I imagine this is being downvoted because it suggests consumers need to change their behavior. As the Reddit hive mind knows: corporations produce the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions. But at the end of nearly all those supply chains are consumers, without which the enterprise would not exist.
Individual action cannot solve a tragedy of the commons. Refraining from consuming the commons literally just leaves more for others to consume. Which they will.
A tragedy of the commons can only be resolved through collective action. Carbon tax is the obvious example.
GP technically didn't suggest otherwise, and in fact the same "selfishness" highlighted in that comment also drives people to vote against the sacrifice of collective action, so IMO they're correct. But if you forget about that (implied) step, and instead read "we should all individually just get rid of our ACs and stop flying, to solve climate change" (which GP didn't say), then that would be incorrect.
I largely agree and I attributed it to the same problem; Moloch is a larger class of problems that includes tragedy of the commons (see other comment for a much better link).
I agree also that legislation like carbon taxes are the only ways to really solve the problem, and mostly read GP's comment with the more generous interpretation.
But I don't think that we should see the lack of that as a license for unhinged consumerism. I think people should hold on to their phones and cars awhile. They should prefer more fuel efficient vehicles if they can afford them, etc.
Yeah my point about aircon (and to an extent, big vehicles) is that we have the ability, to a degree, to avoid or work around the problems that climate change is throwing at us. I personally take individual action on climate but I don't think it's possible to make other people change their lifestyle so I don't even try. Do what you want to do people. I live my way because of my own conscience, that's all.
This is an oversimplification. Collective action is driven by a mass of individual beliefs that are strong enough to suppress bad actors. If you are one of the bad actors, it's more difficult to force the other bad actors to stop because they can accuse you of hypocrisy.
See e.g. Al Gore taking flights to speaking engagements about climate change. From one perspective, this is an effective tool and probably even carbon-negative if it leads to effective change. On another level, why is a guy with so many frequent flier miles telling me to fly less? Why is a rich guy who can eat the cost of a carbon tax telling me my plane tickets will cost more? Etc.
I am reminded of the "no ethical consumption under capitalism" refrain, which is sometimes used by people who don't like capitalism to justify taking the absolute least ethical option available.
> why is a guy with so many frequent flier miles telling me to fly less?
Maybe this is nitpicking but just to satisfy my own record more than anything: that would be individual action and I agree Al gore shouldn’t be telling anyone to fly less.
> Why is a rich guy who can eat the cost of a carbon tax telling me my plane tickets will cost more?
Carbon taxes affect big consumers more than small ones, and I would absolutely support eg a Canadian “carbon price” model where the money is doled out to everyone at the end of the year. And if anyone is still worse off, tax oil companies more until poor people are least-bad-off :)
I think you're misunderstanding me: the proposal of a carbon tax is fine, but if you're the person who spearheads it then it's most effective to already be individual acting. That way, you can't be accused of hypocrisy.
You can't support the tax as effectively unless you prove by your actions that you believe in the cause. While individual action won't directly solve the problem, failing to take individual action might jeopardise your ability to support collective action.
No. If you purely advocate for collective action and explicitly against individual action, people won’t hold you up as a personal martyr with higher moral standards. This happens when the conversation turns to blaming the individual. Stay on message, focus on collective action, and people will listen.
Individual blame and responsibility has become inexorably linked with the anti climate change movement unfortunately. It is a Trojan horse for those willing to derail the movement. But if you stay on message, and lead with “no individual action, only collective action”, any counter of “but You!” only serves to reinforce the message: “Yes, Me, because Us or Nobody.”
I agree with your overall point but the messaging is so crucial that even “people downvoted this because individual action, but…” no—no but: that’s the whole point. No but, no individual action. Moloch has nothing to do with an advocate or lack thereof. We need to stay really clearly on message: collective action solves a tragedy of the commons. The end.
Moloch becomes relevant when we fail to take collective action. At that point: yes, shame. On Us.
Ultimately it is Moloch [0] who drives us here.
[0]: https://medium.com/@happybits/moloch-a-race-to-the-bottom-wh...