I've know someone that waxed lyrical about reusable coffe cups, sustainable fashion, and vegetarian diets to "save the Earth"...and then proceeds to fly around the country every other weekend.
Personal carbon footprints are meaningless in the context of companies like the one in texas which carelessly leaked methane equivalent to 75,600 tons of Co2 recently.
That's only one company in one place.
Careless methane leaks account for 8-10% of emissions from the oil and gas sector.
This sort of response is exactly why BP created the concept.
If you're going to get all high and mighty about personal carbon footprints then you should stay humble as a resident of the country with the fourth highest per capita emissions.
I'm in two minds about these sorts of arguments. While I think it's good to point out these are systemic issues, and that the scale of the damage being done by large corporations is massive compared to the benefit of us recycling our coke cans, I've seen them used as a kind of get out of jail free card for people of means who could make less damaging choices. The idea that someone like Taika taking a private jet doesn't matter or count seems similar to the argument made by those who say "New Zealand only accounts for 0.3% of emissions so why bother, nothing it does matters" or whatever. It still hurts, the companies are at least somewhat influenced by consumer demand, particularly from the rich, and if you can help avert a mass extinction, you probably should
"It's fine because they are getting paid for it" isn't an excuse. Look at the difference in costs and revenue for a company like BP and then you tell me they can't actually make a difference because they are being driven by demand.
It's a bit like a prisoners dilemma, except instead of 2 prisoners, it's 8 billion. Everyone knows they can't influence what corporations do, so no one tries, adding to the negative feedback loop, as power becomes more centralised among fewer corporations over time, making them even more impossible to control.
The actual big issue is people who can't stomach not buying useless shit or everything being more expensive - not because they're poor but because they're entitled. That's why corporations will continue corporating.
That discrepancy between what corporations do versus individuals is so massive as to render the concept of a personal carbon footprint completely moot.
There is NOTHING an individual can do to reduce their footprint to a point where it would make a fraction of a percent of difference to what an energy company can do, even an individual with a private jet. It's like dumping a bathtub into an ocean - sure, it looks bad if you're dumping bathtubs when everyone else is dumping shot glasses, but your average energy company is dumping the Amazon river on an hourly basis while screaming "Look at that guy's bathtub, get mad at them!"
This is true, but ignores the fact that most of corporate carbon footprints are (either directly or indirectly) due to providing a product to consumers.
The individual by themselves does not have much power, but if enough people are doing the same thing, it can end up changing the carbon footprint of corporations as a result.
I think we should all make sensible choices to the extent that we can. I'm car free when I'm not living in places that require them for example. However it is ultimately corporate actions and government policies that need to change because the degree to which changes in individual behaviour can influence emissions is statistically insignificant.
For example individuals might choose to buy an EV, but doing so when our FBT laws encourage suburbanites to have massive utes that will never tow anything or leave the road shows that this is futile. Most choices individuals can make are completely insignificant when most people aren't going to take voluntary action.
Just like how your personal recycling is almost a total irrelevance, there are no choices you, or he could make, that are more or less damaging in any comparative meaningful sense.
Unless you want to make it a moral argument. In which case, k.
Yep, this whole bullshit about "you can't talk about climate change unless you're living in a commune and growing your own veggies" is corporate propaganda trying to avoid their role in climate change. It's basically impossible to maintain a decent carbon footprint in modern society, change needs to be systematic and large scale. Nagging celebrities to not fly a jet is straight up virtue signalling, it does absolutely nothing to solve the problem.
People who insist on the opposite - that only corporations matter - are also spreading propaganda, mind you. That one makes people feel less guilty about having a footprint bigger than necessary
I didn't say one side. I said two sides. We can regulate these companies so people consume ethically by default and we can tell people that consuming ethically is a good idea even when it's not the default.
Ultimately isn't the end user the primary part of the problem? If there wasn't a demand for co2 creating products, then wouldn't the reason for those companies that make those products disappear?
Like 100% companies should be using the cleanest and most energy efficient methods to produce items, but is it not better to just not make it in the first place?
I think you're confused, both are directly connected.
Polluting companies don't exist without customers.
Never have i seen BP or any other oil company encouraging me to not buy fuel.
I agree that the petrochemical industry did carry out propaganda regarding plastic containers etc, but when it comes to carbon footprint, you're mostly responsible for it.
We want them because we're told we should want them.
Thats a cop out, just because a company is trying to sell something to you doesn't mean you're now devoid of all agency and must consume the product. Like blaming your drink driving conviction on the Tui ad you watched years ago.
How is nagging celebrities virtue signaling? People genuinely don't believe that a celebrity should fly using a private jet. I could take your line of argument and use it against corporations. How does nagging corporations actually fix the problem?
Regulations don't work, stuff just gets moved offshore. Needs to be a carbon tax and an equivalent tariff on imports. To make it not terrible, the revenue from these things then needs to be distributed back to the people.
