Why not try to do both?

Okay, let me write in “Climate for President” and see how that goes.

deleted by creator

That factoid is vastly misinterpreted. In particular, the term “responsible for” does not mean “emitted”.

The study it’s referencing studied only fossil fuel producers. And it credited all emissions from anyone who burned fuel from that producer to that producer. So if I buy a tank of gas from Chevron and burn it, my emissions are credited to Chevron for purposes of that study.

The study is not saying that 100 companies emit 71% of global emissions. It’s saying that 100 companies produce 71% of the fossil fuels used globally.

Why not vote and protest and consume less?

A whole lot of people hate this notion because it essentially frames it as the consumer’s fault, but at the end of the day it kind of is.

Absolutely. Producers and consumers have joint responsibility for getting us where we are. Climate action requires joint action by consumers and by (or, more likely, against) producers.

Because politicians follow the money. And they understand voters follow the money. So polls may show that legislation against fossil fuel companies is popular. But politicians look at all the gas consumers buy and ask themselves “what will voters do if we pass fossil fuel legislation and gas gets more expensive”? And then they decide not to pass fossil fuel legislation, because even if voters say they want fossil fuel legislation they know how the voters will respond if that legislation makes their consumption habits more expensive.

It’s a lot easier to pass higher gas taxes in cities where 90% of residents take public transit to work than in cities where 5% do.

I was ranting in a different thread about the “discourses of delay” that corporate and right-wing propagandists use to delay climate action. And the fascinating thing is, the idea that only individual consumption matters (the BP carbon footprint ad campaign) and the idea that only the actions of corporations matter (a typical American activist attitude) are both industry propaganda. The former is meant to discourage political action. The latter is meant to discourage individual action. And by framing it as one against the other, propagandists discourage us from taking effective action on either.

We can do both. We have to do both.

Sure. The Google term you’re looking for is called “discourses of delay”.

Tldr: The propagandists recognize the global consensus, that climate change is real and must be addressed, is too strong to attack directly. Instead, they work to discredit potential solutions and discourage people from acting. The hope is to delay action on climate change until fossil fuel companies run out of oil to sell.

The four ways corporate propaganda encourages climate delay are by redirecting responsibility (“someone else should act on climate change before or instead of you”), pushing non-transformative solutions (“fossil fuels are part of the solution”), emphasizing the downsides (“requiring electric vehicles will hurt the poor worst”), and promoting doomerism (“climate change is inevitable so we may as well accept it instead of trying to fight it”).

And here’s the thing. We need both individual and collective action to mitigate climate change.

Arguing that only individual action can stop climate change is delayist propaganda used to discourage climate action.

Arguing that only collective action can stop climate change and individual action is useless is also delayist propaganda used to discourage climate action.

The propaganda takes an extreme position on both sides and encourages people to fight with another instead of unifying and acting - much like how foreign propagandists in the United States take aggressive, controversial positions on the far left and far right to worsen dissent and discourage unity.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/08/05/scientists-dissect-the-tactics-of-climate-delayers/

European scientists last month catalogued what they call the “Four Discourses of Climate Delay”—arguments that facilitate continued inaction.

1 Redirecting Responsibility

U.S. politicians blaming India and China, Irish farmers blaming motorists, organizations blaming individuals—these common techniques evade responsibility and delay action.

“Policy statements can become discourses of delay if they purposefully evade responsibility for mitigating climate change,” the scientists say.

The scientists label as “individualism” the claim that individuals should take responsibility through personal action. I asked if it weren’t also a discourse of delay when activists insist that individual climate action is pointless, that only systemic action can address the problem.

That too is a discourse of delay, replied Giulio Mattioli, a professor of transport at Dortmund University. The team considered including it under the label “structuralism,” but decided it’s not common enough to include.

(Depends on where you are. I’d argue that’s very, very common among high consumption American activists.)

A fascinating study about how much people have internalized these discourses of delay is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378024000797#:~:text=Consisting of four overarching narratives,with its own emotional resonance)%2C

How do you expect to change those few dozen companies?

Especially if the majority of us really wouldn’t be able to survive without them?

We’re actually to the point where wanting people to consume fewer fossil fuels makes me a fossil fuel shill.

