Who/Whom is/are most to blame for Climate Change?

[Red]

I've been thinking about this question a lot, and quite honestly, I've been reluctant to share my thoughts on it since it might piss off a lot of people, but I feel safe sharing it here.

I don't think there is necessarily one person or group or anything to blame all of climate change on, but I do think that it's a fair assessment to make that, the people, not governments or corporations, are mostly to hold accountable for this mess.

We love to hold governments accountable. It's never our fault, is it? And if it is, we have a government to fix our messes; It's a pretty comfortable scapegoat. We forget the collective power and influence that people have. We forget that as citizens and consumers, we are the ones who in the grand scheme of things control a majority of what governments and corporations do.

How much has really come from the climate strike a few months back? We display our concerns for issues, expecting those in political power to act, while not offering any realistic solutions ourselves. This may sound very cynical, but I don't think people will be concerned about climate change in time. It's one of those issues where we care about it (or pretend to care about it) fora certain amount of time either since it's what our friends are doing or we want to be part of a movement, take part in it, pretty much forget about it, then move on to the next thing. That's speculation, but given the public's track record with stuff like this (like with Kony 2012, or Ebola, or animal farming) I don't think it's very far fetched.

The public aren't even that well informed on the issue. Aside from being generally scientifically illiterate, and opposing actual solutions such as Nuclear Power and GMOs, in my experience at least, don't seem to understand much about climate change. I've come across far too many people who say that climate change will kill all life on Earth, will kill all animals and plants, will destroy the Earth, or will kill all humans. The last one I have a particular gripe with; While I've already talked about how first worlders will be generally unaffected by climate change, and third worlders will take the brunt of it, if you only care about climate change because it'll affect you, what does that truly say about your character?

There are also individuals who try to be more environmentally conscious, by practicing mostly meaningless and tangential actions, such as not using straws or plastic bags. I mean, it is better than nothing, but these things are so insignificant that any CO2 emissions saved are generally negligible, and there are far more important and effective things to do than... this. Also the people who use Ecosia and are part of Team Trees I mean... the jokes basically write themselves.

I am by no means saying governments and corporations are guilt-free in terms of climate change; they share a large part of that responsibility. Just because we vote a government in doesn't mean we want them to implement environmentally unfriendly policies, and we can't really do much if an energy corporation relies on fossil fuels. However, we ultimately are the ones who are consuming this energy and voting these people in. We ought to be more mindful of our energy usage, and the policies of those we elect. Hell, if we all just were 10% less indulgent in our energy usage, we'd probably be in a much more forgiving situation. This goes for everyone; Boomers, Zoomers, Q̸̷̛͜'̷̡̢t̡͜h͜͞o̴o̸̵̡͞m̷̵͢e҉̴́͜r͏̕͡s

That all being said, I of course do think governments need to step in do something about climate change; pretty much due to the fact that consumers are just too lazy and irresponsible to do anything about it themselves, and there is not enough time to change consumer behavior meaningfully enough. As it stands, governments need to shoulder all of the work.

There's just one problem...
They're
really
f u c k i n g
s l o w.

There isn't much that can be done about this. But it's the best and only realistic solution we got. Let's just hope government feels the same way about climate change, and ultimately make the best decisions to fight this and save humanity from itself.

But probably not.

[teo123]

We forget that as citizens and consumers, we are the ones who in the grand scheme of things control a majority of what governments and corporations do.

Well, I don't think we are. Consider how the government heavily subsidizes the dairy industry. Even if many people stop buying milk, about the same amount of milk will be produced. The government can and does create incentives that are the opposite of what most people want. And the governments aren't (and probably can't be) very democratic. We didn't vote for the subsidies.

[Red]

Well, I don't think we are. Consider how the government heavily subsidizes the dairy industry. Even if many people stop buying milk, about the same amount of milk will be produced. The government can and does create incentives that are the opposite of what most people want. And the governments aren't (and probably can't be) very democratic. We didn't vote for the subsidies.

