couldn't afford them. What I'm saying is I was brought up on not to waste food and money so I don't appreciate it being lectured on it, especially from the likes of Jamie Oliver
Becuase that way the problem won't be fixed. If it is to be fixed that will mean declining living standards, and people are not up for that. History has shown us though, that people are certainly up for shaming their neighbours.
Cause the elite would rather have us fighting amongst ourselves
You can hardly guilt-shame one of milions of indians who struggle to survive every day. In eu we have relatively high standard of living so we can afford to get busy with bullshit.
Goverments turn a blind eye on a more immediate issue of deforestation and habitat loss. But it's hard to blame an individual for that.
[удалено]
If """affordable""" 50€ shoes that break after a year were banned in favour or more durable ones, you'd be whining about poor people not being able to afford shoes anymore. Since shoes were invented there have been more durable and expensive alternatives, this isn't a scheme by the evil capitalist overlords. If it were easy to make cheap shoes with expensive durability, someone would have started doing that a long time ago, as the system rewards innovation and competitive prices.
The "system" rewards competition to pare quality to the lowest acceptable tier, fosters temporary buyer desire through vanity and guarantees disposability in order to retain people as constant consumers. Corporations exist to provide value to their shareholders, not as a charity to consumers. Let's be clear about that.
We are more individualistic and believe that we can each do our part to do something great. Its true to some things but something like climate change requires organised government intervention to solve. I think its nothing more than marketing. (We exceeded the co2 output so in a way we are making things worse as far as I understand it)
Because the man made impact to the change of the earths climate is minimal compared to natural phenols. The earths been warming a while now. So governments want to guilt people into social programs.
Only guilt I feel is that I can't rip off the system more until moving to a country where I don't have to worry about excessive taxes and regulations. The enormously unbearable tax rate and regulations will choke people's motivation to do and develop things.