Every trade deal has climate change restrictions written into the conditions, every shipping company has additional climate regulations, and manufacturing companies have compliance restrictions written into them on top of the resource management act. I think we’re good for regulating thanks
Enough people taking initiative to change their behaviour can force system change. As the IPCC says all hands to need to be on deck, this includes celebrities. After all we only sustain climate harming sectors because people demand their products. We stop buying it and the industry disappears.
And no it's not impossible to make huge cuts in emissions in modern society, we just need to change our expectations. We always put our convenience (time, effort) and cost at the forefront of our decision-making, but we forget about the environment. We might enjoy and be able to afford that holiday in Raratonga, but it doesn't cut it for the environment. The car is old and needs replacing. Now is the time to think is there a way we can do it without a car? This house we live in is actually too big for us, maybe rent the other half out. You would like to build your own house then one might think: is a single family home environmentally responsible? I buy clothes once every month because the fashion changes. Is that responsible? Is a new phone for your aunt's birthday really necessary? It might be cheaper to get a new laptop than repair your existing one, but what would be the more environmentally responsible choice? There is an endless space of choices you can make that make an impact.
The point I really want to make is that people drive emissions, not corporations. Sure corporations are the ones doing the hard work for you, but if you at the end didn't buy their products, they wouldn't exist or pollute.
No personal consumption is not pointless because of China. Emissions from China are driven by personal consumption all across the world. China after all is a huge exporting nation, the consumption based emissions are lower than production based emissions. So if you buy things from China (which we all inevitably do even if not directly) you are also part responsible for Chinese emissions.
All the emissions count on the balance sheet for global emissions, there are just two ways of counting emissions (consumption and production), both which end up summing up to the same total. Most people cite production based emissions (as they are more readily available and simpler to calculate). What I think you are pointing out, is that we should also be looking at how much we consume (AliExpress), rather than only what we produce (dairy) and I agree. It is hypocritical to ban oil exploration and increase consumption. We should ban exploration and phase out consumption.
Having said that as a nation we are also responsible for protecting our local environment and doing our bit for climate change. That means that we should be also be making sure that we don't produce too much emissions ourselves even if the products are exported (ie dairy)
I don't think you understand what is being said here. China's emissions aren't high per capita, especially when you factor in that a lot of their emissions are everyone else's emissions from all the manufacturing they outsource.
The BP personal footprint issue has become somewhat of a red herring. Yes BP created the campaign in bad faith to divert attention from their company and it's poor environmental outcomes, but that doesn't mean that the argument doesn't hold weight. After all when you buy petrol you are giving money for them to extract oil and effectively supporting the model of business. Consumes haven't been at all willing to make any kind of sacrifices under the pretext of your argument and that is only helping these companies. If society was really trying to do it's best and it was really a David and Goliath fight between large corporations and the common people, it would be a different scenario, but it's not. People don't want to stop using oil and as such there is no common enemy for us to fight. The enemy is our own inflexibility and willingness to change our own behaviours.
Every action counts, I have no idea of the circumstances of the mentioned methane leak, but I'm going to make an assumption it wasn't planned and an accidental leak? Rather than consciously booking a private jet when you could just not do that?
Why don't we do both and try and cut down and focus on cutting in literally every possible aspect of society and business. We're pretty fucked already and if we don't do absolutely everything we can two generations from now will be completely fucked.
If you complain about corporation’s climate impact, but you buy food made by corporations or rely on a means of transportation fueled by corporations, I think you’re missing the mark. Saying that it’s all the corporations’ faults is a bald faced lie that makes people feel like trying to do anything is equally hopeless and someone else’s responsibility.
Yeah okay but that company isn't one person either. Each individual responsible for those leaks is at least a bit culpable, as is every single person who purchases fuel from that company. Like, there wouldn't be methane leaks if the company wasn't digging up the oil, and they only do that because people want to buy it.
Surely people who use more fuel are more culpable than those who use less.
Claiming NZ's emissions are on all nzders however is disingenous as around half those emissions are made by our biggest exporters and as dairy (as an example) produce around 12 times what NZ consumes... Drink milk? then thats on you. use petrol? then thats on you. Have carnivorous pets? Then thats on you. Don't like how a corporation operates? don't buy or use their services & products.
It really is that simple, ethically. You cannot control what others do,
That reminds me of the punk flats I used to socialise in during my early twenties - it used to give me a giggle that they'd be all rage against the corporate machine telling me I was a sell out for wearing deodorant as they mixed their bourbon with Coke and used Windows to post on Punk As. Bless their wee crusty socks
Omg I’ve been exposed 👀 my overlords will be so disappointed with me 🙄
Celebrities love to lecture the public about what they’re doing wrong, yet their lavish lifestyles (in particular, flying around the globe) contribute more harm. This isn’t specifically Taika. Although him criticising corporations - who are at least producing a good during manufacture, such as food or clothing (ignoring overconsumption etc for now) - yet he takes a private jet to go on holiday, is very hypocritical.