I don't know much about economics, but all of that makes no sense. Where are you getting all of this from?

If 25% of the population completely cut out dairy, that'd be a tremendous detriment to dairy profits (even 1% would hurt); it wouldn't make any sense for them to continue with the same production when not as many people use their products. Capitalism always goes where there are most profits; a company will not just stick with what is traditional just because it worked for so long. Even if you obtain government subsidies, producing the same amount of milk when there is less of a demand would result in a net loss in profits.

If an industry is making less money, that would usually mean that the industry would downsize, meaning that there'd be less value in that subsidy. You almost always vote with your money, both in and out of politics, and whoever is getting the money.

Have you studied optimization in calculus? I've done many examples with figuring out how business owner needing to maximize profits given the production cost, profit margin, etc.

I won't deny this is all pretty much just speculation, but that's because you're offering much of the same.

[VeggieTales]

I agree with both of you.

The government does subsidize the heCK out of the meat, dairy, and egg industry to such an extent that farmers don't have to care about whether or not anyone is actually buying their product (to a point, I'm a tad hyperbolic). In either case, they'll get paid for what they produce, subsidized by public dollars, even if they have to throw some away. In 2017 alone, over "78 million gallons of milk [were] dumped," with millions of lb of excess cheese and butter also gone to waste (source: https://mercyforanimals.org/dairy-is-on ... o-american).

At the same time, however, consumers indeed speak with their $$$, but most of the time, people are thoughtless, reckless, and self-serving when it comes to what and how they use their purchasing powers. Each time someone chooses a box of soymilk over a jug of cow's milk, the milk industry cries a little bit inside and then throws a tantrum to the FDA about how non-dairy milks cannot call themselves as such.

[Red]

The government does subsidize the heCK out of the meat, dairy, and egg industry to such an extent that farmers don't have to care about whether or not anyone is actually buying their product (to a point, I'm a tad hyperbolic).

But if 'many' people stopped consuming dairy as Teo suggested, farmers would need to scale back production. Boycotting is really effective if done right.

In either case, they'll get paid for what they produce, subsidized by public dollars, even if they have to throw some away. In 2017 alone, over "78 million gallons of milk [were] dumped," with millions of lb of excess cheese and butter also gone to waste (source: https://mercyforanimals.org/dairy-is-on ... o-american).

That was an interesting read, but I speculate the dairy companies need time to adjust. If 90% were to go vegan tomorrow, the same amount of animals would be killed anyway.

I assume that if dairy consumption rates decline or even stay the same, the dairy farmers will begin scaling down. Let's just hope this isn't any fad or craze.

At the same time, however, consumers indeed speak with their $$$, but most of the time, people are thoughtless, reckless, and self-serving when it comes to what and how they use their purchasing powers.

Imagine how much more good capitalism could do if this weren't the case.

Each time someone chooses a box of soymilk over a jug of cow's milk, the milk industry cries a little bit inside and then throws a tantrum to the FDA about how non-dairy milks cannot call themselves as such.

I wonder what they want the non-dairy milks to call themselves.

[miniboes]

My favourite fallacy nowadays is the "blame fallacy"; that if there is a problem, someone is to blame. More specifically, I deny the assumption that if there is a problem, there is a single actor or group of actors that we can and should hold responsible.The slowness of climate change action is the result of a combination of incentive structures, human psychology and the fact that climate change is a very wicked problem. I don't think the blame question is very useful. There are actors that have acted in bad faith (e.g. Royal Dutch Shell) that you can point to, but in the end climate change is a byproduct of economic development and all the human flourishing that comes with it. The increase in human prosperity that we've seen over the last two hundred years is amazing, it just turns out the price is bigger than we thought. I'd personally rather talk about solutions and the path forward than about blame.

[Red]

My favourite fallacy nowadays is the "blame fallacy"; that if there is a problem, someone is to blame.

