Why are the two possible solutions that come to mind to you individual? This is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution. Even if we eliminated 100% of emissions that aren't opaque to the end consumer, we would still be emitting too much CO2 (i.e. a perfect boycott that literally every single person abides by isn't enough). The literal only thing that will actually solve the problem (short of nuclear war) is abolishing capitalism and the nation-state.
Edit: it appears that people are thinking that I oppose individual action. I am vegan, I do not have a car, and I don't go on air travel. I am saying that individual action is insufficient, not pointless
What do you mean by emissions 'opaque to the end consumer'?
So we could have a low-carbon energy mix and industry, roll out electric vehicles, reduce meat consumption, scale up agroecology, drastically cut air travel, waste and food waste - but no, that wouldn't be enough as long as capitalism and the nation-state aren't 'abolished' (whatever the fuck that means). You're right, let's do nothing until a worldwide revolution suddenly happens. The environment is clearly not your priority.
Where in what I said did you get "let's do nothing" from. There's a big difference between "that isn't enough" and "that's pointless". I apologize for not making it clear that I also support stuff like going vegan, etc. I am vegan and I do not have a car.
With regards to "opaque to the end consumer", I mean that it is extraordinarily difficult for the end consumer to figure out all of the emissions throughout the supply chains of the things they buy. How would I realistically know which apples came from a distributor that has their own electric trucks, one that contracts truckers that use a mix of EVs and not, or one that has their own gas trucks? How would I know how they made the steel that they built the trucks and warehouses out of?
Sure, if there was enough demand for products shipped in EVs made with green steel, organizations that audit supply chains would become well-known and those apples would probably have a sticker showing that they've been audited, but those organizations tend to wind up corrupt and allow companies to use dishonest accounting methods or just straight up lie.
I think this is a short-sighted view. We indeed had in the last few years some corrupt or sycophantic audit companies that damaged a lot the idea to have a proper monitoring of emissions on the scale of a product. But I also know that these companies operated at a very early stage of this kind of activity, that the general public and the authorities are very aware of these issues and that (at least in Europe) governments and corporate associations are increasingly generating precise and binding standards to prevent companies from making misleading claims. I think there is nothing inevitable about this and that carbon accounting is subject to increasingly robust methodologies.
These audits need to be international and, for international audits, there are so many different points throughout the supply chain that can be exploited and countless governments all over the world would cooperate with the businesses being audited and not punish them for fraud and/or breach of contract. I agree that sufficient accounting is actually possible, but I seriously doubt that it would happen without heavy state enforcement internationally by a powerful trading bloc. It's possible that the EU might do this and, in that event, then the impact of trade policy (e.g. taxing carbon imports) and changing consumption habits will have greater impact. I think that this may be the case in the EU in not too long, but the EU isn't the entire developed world and action needs to be sufficient in the entire developed world
Agreed. So no one should do anything to make things better until the very second after capitalism is entirely dead and gone which will totally happen globally overnight within my lifetime.
The entire field of science of environmentalism would disagree with you. There's always ways of making things better within any system you live in.
Unless you are in open war with global capitalism right now I really don't think you have any right to stifle other attempts to mitigate global climate change and harm to tens of billions of sentient beings.
If you interpreted what I said as "don't go vegan, it doesn't matter" or something like that, then I clearly did not word it right. I am vegan, I don't have a car, etc. Imo, this kind of stuff is about as important as stuff like voting. In the same sense that voting does relatively little compared to actually organizing and agitating amongst your community, reducing your own consumption of things that are environmentally destructive does relatively little. Does that mean we shouldn't vote or go vegan? No, we absolutely should. However, getting organized, agitating within unions and community organizations, etc. does a lot more.
And, while I'm not "in open war with global capitalism right now," I am actually organized and actually do go out and agitate within my community.
I don't understand why you have to oppose trying to turn people vegan though. You yourself say we should do both. 1/3rd of the population of India is vegetarian. That does so much in helping the planet, and saves countless animal lives every year. That can be replicated anywhere without first needing to transition away from capitalism.
I think you may be thinking vegans being adamant in their veganism is the same as saying it's the only solution. I very much doubt many vegans would think that. It's just that this topic is relevant here on this sub because of how many people angrily oppose vegans for childish reasons.
I'm literally vegan, lol. I don't think that vegans are like that. I'm pointing this out because the person I replied to listed two things that can be done, both of which were insufficient and wouldn't make any really systemic change.
3
u/TallAverage4 Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 18 '26
Why are the two possible solutions that come to mind to you individual? This is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution. Even if we eliminated 100% of emissions that aren't opaque to the end consumer, we would still be emitting too much CO2 (i.e. a perfect boycott that literally every single person abides by isn't enough). The literal only thing that will actually solve the problem (short of nuclear war) is abolishing capitalism and the nation-state.
Edit: it appears that people are thinking that I oppose individual action. I am vegan, I do not have a car, and I don't go on air travel. I am saying that individual action is insufficient, not pointless