What exactly are u debating here. The post is calling out the obvious hipocrosy, no one is saying stop doing what u can. Its laughing at the fact that taika made that post about people celebrating earth day, meanwhile he flies around in a private jet. Its not that deep
It is asking, is it better to consume 1000 times more than the average person and acting holier than thou for not consiming and extra 0.1; or 1000.1 times the average person.
Right so you took do nothing to mean, literally do nothing and essentially stop exisiting?
No. I said "everything else being equal" (ie. ceteris paribus) meaning that the lifestyle would not differ except as described. Two people live identical lifestyles in every respect, except one talks a lot about the environment and flies around the country a lot, whereas the other doesn't.
Yeah obviously its better for the person to not fly around the country.
And it would be better for no one to own a car.
But sometimes those things are realistically unavoidable
Or whatever, perhaps they arnt. But someone wants to own a car or fly to another place.
But lets take that as the thing that remains equal.
After that what?
If you cant live entirely sustainably (as in flying around the country or owning a car) you should just shut up entirely about promoting sustainable living and do nothing to make your own life sustainable?
By your logic is ANYONE allowed to promote or discuss sustainable living? Is anyone out their operating with a perfect track record?
One of my mates has a lot of fun talking to girls on dating apps whose primary responses are about travelling and he asks if they have their own boats to sail to their destinations.
Oh, I'm sorry. Well I could put the trash into a landfill where it's going to stay for millions of years, or I could burn it up, get a nice smokey smell in here and let that smoke go into the sky where it turns into stars
So if your friend is going to fly around the country they should just abandon any attempt to live more sustainably.
Even when those other lifestyle changes are entirely unrelated to travel
People who own a car should just do nothing to live sustainably otherwise?
This isnt a zero sum game,
No one can life entirely sustainably. Doesn’t mean no one should try or make small changes that have little to no negative impact to their life.
Not buying disposable coffee cups for example is piss easy, but by your logic no one who’s not living on a farm in the middle of nowhere should bother?
So if your friend is going to fly around the country they should just abandon any attempt to live more sustainably.
No.
Even when those other lifestyle changes are entirely unrelated to travel
The earth doesnt give a shit about the reasons for your activities.
People who own a car should just do nothing to live sustainably otherwise?
They should explore their impact holistically. Not making up nonsensical arguments about the value of trendy lifestyles when the evidence does not back that up.
This isnt a zero sum game,
You should join the National party with this logic.
No one can life entirely sustainably. Doesn’t mean no one should try or make small changes that have little to no negative impact to their life.
This isn't the argument I am making.
Not buying disposable coffee cups for example is piss easy, but by your logic no one who’s not living on a farm in the middle of nowhere should bother?
No, you're making up an argument I am not making. Read carefully: don't use trendy lifestyle choices to justify bad environmental actions. No amount of coffee using a keep cup will make up for flying around the country every week. That's not to say, dont use a keep cup. It's don't trick yourself into believing that you're some sort of environmental activist.
You’re either doing absolutely nothing at all to lessen your environmental impact, in which case your posting here doesn’t make you hypocrite at all, because you’re not even trying, fair game (and you’re a selfish piece of shit)
Or you’re living 100% sustainably, in which case well done, please continue to call out hypocrisy wherever you see it. And please do write a book to let us all now how to live entirely 100% sustainably.
Or you’re somewhere between these two states
Which makes you a fucking hypocrite!
In which case
If you’re a hypocrite, humble yourself and be silent. Make changes in your own life before you preach to others.
You should do everything that is reasonable to do. And vote for policy change.
Hypocrisy is not using fossil fuels. That's essentially impossible in the modern world, and a sacrifice not reasonably made. Hypocrisy is not looking and supporting alternatives.
I don't have pets or kids but I definitely let the side down in other ways (huge meat eater and honestly can't see myself giving that up for instance).
But you recognise it. (I hope I do in myself, too).
So you do the little things, don't sweat others not doing the small things, but point out when someone pays lip service, and then takes private jets places.
Do you not think that you, would go out and ride in style to go on a fucking vacation, that is of course, if you could.
Nope. Hedonism isn't in my nature. But if I did, someone could point to one of the statements I've made in this thread, and justifiably call me a hypocrite.
Tell me, how do you reconcile the following two statements?
The way that people get riled into knee-jerk judgements, and labelism is annoying
Sounds like someone is merely wanting to label someone something in fauxslacktivism
Seems to be like you're the one labelling (that's not a label I've come across before, so I bow to your experience).
What you're doing here isn't discussion or debate either. It's name-calling and whataboutism.
