But not for individuals. We need “collective action”, says Sami Grover at Treehugger
From my rambings on why green lifestyle choices won’t save us to the meteorologist who broke down over climate change and vowed never to fly again, I’ve regularly argued that personal carbon footprints can be a distraction, when what we really need to focus on is collective, system-wide change.
It’s not always a popular position. In fact, some commenters have accused me of being “weazely” – and they may have a point. Like most human beings, I am a hypocrite. And like most hypocrites worth their salt, I regularly feel guilty about it. But it really has never been about me. (Honestly!)
At least he’s honest that he’s a hypocrite. He perfectly encapsulates the Warmist mentality, that taking steps is something Other People have to do, preferably be forced to do, as a collective. I’ll write this slowly so Warmists/Liberals can understand: if you don’t believe in what you’re pushing enough to make even minor changes in your own lives to match your belief set, then why should anyone else? Why should we allow laws to be passed if you won’t walk the talk?
As I read Lloyd’s piece on why so many energy saving tips are bad, I was reminded again that caulking, turning down thermostats and switching off lights are indeed immensely valuable—but that we have to focus the lions’ share of our efforts on those actions which have the biggest, collective impact.
And that means simplifying our messages.
They’ve been messaging for 25 years. Yet, more and more people are learning the truth about the reality of anthropogenic “climate change”. Warmists want everyone forced to change their lives, hence the “collective” crap. Which is not really about any sort of environmental benefit, but about instituting hard-core Progressive dogma, laws, and regulations.
Imagine if, say, 25% of the population installed a Nest thermostat (or just programmed the thermostat they had already). Imagine if 25% changed their light bulbs—oh, wait – we’ll all be changing our light bulbs soon anyway. Imagine if 5% of the population installed solar, if 10% of us crowdfunded a solar project, and if 15% divested from fossil fuels. And maybe if a few more of us started to turn off the lights when we leave the room too.
Good luck with that. Warmists will mostly only make changes when they are forced to. How many are voluntarily giving up fossil fuels?
All those percentages he speaks of could be achieved by liberals adhering to his advice
Do these environmentalists use a clothesline or dry their clothes in a dryer? Maybe there are some who use a clothesline, but I bet it’s a fraction of a percent. This is one change that an environmentalist could apply to his own life that would make a difference.
If the next IPCC conference was via video conferencing, I might believe that they were interested in the environment rather than power and money.
A campaign to turn off the lights is just 1) an opportunity to hector the hoi polloi, 2) a reason to solicit donations from private companies and individuals, 3) an chance to network with other environmentalists and move up in the environmentalist ranks, and 4) a way to feel good about oneself. It won’t accomplish anything. How would results of such a campaign be measured (except in donations).