Wow.

The absolute state of rhetoric today.

Your vote is also 1 in 26 million. Do you believe that has an effect?

Again, carbon footprint is not a BP talking point. It was a pre-existing concept that was appropriated by BP to prevent climate change legislation by shifting responsibility for climate change to individual consumers.

And then, some years later, once corporations had more solid control of legislatures and were no longer afraid of legislation, they started using the carbon footprint idea in reverse as propaganda - they claimed individual responsibility was a myth, only legal action against corporations will help with climate change, so eat whatever you want and buy all the gas you want and buy all the corporate products you want, and don’t feel guilty about it, because it doesn’t matter.

In reality, both individuals and corporations bear responsibility for climate change, and both of the above arguments are corporate propaganda aimed at getting you to give up, do nothing, and buy shit.

BP oil company pushed the idea that our individual carbon footprints matter so that everyone can share the blame of what the fossil fuel industry has done.

The article discusses this, yes - along with how the carbon footprint is a good metric for individual consumption even if corporate propaganda abuses it.

The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.

I agree with you that political action is vital. I don’t agree that it’s necessarily more significant than personal action. Feminists used to say “the personal is political”, and it’s still true. How you act in private demonstrates your commitment to the values you endorse in public and gives your voice more weight when you speak your values.

If you reduce your personal footprint, but never talk about it or encourage other people to do the same, your impact is limited to yourself. If you reduce your personal footprint, and make your actions contagious by talking about them with people you know and encouraging them to do the same, you can impact many more people, encourage them to follow your lead and reduce their footprint, and then they can encourage others to reduce their footprint, and so on and so forth.

Limiting the damage from climate change takes collective action. And collective action requires a community, and a community requires communication.

If you assume you are a lone individual and your personal decisions have no effect on anyone else, it’s easy to imagine reducing your personal footprint is meaningless. If you see yourself as part of a community, and by reducing your personal footprint you encourage others in your community to do the same, you can see how much larger your impact can be.

Little free libraries are easy to censor. It happens all the time. People come along and remove and trash books they disagree with. If the content is particularly bad, they might smash up the library or vandalize the house it’s in front of.

So in conservative areas, little free library owners self-censor to avoid backlash from their neighbors.

What a lot of people forget is that America is a conservative country, and becoming even more so with increased immigration from conservative countries. “Protecting” children from content that condones, or even mentions, gay and transgender people is widely popular even in blue states.

Since Democrats Republicans are so corrupt they refuse to abolish the antidemocratic electoral college and have already ~~lost~won two elections they had the majorityminority of votes in.

FTFY.

There’s a difference between “renewable and abundant” and “infinite”.

It would take the resources of five Earths for everyone on the planet to live like an American. More solar panels aren’t going to change that.

What will bring sustainability is Americans, and other people living wealthy Western lifestyles, learning to live comfortably with fewer resources. You can be comfortable without eating beef for dinner every night. You can be comfortable living in a resource-efficient apartment instead of a sprawling subdivision. You can be comfortable taking public transit instead of owning a car, or teleworking instead of commuting daily, or having a low flow shower in your home instead of a tub.

Home ownership, car ownership, a meat heavy diet, fast fashion, disposable technology, plastic everything, are entitlements that you receive as a benefit of living in the imperial core. These are not necessities of life. You just think they are because patriotic and corporate propaganda has convinced you of it to make you a collaborator in its colonial extraction of the world’s resources.

A sustainable comfortable future doesn’t just mean improving the standard of living of the poorest in the world. It means the world’s wealthiest need to check their entitlement and learn the difference between comfort and luxury.

Yes, and, once established, a grove of trees can continue providing biomass for literally centuries. Look up coppicing.

“Poor Americans don’t deserve electricity because rich Americans are privileged and wasteful” is certainly one of the takes of all time.

You spent a lot of paragraphs on a “dumb” argument. Sounds like, despite your insistence it doesn’t matter, it really does matter to you.

USians gonna US, I guess.

When you think about it, it’s kind of offensive to call ourselves (US residents) “Americans” as if in all of North and South America we’re the only country that matters.

You might look up cohousing.