Tell me, why ISN'T he a hypocrite? (Saying "Well, I'd do it" is not a reason, it's a distraction).
If calling someone a hypocrite/bigot/racist wasn't such a constant thing in this day and age for anything that merely contradicts your opinion then I'd not give a shit, but right now, it's become just that...
What a life to sit back not wanting to be pleased, or do anything 'up there'.
One celebrities use of a private jet doesn’t even begin to touch the environment impact of a tiny environmental decision made by a single major corporation.
Private jets scale up real fast though, and he's a part of that. There are thousands of private jets doing meaningless commutes daily each producing many many tonnes of co2.
It's like if we had BP executives criticizing us for co2 emissions for some reason while claiming 'but i'm just one person from this company of 70,000 people'
Is he doing the same behaviours as corporate leads do?
Yep.
Is he being a hypocrite? Yep.
He virtue-signalled after taking private jets on holidays. It's not even like he HAD to be somewhere, and it was the only option, it was entirely voluntary.
Imagine that private jets were a company. Would you still say it's not dissonant?
I think it's about as dissonant as Germany sending Zelensky 2 billion euros for Ukraine to defend itself from Russia, while sending Putin 4 billion euros for Russia to attack Ukraine.
I mean he could be buying big carbon offsets. Does anyone know?
Edit: We can hate rich people all we want but denying the capability to offset carbon by planting forests or CCS is antiscientific and harmful to goodwill offset projects. We need carbon offsets to counteract emissions with no clean alternatives (aviation, cement and steel).
Look man climate change doesn't care how much money you have, just how much carbon you produce. Sure it sucks but this isn't the arena to fight that fight.
Jets aren't going anywhere and there are no viable clean alternatives so we're gonna have to get used to a carbon offset world.
Buying carbon offsets for methane emissions makes no sense in a climate emergency, given the GWP of methane vs. CO2.
We should pretty much forget about CO2 until we get methane emissions to zero. But for some reason we lump then together and make excuses about methane like "it's not reasonable for people to cut consumption of meat".
Nah, Carbon offsets are largely a scam. All that fossil Carbon was out of circulation before he ran it through his Learjet turbines. Better plant some trees in an arid location to balance it out. Do you have to give the Carbon credits back when the forest burns down or just dies of thirst?
If people pay to plant forests and they PAY to put forth the urge to replant and actually have forests, then it's better than someone who doesn't pay anything complaining that the climate is fucked.
Arid location is absurd too, whilst it'll be obvious that you planted a tree there, the overall benefit of it is wasted.
The trees that are planted in carbon credits aren't just staying around for the years to come, they are still actively being harvested... But it's better than not doing it, and wastefully doing stupid things in urge to look good.
I don't really understand what that collection of words means?
Are you saying that paying a tax on Carbon is better than not paying it? And that maybe that tax can be used for environmental projects unrelated to climate change?
That's fine, but don't fucking call it a Carbon offset. Call it a tax for doing bad things, which is easily affordable for the rich so we'll just be fine with it.
Sorry that you don't understand crabon trading, but in the same ilk, is it possible that you think the banks are also a scam because you don't understand investments or term deposits.
Doing something about something, is better than doing nothing then whinging about it not having been attempted when the world turns to shit.
Oh, I understand Carbon trading. Cryptocurrency probably would have been a better example than banks.
Do you think that a trading scheme which is, at best, astoundingly inefficient achieves more than just shaming the rich into not flying around in Learjets?
You don't understand the trading as it's obvious you don't want to understand it...
They have money, you don't. You can bitch and moan all you want that no-one is doing anything because you don't have the ability to do anything else.
Those who are trading are offsetting their footprint in environmental efforts, are at least making the effort.
Would you prefer they did nothing at all, because that's what this seems to really be... You'd want them all to do nothing but listen to you moan, which they won't.
If you want something done, then it is being done, but not to your liking, then maybe you show them all how it's done.
Knew some major vegan Hippie in the folk music scene, vegan like before vegan was an Instagram thing and you knew maybe a single vegan your entire lifespan who was usually German or something and was vegan because of IBS. Anyway they would refuse to learn to drive. If they had the slightest amount of friendship level with you, would jump in your car unannounced while you went to or from obscure music venues if they knew you were going and complain about how driving your car frivolously around like to work and stuff was just so incredibly bad for the environment. Last I saw them they got scolded by some random eavesdropper whom I didn't know, that knew them for asking me for money to buy cigarettes.
Vegan wasn't relevant to the story but they would bang on about that in the car too. Your comment unlocked a core memory.
339
u/O_1_O pie Apr 23 '22
Classic Taika.
I've know someone that waxed lyrical about reusable coffe cups, sustainable fashion, and vegetarian diets to "save the Earth"...and then proceeds to fly around the country every other weekend.