But there is, isn't there? Like 90% of climate change is manmade.
I assume you are referring to this:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... apegoating

My post isn't making a scapegoat, it's kind of speaking out against those who scapegoat the governments and corporations for climate change without really taking into account that individuals, collectively share a responsibility.

More specifically, I deny the assumption that if there is a problem, there is a single actor or group of actors that we can and should hold responsible.

I don't agree with holding one particular group accountable, but do you agree that the population is generally an enabler of the continued use of fossil fuels and farming of animals?

I don't think the blame question is very useful.

I disagree. With a situation like this, there is still time, and in order to solve it, you have to get at the root of the matter.

The increase in human prosperity that we've seen over the last two hundred years is amazing, it just turns out the price is bigger than we thought. I'd personally rather talk about solutions and the path forward than about blame.

With climate change, you have to find who is to blame so you can start getting at what behaviors we can change and what actions must be taken. I thought that I kind of implied that.

The best possible solution I think (if we grant that the population likely aren't going to take any initiative themselves) would be a gradual decrease in relying on oil and coal, replace them with natural gas, and start building nuclear power plants in the meantime (since they take a few years to put together) once they're built, natural gas can eventually be phased out as well.

Is that all likely to happen?

NOT REALLY

But I can dream.

My post was just mainly about how people like to hold those 'in power' accountable and usually view themselves to be guilt-free.

[Lay Vegan]

The Earth's climate has historically been changeable, but evidence shows the current shift in global temperatures via warming is largely anthropogenic-that is, the result of modern human civilization collectively.

Corporations produce the emissions, and the public (who has been aware of the harms of GHG's for more than a decade) continue to support them, while key industries and corrupt politicians work to misinform the public.

I think climate change and shared group culpability makes for an interesting discussion, and there's good reason to believe that most or all people who actively participate in a modern society reliant on key industrial practices share the blame collectively. There's also good reason to argue that some groups (the fossil fuel industry/or conservative politicians who actively spread misinformation and fuel money into anti-science think tanks) are more wrong than others.

The quicker we can learn to understand our own contributions, the faster we can work to ameliorate the affects of climate change.

[Red]

The Earth's climate has historically been changeable, but evidence shows the current shift in global temperatures via warming is largely anthropogenic-that is, the result of modern human civilization collectively.

Well yeah climate always changes, no one is denying that. The planet and its fauna will overall be OK, it's just that humans are fucking themselves in the ass with a freshly sharped pencil.

Corporations produce the emissions, and the public (who has been aware of the harms of GHG's for more than a decade) continue to support them, while key industries and corrupt politicians work to misinform the public.

I don't think ignorance is something that should be considered acceptable in the age of the internet; I know people have their biases, but I think that since it's an issue divided by politics, it's not gonna be easy to get to people. I think it might be possible though.

The quicker we can learn to understand our own contributions, the faster we can work to ameliorate the affects of climate change.

Well being vegan or even just cutting down on meat consumption does reduce more than like 90% of first worlders. The only way to truly cut out all CO2 emissions is to be a hermit, or, if you wanna go even further, die.

But unlike some people, I think we should be aiming for maximizing human health and coziness while minimizing environmental impact. So Nuklr mab?

[Lay Vegan]

The planet and its fauna will overall be OK, it's just that humans are fucking themselves in the ass with a freshly sharped pencil.

Assuming we act on climate change, yep.

I don't think ignorance is something that should be considered acceptable in the age of the internet;

Yet people regularly misspell words, claim vaccines cause autism, say that GM crops are unhealthy, etc. Ignorance isn’t acceptable, but biases can leave people vulnerable to accepting and acting on misinformation. I think it’s important to address those biases to dissuade people from false beliefs. It’s kind of an issue of psychology, and selective ignorance in an age of nearly limitless information is a good example of that. I wonder if @Jebus has any thoughts on that?

But unlike some people, I think we should be aiming for maximizing human health and coziness while minimizing environmental impact. So Nuklr mab?

I don’t know anything about nuclear, but my instinct is to defer to the experts. So I support nuclear energy.