UsernameHere

I’m not discouraging anyone from changing their habits.

I am pointing out why the fossil fuel industry is paying marketing firms to come into threads like this and say the same things you are saying:

Because focusing on individual carbon footprint requires 100% of the world to just do the right thing in order to fix a small part of the problem.

While focusing on systemic change requires the voting majority, which is closer to 25% of the population. To fix 100% of the problem.

I’ve never heard those comments and I don’t know what point you are trying to make with them.

To do what? Ban combustion engines to force everybody to change their individual carbon footprint? Any sort of actually massive climate legislation is going to impact a lot of peoples life directly.

You’re arguing that we shouldn’t vote for legislation to prevent climate change because it is going to impact people’s lives?

And instead we should just hope that 100% of the worlds population just does the right thing?

Remember when we tried to get people to wear masks during the pandemic?

That appoach doesn’t work. That’s why the fossil fuel industry is paying marketing firms to convince the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

1 persons individual change is not enough to matter. For individual carbon footprint changes to matter you need 100% participation across the planet to fix a small part of the problem.

To make systemic change you need the majority of voters. So around 25% participation to fix 100% of the problem.

I provided my source showing BP hired a marketing firm to get the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

So to answer your question of who the shill is: I’d say the person repeating the fossil fuel talking points.

I am not opposed to any of those things they are all good.

I just think articles like this are made to get everyone to focus on the least impactful things, by putting too much emphasis on the individual’s carbon footprint.

Achieving climate goals with the individual carbon footprint approach requires 100% willing participation from everyone on the planet.

Achieving climate goals with a systemic approach requires the majority of the voters, which is closer to 25% participation.

Congrats. Now get 100% of the worlds population to do the same.

Then you will have reduced less than 14% of the emissions needed.

That’s why BP paid a marketing firm to get the public focused on their individual carbon footprint. So you waste your time trying to get 100% of the worlds population to change their individual carbon footprint.

Instead of focusing on getting the majority of voters to protest and vote.

I am saying that the broad public doesn't care about these issues enough to consume differently or vote for policy or politicians that make their lives less convenient in order to fight climate change

Which is why focusing on our individual carbon footprint doesn’t work. You need 100% participation and not enough people care.

With protesting/voting you can force change with just the majority of voters. Which is around a quarter of the population.

Here is the definition of divesting.

You seem to be confused about what individual carbon footprint is because you’re talking about business choices as if they are an individuals choices.

Business owners divesting has nothing to do with an individuals carbon footprint.

If you can put pressure on your pension provider, local government, church, favourite charity or any other organisation you care about to drop funds with them in entirely then all the better.

This is accomplished by group action and legal/political pressure which is the opposite of reducing your individual carbon footprint. That is the systemic change I am saying we need.

Not telling people they need to walk to work so they don’t burn fuel. Or get solar panels to stop funding coal, when they live in an apartment.

Why wouldn’t they be responsible for the emissions from the fuel they provide? The fossil fuel industry has entrenched themselves and made it as difficult as possible to not use their products. Even to go so far as to influence how our cities are built.

I'd love to not use any fossil fuels but I can’t afford solar panels or a heat pump so I have to either burn gas or my family freezes to death. I have to get my electricity from coal because my family can’t survive without electricity.

I don’t have a choice because of the choices made by the fossil fuel industry.

You don’t know that people use cars to get to work? And get food?

If I were to stop using fuel I would have no way to get to work and earn money. Which means no house or food or anything.

Why does that need to be explained to you?

They are responsible for those downstream emissions because they entrenched themselves and made it so the majority of people don’t have a choice. Even going so far as to influence how our cities are built to make us dependent on them.

Most people cannot afford to get a car let alone an EV. The only reason we are seeing EVs in the first place is because of government intervention.

If the individual doesn’t have a choice because of choices made by the fossil fuel industry then the individual isn’t responsible for those emissions.

So you’re saying you’re plan is for individuals to choose the choice that is not an option?

You’re saying the solution is for everyone to stop using electricity?

Stop driving to work and earning money is the solution?

Buy solar panels without a house to put them on?

This is why the individual carbon foot print doesn’t matter. Because it is a systemic problem. So the large majority of people don’t have the luxury of being able to reduce their carbon footprint. And it is such a small percentage to begin with.

This is why BP is paying a marketing firm to convince the public to focus on their individual carbon footprint.

We need systemic change not paper straws.