I have read this argument many times and I still don't understand it.
You can attack emissions by limiting supply (stopping new oil drilling projects) or by limiting demand (flying less / driving less etc.). Both should work, since supply and demand are generally balanced. Reducing supply without reducing demand (what you seem to be proposing) will lead to massive price increases and energy poverty. This is confirmed by the energy crisis in Europe this winter, which was the result of a sudden decrease in supply. Reducing demand without reducing supply will lead to massive price decreases, which should increase demand from those that are less worried about climate change.
The transition to renewables can only be done by reducing both supply (less oil drilling) and demand (consumers and industry). I don't see how advocating for flying less, eating less meat, buying heat pumps etc. constitutes greenwashing, even if it oil companies co-opt it to deflect attention from themselves.
They don't have a choice to eat more plant based protein? They don't have a choice to drive smaller cars?
I get that change needs to happen at government/ industry levels to see the level of change required, but individuals can (and should) be the change they want to see.
To not make changes to your own life whilst wanting government to force the same changes on all of society seems pretty hypocritical.
> They don't have a choice to eat more plant based protein?
This isn't going to do much at all in the grand scheme of things
> They don't have a choice to drive smaller cars?
Most people aren't driving dualies. Usually they're driving sedans. I'd wager, anecdotally, most people cannot afford new, more efficient cars. If they need to get to work to feed their families, and they're strapped for cash, they'll buy an emissions ridden piece of crap just to get there.
People can't hardly live for themselves and you expect them to shoulder all of the burden that the manufacturing and oil industries are causing.
> To not make changes to your own life whilst wanting government to force the same changes on all of society seems pretty hypocritical.
I'd much rather governments ban net-positive carbon emissions by the major offenders entirely and force all further major offenders to shut down, but that doesn't make our government officials rich does it?
> I'd much rather governments ban net-positive carbon emissions by the major offenders entirely and force all further major offenders to shut down, but that doesn't make our government officials rich does it?
What do you think happens if governments do this? On one hand you are saying most people don't have the option to change, but then quickly followup with saying governments should force massive change.
> you expect them to shoulder all of the burden that the manufacturing and oil industries are causing
Ultimately, the issue is that industry is not bearing costs of their activity. We want them to pay for the externalities, so that someone can be paid to cleanup after them, or more likely that they change behaviour to some alternative that has become cost effective.
But these costs will be passed onto the general population. Now instead of having the unrecognised costs loaded onto people through climate change, we will do it explicity. This will be the oil companies, or via whatever replaces that industry. I think that is a good thing, because it will make people vote with their wallets, to change their consumption patterns.
But they'll still have to pay, or change their behaviour. They'll end up eating less meat, more plants. They'll drive smaller cars, buy electric, take public transport, live in smaller houses, fly less.
I agree with needing to do this for us. Externalities should never be unaccounted for, it distorts everything. What I am saying is that it is hypocritical for an individual to campaign for governments to step in and force everyone to adapt enmasse, if they're not prepared to proactively change their behaviour to match the world that they are wanting everyone else to live in.
You can attack emissions by limiting supply (stopping new oil drilling projects) or by limiting demand (flying less / driving less etc.). Both should work, since supply and demand are generally balanced. Reducing supply without reducing demand (what you seem to be proposing) will lead to massive price increases and energy poverty. This is confirmed by the energy crisis in Europe this winter, which was the result of a sudden decrease in supply. Reducing demand without reducing supply will lead to massive price decreases, which should increase demand from those that are less worried about climate change.
The transition to renewables can only be done by reducing both supply (less oil drilling) and demand (consumers and industry). I don't see how advocating for flying less, eating less meat, buying heat pumps etc. constitutes greenwashing, even if it oil companies co-opt it to deflect attention from themselves.