This is like the “both sides” argument in politics.
It resonates with people and encourages apathy supporting the status quo.
Its true that the actions of an individual aren’t very impactful. Its also true that large corporations are responsible for the vast majority of the problem.
However, if no one bought products from those companies, or owned their shares, then they would exist.
While “no one” is not possible, what if everyone just used 5% less, or 5% of people switched to an “ethical” 401k / pension funds that didn’t invest in these companies.
We dont need a few people doing climate mitigation perfectly, we need everyone doing climate mitigation imperfectly.
It sounds like such a small change, yet we’re unable to achieve it.
For example, here in Australia our conservative party is presently trying to discard our pathetic carbon emissions targets saying they’re unachievable.
This is like the “both sides” argument in politics.
It resonates with people and encourages apathy supporting the status quo.
Its true that the actions of an individual aren’t very impactful. Its also true that large corporations are responsible for the vast majority of the problem.
However, if no one bought products from those companies, or owned their shares, then they would exist.
While “no one” is not possible, what if everyone just used 5% less, or 5% of people switched to an “ethical” 401k / pension funds that didn’t invest in these companies.
We dont need a few people doing climate mitigation perfectly, we need everyone doing climate mitigation imperfectly.
It sounds like such a small change, yet we’re unable to achieve it.
For example, here in Australia our conservative party is presently trying to discard our pathetic carbon emissions targets saying they’re unachievable.
Ah, but is it apathy to support the systematic teardown of these major sources? Like actually destroying private jets for instance
It’s the truth