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.
A second question is, assuming that reduction of wealth accumulation and wealth inequality is the necessary next step, how does *that* tie in with lifestyle preferences today?
Within rich countries, you can reduce inequality while still maintaining a modern lifestyle for everyone. Globally, it's less clear what the typical way of life would look like, other than that it would probably be better than in the slums and encampments near extraction-intensive areas and probably less cushy than what upper middle class members of the Global North have come to expect.
I desperately hope that we can move forward without the support of the billionaire class, who seem to be absolutely hopeless, but I don't see how we can plausibly move forward without at least the support of democratic majorities in the wealthier countries. Seems like it would also be necessary to gain the support of residents of less wealthy countries who aspire to the lifestyles of the Global North.
@dynamic Lifestyles definitely take a hit, but the hit in one area produces beneficial change in another. e.g., gas price increases lead to people driving less, but (maybe) moving more.
Reduction in the wealth gap would need to be spread globally. Like I said, "can of worms". First step would be to enforce labor and environmental laws on multinational corporations, which would lead to said corporations finding ways around enforcement, followed by more enforcement, etc.
@dynamic I'm talking about ordinary people. Change resistance is universal, even when the change benefits us. According to most polls in the USA, the majority of the people are on board with reducing income inequality and fighting climate change. The big problem is those aren't the only issues driving voting (even if it was fair).
Here's the thing: petroleum companies love to ask "what changes would you be willing to make to fight climate change?" because that framing puts responsibility for fighting climate change onto the individual and makes the problem feel harder.
Framing it collectively works better, but I think there's a difference between polling people on "should we fight climate change?" vs. "should we create incentives that reduce automobile travel?" How well do carbon taxes poll?
And if you frame it that way and people still support it, do people understand that taxing carbon will means less automobile travel, or are they imagining that electric cars and nuclear power will solve everything?
Perhaps it doesn't matter whether people understand because they won't mind once they've adapted to the new normal that would be produced?
@lwriemen
I'm currently focused more on the question of "how can we viably get ordinary people on board with what needs to happen" rather than gaming out how to manage the inevitable pushback from hyperwealthy individuals and currently powerful institutions.
There's no question in my mind that we will need to display agility and ability to respond dynamically in order to manage the pushback, but the whole thing seems hopeless if the people aren't on board.