What’s more realistic? Getting billions of people to change or a few dozen companies to change?
Fossil fuel companies have spent a lot of money making the world dependent on them. Some of us may have the luxury of not giving them money but the majority cannot.
Fossil fuel companies know that. That is why they paid a marketing team to shift the responsibility onto the consumer.
All change is individual change, big change is lots of individual change bundled together.
Vote, protest, make climate-conscious life choices, give your money to corporations and organizations that are helping. Do all of that as much as you are able, which is different for everyone.
Voting is important, but so is the rest of it. Do it all.
But know that the fossil fuel industry is paying marketing companies to convince individuals that their carbon footprint matters. Because it benefits them to do so.
What’s more realistic to change? A few dozen companies or billions of people?
Obviously it is easier to change the companies. That is why fossil fuel companies pay marketing companies to shift the responsibility onto billions of people. Because they know it will never succeed.
So whether you are a fossil fuel shill or not, you are doing the work of a fossil fuel shill.
What’s more realistic to change? A few dozen companies or billions of people?
My comment was meant to encourage the readers of the thread to make a change. So I think I’ll switch around your question.
What’s more realistic to change? YOUR own consumption habits or corporations?
What’s ironic is your argument is perfect for discouraging individuals from making changes in their own lives which would improve climate change. Who is the shill?
1 persons individual change is not enough to matter. For individual carbon footprint changes to matter you need 100% participation across the planet to fix a small part of the problem.
To make systemic change you need the majority of voters. So around 25% participation to fix 100% of the problem.
I provided my source showing BP hired a marketing firm to get the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.
So to answer your question of who the shill is:
I’d say the person repeating the fossil fuel talking points.
I’d say the person repeating the fossil fuel talking points.
I’d say it’s the one discouraging people from changing their habits, thereby continuing to give money to fossil fuel companies and big ag.
Yes, also vote. But discouraging people from changing is so obviously in favor of the groups you purport to be against.
I provided my source showing BP hired a marketing firm to get the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.
I find that comments like these seem to give the person making it license to continue doing things counter to their stated goals of reducing the affects of climate change. I’m sure it makes you feel better about doing it but I’m here to say, you can certainly make a change on your own, every single day and do not have to wait to act twice a year (in the US example) to vote to improve things.
Tell that to the marketing team BP hired to say the same thing you’re saying.
@UsernameHere @capital one of the ways I contribute as an individual is by not giving my money to BP.
What’s more realistic? Getting billions of people to change or a few dozen companies to change?
Fossil fuel companies have spent a lot of money making the world dependent on them. Some of us may have the luxury of not giving them money but the majority cannot.
Fossil fuel companies know that. That is why they paid a marketing team to shift the responsibility onto the consumer.
@UsernameHere
I mean what can I do? I can vote with my vote and my money, or I can do nothing. I’m not going to do nothing.
One vote matters about as much as one person’s carbon emissions. As much as possible, I’m going to contribute to the solution, with urgency.
If I were alone, it wouldn’t matter. Luckily I’m not alone, and I’m contributing to the momentum, as much as my privilege allows.
I’m not saying don’t make personal changes.
I am saying it is impossible to fix the problem with individual change and fossil fuel companies know that.
And we can prove that they have paid marketing companies to convince the public that the impossible solution is the one we should choose.
The only viable solution is for a small fraction of the individuals to force change by creating political and legal pressure for systemic change.
All change is individual change, big change is lots of individual change bundled together.
Vote, protest, make climate-conscious life choices, give your money to corporations and organizations that are helping. Do all of that as much as you are able, which is different for everyone.
Voting is important, but so is the rest of it. Do it all.
Sure, do it all.
But know that the fossil fuel industry is paying marketing companies to convince individuals that their carbon footprint matters. Because it benefits them to do so.
It does matter. It’s just not the only thing that matters.
Don’t tell me. Tell the fossil fuel industry and their marketing firms.
They are the ones that disagree with you.
Notice this response isn’t “that’s wrong and here’s why” it’s “someone else also said this”.
Even if it were true that I was repeating BP taking points, that’s not a good reason to discount it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
To help drive the point home, how many widgets will a company make if no one is buying them anymore?
What’s more realistic to change? A few dozen companies or billions of people?
Obviously it is easier to change the companies. That is why fossil fuel companies pay marketing companies to shift the responsibility onto billions of people. Because they know it will never succeed.
So whether you are a fossil fuel shill or not, you are doing the work of a fossil fuel shill.
My comment was meant to encourage the readers of the thread to make a change. So I think I’ll switch around your question.
What’s more realistic to change? YOUR own consumption habits or corporations?
What’s ironic is your argument is perfect for discouraging individuals from making changes in their own lives which would improve climate change. Who is the shill?
1 persons individual change is not enough to matter. For individual carbon footprint changes to matter you need 100% participation across the planet to fix a small part of the problem.
To make systemic change you need the majority of voters. So around 25% participation to fix 100% of the problem.
I provided my source showing BP hired a marketing firm to get the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.
So to answer your question of who the shill is: I’d say the person repeating the fossil fuel talking points.
I’d say it’s the one discouraging people from changing their habits, thereby continuing to give money to fossil fuel companies and big ag.
Yes, also vote. But discouraging people from changing is so obviously in favor of the groups you purport to be against.
I find that comments like these seem to give the person making it license to continue doing things counter to their stated goals of reducing the affects of climate change. I’m sure it makes you feel better about doing it but I’m here to say, you can certainly make a change on your own, every single day and do not have to wait to act twice a year (in the US example) to vote to improve things.
I’m not discouraging anyone from changing their habits.
I am pointing out why the fossil fuel industry is paying marketing firms to come into threads like this and say the same things you are saying:
Because focusing on individual carbon footprint requires 100% of the world to just do the right thing in order to fix a small part of the problem.
While focusing on systemic change requires the voting majority, which is closer to 25% of the population. To fix 100% of the problem.