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.

@lwriemen

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