> ... honestly if we want to fix the problem the only thing that can come up to scale with sufficient speed is decisions by people who control large segments of the economy, i.e. governments and corporations.
But isn't the first step toward changing things at a governmental level getting the individuals -- who vote for said government officials -- to care about the issues? If people are so resistant to even the idea of individual change (e.g. the parent comment is downvoted), it makes me think they might not care that much after all.
Take recycling for example. Basically well understood to be greenwashing by anyone whose done even a bit of research or thinking through the matter. But people who want to believe they are doing the 'right' things still insist on it. This is their way of 'making a difference' and it stops right after that. They recycle and the act of self identifying as having made a difference relieves the psychological pressure to do more or actually engage in making a real difference. Its a lazy way of psychological positioning oneself such that one is 'no longer a part of the problem'.
I'm not sure I put stock in the strategy of individual difference or 'being the change' if you will (although this might be a step beyond what you are making an argument for). I think we're in an era where our 'elected' leadership are so distant in regards of what their constituents are asking for relative to what needs to happen to make headway on an issue like climate change.
Climate change is an issue several orders of magnitude more difficult than something like covid was. Effectively, we need to undo the impacts of ~150 years of industrialization. The kinds of half-way solutions and psychological anesthetics we've been able to implement thus far are the definition of nibbling at the edges. I think fundamentally, unless we see a massive political shift in how we address these issues, we're stuck nibbling at the edges.
Secondly, you flippantly reject recycling as greenwashing and leave it at that. Even if I accept this claim (time to stop recycling aluminum), what about other activities? Why wouldn't it be helpful to convince your friends to think about where they spend their money? Note for example how many more vegan protein options there are at the grocery store or restaurants now compared to even 5 years ago. Capitalism responds to consumer demand.
If I know that certain types of fish are way over-fished, should I just say "individual change doesn't do much until we get the government involved, so oh well, let's eat it anyway"? What about growing more of your food (perhaps a community garden) or trying to produce less waste? To me, it's better to act, and also show my friends and family my actions, so maybe one of them can do it and show their friends, and so on, so that ideas about e.g. sustainability permeate throughout society. Only then do they make it to the political domain.
All I see is criticism but no alternative given in return, so I'm curious what your view is. How do you think can we accomplish a "massive political shift in how we address these issues"? My opinion is that large-scale cultural change must start at an individual level, and it starts with individuals who actually do what they believe should be done, because people in general respond more by seeing action rather than only hearing ideas.
>My opinion is that large-scale cultural change must start at an individual level
I formerly held this belief, but I do not hold this belief currently. As far as I've seen, large-scale cultural change appears to be most readily demonstrated through forced coercion, systematic changes to the central governments, and massive advances in technology. Its a nice idea that we can all be the change we want to see and that we can change the world that way. I haven't seen evidence of it in my lifetime. Individual collective actions in the forms of protest movements have largely failed to accomplish their goals (Seattle 99, Protests against the war in Iraq/Agh, Occupy, Hong Kong, BLM). Things aren't getting better, they're largely getting worse, and those who are predisposed to take action keep focusing on types and modes of action which are demonstrated to be ineffective (advocating for people to individually become vegetarian, as opposed to finding ways of gaining power either within or over the system). People take to these modes of action because they're accessible.
I can stop eating meat. I can recycle. I can not eat some about to go extinct fish. My argument is that individual action doesn't appear to be making any difference at all. There is effectively no reduction to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere based on the % of people who have adopted vegetarianism in the previous 60 years. Arguing that people should, as individuals, go vegetarian to protect the environment, is like arguing that we should turn a fan on while the room is on fire because its getting hot in here.
Here's a big question: How much change on a personal level are you willing to make to help curb climate change?
The trade offs and the compromises to be made are going to differ between groups and people. It all rides on social economic background, geographical location (where you live), mobility, opportunities, the life you've build for yourself.
Concrete example. Biden shutting down Keystone XL and the ensuing social upheaval:
https://www.vox.com/22306919/biden-keystone-xl-trudeau-oil-p...
In reality, several thousands of workers lost out on a seasonal / temporary work:
https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021...
Disregarding the details of this particular case, it's an example that exactly points at the glaring challenge ahead: how this affects people directly.
Here you have a few thousand people directly having to figure out how to cover their living expenses, find an alternate livelihood to cover the loss of their job in the short run, adjusting their plans. This not a minor inconvenience, but quite an adjustment for many months to come. One can empathize on a personal level: losing out on a job - even if it's temp work - just sucks all round.
And that's just one of many uncountable individual trade offs people are asked or forced to make by their leadership. All risking to create resentment and lose support down the line.
In that regard, serious government officials and politicians do care, it's just that they can't make life-altering policy changes without consequences. The argument "If we don't change, climate change will end up costing us much, much more" is true to an extent, but hardly an argument you can readily use lest you want to lose support. People don't just look to you to enact policies regarding climate, they also look to you for leadership that ensures their lives remain relatively stable as well.
That's the catch-22 which humanity faces.
My comment wasn't in opposition of action to curb climate change. Read it again and you will notice that I don't take such a position. On a personal note, I'm quite concerned about climate change and it's consequences.
Being concerned about climate change, and being concerned about the social and economic impact of policies to curb climate change aren't mutually exclusive. On the contrary, both concerns are tied together.
The questions I asked aren't just faced by the readership of HackerNews who tends to have a shared view on the world and reality. All humans face them. The world contains far more views on life, morality, equability and so on. If you want to have a debate on governance, it's best to not ignore this very fact.
