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.
@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.
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?
@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.
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.
So, given all of the above, it seems to me that even if the focus is on wealth accumulation and inequality, ultimately it's still going to be necessary to convince people to change their lifestyle expectations. This might not be quite the same thing as "personal responsibility" but I do think it's related.
@dynamic yes, and the people will fight it. Unfortunately, gradual change won't save the environment, and we're probably going to find out what that means. (Maybe not me; I've probably only got about 20 years left.)
If people with power don't make the changes, the people won't need to fight it at all, and I don't think there's a plausible mechanism for getting those in power to do the right thing, if not by leveraging the power of the people.
@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.
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.
@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?
In response to your question about whether "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?", I can't speak for others, but as a Boston-metro resident and advocate of both walkable cities and local food, I think about this question all the time.
I love the idea of regional (if not necessarily local) self-reliance, and I was initially very attracted by the idea of minimizing food-miles as a way to reduce environmental impact. From what I've seen of the scientific literature on this, however, the argument doesn't seem nearly as compelling as I had initially imagined.
As an example, see the 2019 "foodprint" analysis by Claudia Hitaj and colleagues here: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.8b06828
According to "Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States Food System: Current and Healthy Diet Scenarios" by Hitaj et al. 2019, the greenhouse gas emissions of food transportation supporting current baseline U.S. diets is only 7% of the overall emissions footprint of U.S. diets, which is only *half* of the emissions footprint for food processing.
For anyone interested in the overall result of the foodprint analysis by Hitaj et al. 2019, here's their "take-home" figure:
@dynamic Food production is another scenario where large scale change trumps individual choices. Current methods overproduce and impact the environment in other unnecessary ways.
Sure, there are a bunch of problems with our current food system. My point is that transportation-related pollution is a pretty small piece of that pie.
I think we could get away from overproduction but still transport food to cities.
@dynamic it was just an example of impact analysis. There are many tradeoffs associated with living choices.
@lwriemen
What do you see as the most politically viable path forward?