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.
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.
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.
Saudi Aramco accounted for more than 4 percent of global emissions, Gazprom clocked over 3 percent and Coal India accounted for roughly 3 percent.
Total global emissions in 2020, including land-use change, were approximately 40 Gt. This means that Australian emissions are approximately 1.2% of global emissions
There are 26 million people in Australia. That 1.2% is obviously all Australian emissions, but let’s exaggerate and say that’s purely from individuals. That the footprint of all Australian citizens combined was 1.2% of global emissions.
If literally all Australians then brought their personal carbon footprint to 0, it would be a reduction of less than 1/3rd of Saudi Aramco’s emissions alone.
From 2016 to 2022, 80 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions were produced by just 57 companies.
But I’m supposed to believe that I, with my ~ 1/26 million of a percent footprint, have an affect. You’ll have to try a lot harder to convince me of that.
Stop trying to play the victim. You’re literally pushing fossil fuel talking points. If you aren’t a fossil fuel shill, you’re still pushing their talking points.
I think you misread. I don’t account for 1 in 26 million of emissions. I count for 1% divided by 26 million of emissions. 1 26 millionth of a percent.
This would be like if there was some kind of global election, and ALL Australian votes added together were worth 1.2% of the total vote.
That means my personal vote/emissions in this scenario would be 0.000000046%
And then there were 57 corporations whose interests were largely aligned that accounted for 80% that also got to vote.
Imagine a school/college/workplace had votes that everyone could participate in to make changes to it. But altogether, the student/employee votes could account for at most 20% of the vote, and teacher/management accounted for 80% of the vote.
Would you believe your vote has an affect in such an election?
(and this isn’t even continuing the analogy to the point that there are like 200 classes/departments and yours accounts for like 1-4% assuming you’re in one of the larger ones, and there are 26 million or more people in your department, meanwhile there are 57 teachers/managers that mostly agree with each other in protecting what they want/their interests)
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.
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”).
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.
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.)
Think of it like this - companies are contaminating everything with lead, because it’s slightly cheaper for them
People get concerned for good reason
So some companies pay to make lead free products and sell them at a premium. They put it all over the packaging
Other companies see this, and start putting it on their packaging, despite still having an unsafe lead content
All of them do media campaigns and lobby the government, further confusing the issue
People need to buy food, and are working with limited information. They don’t have the time to educate themselves over every purchase - you’d need experts dedicated to testing and compiling the data
So, for the good of everyone (the companies included) we made that. You can go to the grocery store and buy food, confident it doesn’t contain large amounts of lead.
People definitely care, but systematic problems can only be solved systematically
@theneverfox I just commuted across Los Angeles. I saw every sort of car, but far more gas guzzlers than hybrids or EVs. These are free choices, by people who might say “they care” or “someone should do something.”
The person who buys a Mercedes Maybach SUV, 16 MPG, certainly has other options.
That’s it exactly. You’re asking why they didn’t pick a greener car. I’m telling you the problem is that you need to drive across Los Angeles
My mom likes the idea of hybrids, but is scared to even rent an electric car because she’s heard things like “range anxiety” and doesn’t understand the technology. I’ve explained the technology, the availability of charging stations, and the options for charging at home. We ended the conversation with her saying she’s had her car for a decade, and doesn’t see the need for a new car - I told her “absolutely, your car has good fuel efficiency and safety features, there’s no reason to get a new car”
The waters are muddy by design, but the true problem is car centric infrastructure. Electric cars aren’t a solution - they’re a lesser evil. My mom cares - not because she understands, but because she trusts me and my siblings to understand things she doesn’t. We all are much more passionate about health and climate change, she just does the best she knows how. When we all told her “it’s bad to eat meat everyday, let alone every meal”, she listened. If I took a stand and told her to get an electric car, I could wear her down - but driving her car into the ground is better. She recycles less because I’ve taught her what can’t be recycled - recycling is a lie, “if in doubt throw it out” is good public communication
Our choices are limited. People overwhelmingly care - they also have to live their lives. Choices won’t make a dent in climate change - it’s a systematic issue that must be solved systematically
The fossil fuel industry has spent a lot of money making us dependent on them. They have been so successful that the majority of us would not be able to survive without their products whether it be to get to work, power our cities, heat our buildings, etc.
So what’s a realistic approach to the problem:
Getting billions of individuals to change across the planet? Which requires most of them and their families to die?
By voting and protesting to get a revenue neutral carbon tax passed. Passing legislation to end our dependence on fossil fuels. Creating the political will to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the damage they’ve done. Taking their profits and use it to fund the work needed transition everyone away from fossil fuels not just those that can afford it.
Your plan is to require every individual on the planet to make sacrifices that could kill them and their loved ones? You think that’s actually achievable?
Did you forget we couldn’t even get everyone to wear masks during the pandemic?
Of course that plan would never work. We can prove it by showing that greenhouse gas emissions have still been increasing after the fossil fuel industry started this carbon footprint marketing campaign.
Changes like this don’t happen in an empty space. If you have an Eco aware consumer base it help a lot.
No one is saying we don’t want eco aware consumers and the top polluting companies on the planet are not “an empty space”.
This is a systemic problem that requires political and legal action to fix.
Paper straws don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Your plan is to require every individual on the planet to make sacrifices that could kill them and their loved ones? You think that’s actually achievable?
No. I complete not registered the second half of your sentence while quoting it. No fucking idea how that happend. Complete brain fart on my end.
