A few days ago I was commissioned by the energy and environment section editor at The Conversation to elaborate on my contribution to the recent Guardian
While personal responsibility is a good thing, the idea of each person owning a “footprint” is actually a pro-oil, pro-industry stance. The carbon footprint was put out there by none other than BP.
Why? Because when we are arguing with each other about whether to buy a Toyota, Tesla, or ride a bike, they’re getting to do what they’ve been doing. It’s great to reduce, reuse, and recycle, but until comprehensive and uniform laws are passed by the major nations of the world, nothing possibly can change.
By all means, green campaigns for personal living can raise consciousness and inspire political action, but it’s the political action that’s going to really matter.
the idea of each person owning a “footprint” is actually a pro-oil, pro-industry stance. T
It is not, it’s simply a measure of average consumption divided by the population. And it’s not even a good one, the ecological footprint is much better.
The fact that BP proposed it doesn’t change what it means.
If you mean to criticize fossil capitalism, don’t beat around the liberal bush. Be anti-capitalism.
Know that when it comes time to fix things, there will be rations (of carbon).
The carbon footprint you have now is the measure of how addicted you are to fossil fuels. How much they own as a dealer owns an addict.
Systemic problems require systemic solutions. If anti-capitalism is your goal, you’re not going to get a whole lot of moral pushback from me. But as far as climate change goes, I think that there are more narrowly scoped and more achievable strategies we can take.
Honestly, as a researcher who has worked in public health and healthcare from a systems perspective, I think we’re fucked. There’s nothing that’s going to happen until it’s too late, at which point we will hit the Don’t Look Up stage.
I agree. I’m just trying to get ahead of the issue. If revolutionary stories start with baseless notions that the global middle class aren’t participating in the cooking of the climate and the eradication of the biosphere, then the stories are wrong, and that’s going to backfire because any rationally organized society would account for these effects and would have to stop them. People complain about individual action, but having some larger organization or institution cut off your carbon supply as part of a systemic change, such as banning cars or meat, would still lead to the same individual-level effects, but with a shitload of reactionary feelings.
I see it similarly to the individual requirements for each in something like an airborne pandemic:
masks
social distancing
avoiding unnecessary gatherings and travel
isolate if you’re sick
these are all individual actions and a type of duty. If we wanted to convert IFR or CFR to a per capita “spreader impact”, something like the R₀, that would be like the carbon footprint. The… covid footprint or how many cases of death and long covid is one person responsible for. It could be a top-down average, but it could also be more bottom-up with enough data; more personalized. It would be the answer to the question: “how many viral particles has one person launched successfully?”. Imagine measuring a pandemic in terms of total viral particles. :)
I know that there are structural and systemic measures for the pandemic too, but there are also individual ones. Both are ethical requirements.
from this report: https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-inequality-in-2030-per-capita-consumption-emissions-and-the-15c-goal-621305/
You can also try the ecological footprint calculator, which is more complex and… better than the carbon footprint one.
https://www.footprintcalculator.org/home
science here: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/journal-articles/
While personal responsibility is a good thing, the idea of each person owning a “footprint” is actually a pro-oil, pro-industry stance. The carbon footprint was put out there by none other than BP.
Why? Because when we are arguing with each other about whether to buy a Toyota, Tesla, or ride a bike, they’re getting to do what they’ve been doing. It’s great to reduce, reuse, and recycle, but until comprehensive and uniform laws are passed by the major nations of the world, nothing possibly can change.
By all means, green campaigns for personal living can raise consciousness and inspire political action, but it’s the political action that’s going to really matter.
It is not, it’s simply a measure of average consumption divided by the population. And it’s not even a good one, the ecological footprint is much better.
The fact that BP proposed it doesn’t change what it means.
If you mean to criticize fossil capitalism, don’t beat around the liberal bush. Be anti-capitalism.
Know that when it comes time to fix things, there will be rations (of carbon).
The carbon footprint you have now is the measure of how addicted you are to fossil fuels. How much they own as a dealer owns an addict.
The carbon footprint we need to survive is
0.Systemic problems require systemic solutions. If anti-capitalism is your goal, you’re not going to get a whole lot of moral pushback from me. But as far as climate change goes, I think that there are more narrowly scoped and more achievable strategies we can take.
Honestly, as a researcher who has worked in public health and healthcare from a systems perspective, I think we’re fucked. There’s nothing that’s going to happen until it’s too late, at which point we will hit the Don’t Look Up stage.
I agree. I’m just trying to get ahead of the issue. If revolutionary stories start with baseless notions that the global middle class aren’t participating in the cooking of the climate and the eradication of the biosphere, then the stories are wrong, and that’s going to backfire because any rationally organized society would account for these effects and would have to stop them. People complain about individual action, but having some larger organization or institution cut off your carbon supply as part of a systemic change, such as banning cars or meat, would still lead to the same individual-level effects, but with a shitload of reactionary feelings.
I see it similarly to the individual requirements for each in something like an airborne pandemic:
these are all individual actions and a type of duty. If we wanted to convert IFR or CFR to a per capita “spreader impact”, something like the R₀, that would be like the carbon footprint. The… covid footprint or how many cases of death and long covid is one person responsible for. It could be a top-down average, but it could also be more bottom-up with enough data; more personalized. It would be the answer to the question: “how many viral particles has one person launched successfully?”. Imagine measuring a pandemic in terms of total viral particles. :)
I know that there are structural and systemic measures for the pandemic too, but there are also individual ones. Both are ethical requirements.