Chips wrote: ↑Tue, 13. Aug 19, 13:24
Taking it literally too parallel. Perhaps choosing Fair Trade would have been better. The actions of a few gained traction - no Governments whatsoever involved. From there, companies and corporations got involved keen to bolster their corporate social responsibilities (but also slyly it ensured supply continuity and quality eventually too). Has it had an impact upon farmers and communities around the world? Demonstrably yes. But it was the actions of individuals that collectively resulted in a shift - and no Government law changes were required. If you waited for legislation, which funnily enough would almost certainly not happen due to it involving an entire supply chain across countries and continents, it'd have never happened. People do not need Governments to force changes, they can do it themselves - and sometimes more efficiently (no endless bureaucracy that pro-actively delays and holds things up - as i mentioned with lobbyists who have self interests in preventing action).
The impact of Fair Trade on a global scale is
tiny. A couple of thousand producer organisations certified, a tiny fraction of goods trade even to rich Western nations affected, never mind considering global trade as a whole, and questions over the impact it has even on producers that have signed up. Is it a good thing anyway? Probably. But a useful comparison to stopping climate change? Only in the sense that it's a great example of a popular citizen-led action campaign achieving small gains over the course of a lot of years, which is about what we've managed against climate change... but civilisation isn't gonna end because Fair Trade hasn't reached enough people, and there's no deadline for it either.
I am starting to get the impression you think I view this thread as the solution? No, that's crazy talk. But driving down energy usage (hence the kettle - boil what you need only) not only uses less energy, but saves people money as well. It's reasonable, practical, and ZERO EFFORT COST improvements that can be made. That's why I don't quite get your opposition to it. Unless you view such zero cost lifestyle improvements as "pointless effort" - at which point, why bother do anything. May as well wait for the Governments to decide (how on earth they do that if they don't believe it's voters desire to see it...
) what's necessary for us and legislate for it (again, good grief it takes decades if ever)... and then have to try and force people to adopt it with "the stick" method - as people won't want to take part unless it's made to cost.
Meanwhile, spreading awareness (without making people feel like they're being bludgeoned as per climate protesters trying to shut down a city centre) and showing people that you don't need to make sacrifices to be more responsible/considerate (and hoping this then translates into being more interested as well, wanting to see a change etc) can't be a bad thing. Hence, the thread... has a good purpose. But I don't imagine for one second anyone believes the solution is in the thread - except for perhaps you thinking that's what we think?
As I've said several times, my opposition is that billing these measures as an environmental thing lets people think that they've Done Something and feeds a narrative that we can stop climate change and other catastrophic ecological damage via asking people for minor lifestyle changes. It minimises how much trouble we're in and it helps vested interests deflect attention away from the major changes that actually need to happen to save us. People hear "Do these minor things and help the environment!" and they maybe try a couple of them and they think "great, I'm helping the environment!" and tick that little box off in their heads and the truth is whatever they've done doesn't matter.
You wanna bill it as tips to save a little money here and there? Great. Go for it. Maybe you'll help a few people. But don't bill it as helping the environment because a) it isn't and b) the idea that it is is actively counterproductive.
Also, I find it amusing that you cited the suffragettes as an example a couple of posts ago and are now suggesting that climate protesters making people feel bludgeoned is a bad thing. Next to nobody is going to voluntarily sign up for the massive personal lifestyle changes that all of us will need to endure because they're gonna suck. Certainly nobody who runs an oil company is going to voluntarily fold it. We're out of time and change needs to be forced by the only entities powerful enough to do so, and if we want them to do so then those who care need in turn to do whatever's necessary to force them to.
You can reasonably suggest that that's highly unlikely to happen, that it's anti-democratic unless the majority of people are asking for it, that the economic consequences will be enormous, etc etc, and you would be entirely correct in every case... but there's no time and the alternative is we are all going to die.
edit: banning myself from this thread, sorry, no further replies forthcoming.
A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise, a morning filled with 400 billion suns - the rising of the Milky Way