The article discusses this, yes - along with how the carbon footprint is a good metric for individual consumption even if corporate propaganda abuses it.
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.
So you’re repeating the BP talking points.
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.
There are 26 million people in Australia. That 1.2% is obviously all Australian emissions, but let’s exaggerate and say that’s purely from individuals. That the footprint of all Australian citizens combined was 1.2% of global emissions.
If literally all Australians then brought their personal carbon footprint to 0, it would be a reduction of less than 1/3rd of Saudi Aramco’s emissions alone.
But I’m supposed to believe that I, with my ~ 1/26 million of a percent footprint, have an affect. You’ll have to try a lot harder to convince me of that.
Your vote is also 1 in 26 million. Do you believe that has an effect?
Tell me you’re a fossil fuel shill without telling me you’re a fossil fuel shill
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.
Stop trying to play the victim. You’re literally pushing fossil fuel talking points. If you aren’t a fossil fuel shill, you’re still pushing their talking points.
I think you misread. I don’t account for 1 in 26 million of emissions. I count for 1% divided by 26 million of emissions. 1 26 millionth of a percent.
This would be like if there was some kind of global election, and ALL Australian votes added together were worth 1.2% of the total vote.
That means my personal vote/emissions in this scenario would be 0.000000046%
And then there were 57 corporations whose interests were largely aligned that accounted for 80% that also got to vote.
Imagine a school/college/workplace had votes that everyone could participate in to make changes to it. But altogether, the student/employee votes could account for at most 20% of the vote, and teacher/management accounted for 80% of the vote.
Would you believe your vote has an affect in such an election?
(and this isn’t even continuing the analogy to the point that there are like 200 classes/departments and yours accounts for like 1-4% assuming you’re in one of the larger ones, and there are 26 million or more people in your department, meanwhile there are 57 teachers/managers that mostly agree with each other in protecting what they want/their interests)
citation needed
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/
(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
That’s the opposite of what you were accusing corporations of doing.
deleted by creator
Think of it like this - companies are contaminating everything with lead, because it’s slightly cheaper for them
People get concerned for good reason
So some companies pay to make lead free products and sell them at a premium. They put it all over the packaging
Other companies see this, and start putting it on their packaging, despite still having an unsafe lead content
All of them do media campaigns and lobby the government, further confusing the issue
People need to buy food, and are working with limited information. They don’t have the time to educate themselves over every purchase - you’d need experts dedicated to testing and compiling the data
So, for the good of everyone (the companies included) we made that. You can go to the grocery store and buy food, confident it doesn’t contain large amounts of lead.
People definitely care, but systematic problems can only be solved systematically
@theneverfox I just commuted across Los Angeles. I saw every sort of car, but far more gas guzzlers than hybrids or EVs. These are free choices, by people who might say “they care” or “someone should do something.”
The person who buys a Mercedes Maybach SUV, 16 MPG, certainly has other options.
They would probably tell you they care.
That’s it exactly. You’re asking why they didn’t pick a greener car. I’m telling you the problem is that you need to drive across Los Angeles
My mom likes the idea of hybrids, but is scared to even rent an electric car because she’s heard things like “range anxiety” and doesn’t understand the technology. I’ve explained the technology, the availability of charging stations, and the options for charging at home. We ended the conversation with her saying she’s had her car for a decade, and doesn’t see the need for a new car - I told her “absolutely, your car has good fuel efficiency and safety features, there’s no reason to get a new car”
The waters are muddy by design, but the true problem is car centric infrastructure. Electric cars aren’t a solution - they’re a lesser evil. My mom cares - not because she understands, but because she trusts me and my siblings to understand things she doesn’t. We all are much more passionate about health and climate change, she just does the best she knows how. When we all told her “it’s bad to eat meat everyday, let alone every meal”, she listened. If I took a stand and told her to get an electric car, I could wear her down - but driving her car into the ground is better. She recycles less because I’ve taught her what can’t be recycled - recycling is a lie, “if in doubt throw it out” is good public communication
Our choices are limited. People overwhelmingly care - they also have to live their lives. Choices won’t make a dent in climate change - it’s a systematic issue that must be solved systematically
The fossil fuel industry has spent a lot of money making us dependent on them. They have been so successful that the majority of us would not be able to survive without their products whether it be to get to work, power our cities, heat our buildings, etc.
So what’s a realistic approach to the problem:
Getting billions of individuals to change across the planet? Which requires most of them and their families to die?
Or
Changing a few dozen companies?
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?
By voting and protesting to get a revenue neutral carbon tax passed. Passing legislation to end our dependence on fossil fuels. Creating the political will to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the damage they’ve done. Taking their profits and use it to fund the work needed transition everyone away from fossil fuels not just those that can afford it.
Getting billions of individuals to change across the planet? Which requires most of them and their families to die?
AND
Changing a few dozen companies.
Changes like this don’t happen in an empty space. If you have an Eco aware consumer base it help a lot.
Your plan is to require every individual on the planet to make sacrifices that could kill them and their loved ones? You think that’s actually achievable?
Did you forget we couldn’t even get everyone to wear masks during the pandemic?
Of course that plan would never work. We can prove it by showing that greenhouse gas emissions have still been increasing after the fossil fuel industry started this carbon footprint marketing campaign.
No one is saying we don’t want eco aware consumers and the top polluting companies on the planet are not “an empty space”.
This is a systemic problem that requires political and legal action to fix.
Paper straws don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
No. I complete not registered the second half of your sentence while quoting it. No fucking idea how that happend. Complete brain fart on my end.