It's increasingly common for left-activists and progressives to focus on the behavior of big corporations and corporate-government partnerships in making sense of things like climate change denial and divisions withing global warming politics.
A big part of this narrative is the idea that framing environmental issues as ones of "individual responsibility" and "individual sacrifice" has been promoted by individuals and institutions that are working hard to make sure there is no meaningful change.
I believe this narrative is generally correct, but I have some uncertainties about the way this formulation sometimes gets used, and would love to hear others' thoughts.
@dynamic Can of worms... How many people who recycle also buy disposable items? Do people who live in big cities and preach "walkable" ever contemplate the massive transportation infrastructure that is required to get goods into the large city?
Personal environmental responsibility can set an example, but it can't drive mass change very quickly. You can see the same dynamic in other social areas. The broader message is get yours while you can; wealth=celebrity is a huge driver.
What do you see as the most politically viable path forward?
@dynamic Society needs to understand ecology. Harm to one part effects adverse change in other parts; this applies to environment and society equally. Wealth accumulation is harmful; the wealth has to come at some expense to the system. We see this play out in human terms as war, famine, lack of safety, etc. We see this in environmental terms as climate change, pollution, species extinction, etc. The reduction of wealth accumulation is the current most viable solution.
@dynamic More complicated. Reducing inequality just reduces (or more accurately, puts checks on) the desire to harm. Directing the reduction of future harm in one area into repairing of past harm requires more work.
@lwriemen
I absolutely agree that inequality is a huge problem and one that we need to solve. I don't think I would characterize reduction in wealth accumulation as "the" solution to environmental problems, however. It feels more to me like something that is necessary but not sufficient.
Is it your belief that if we could solve inequality that environmental sustainability problems would resolve naturally, or do you see the relationship as more complicated than that?