Yes. It completely misrepresents the actual complexity of the problem. Instead of discussing effective solutions like political activity the climate change debate gets dumbed down to reusable cotton bags and paper straws.
The purpose here is probably not to be a “better person” but to inflate their ego while belittling others.
What does it accomplish to shame drivers while simultaneously using AC and running water in the California desert?
The simple action proposed was to not drive if your journey is under 10 miles. I don't think it was ever suggested that this would solve all our problems. Just that, if you can avoid contributing to the pollution, then maybe you should consider not contributing if you are an able-bodied person who could as easily bike that distance.
Most car journeys are under 5 miles. Imagine the benefit if the majority of these journeys were made by bicycle instead! Public health from less air pollution and more exercise. Less stress, less traffic, less potential for vehicle accidents. Governments might even decide to improve pedestrian/cycling/public transit infrastructure and turn car parks into people parks with green spaces (which would reduce absorption of solar radiation and cool your city and clean its air).
It's a really simple proposal with many obvious benefits and no clear downside whatsoever. And just because it isn't a silver bullet you are all up in arms against it? Tell us more how BrianHenryIE is the actual source of the problem here and how you should still drive everywhere because of his equivalence to 100 farmers...
You’re missing my point. FWIW, I agree people should try to minimize driving where feasible.
OP isn’t just suggesting that people drive less. According to him, drivers are “abhorrently selfish” and are directly responsible for death, disease, and need to take pay cuts and live in smaller homes so they can more easily fit into his little box that defines a good person.
I’m not up in arms about the idea of biking. I’m up in arms about people with extremely carbon expensive lifestyles claiming that everyone else is reprehensible for engaging in $specific_activity.
> Yes. It completely misrepresents the actual complexity of the problem. Instead of discussing effective solutions like political activity the climate change debate gets dumbed down to reusable cotton bags and paper straws.
I've encountered this sentiment many times here. It's a bit baffling to me, to be honest. Yes, we all know that personal actions are small compared to massive structural changes. But why exactly do you think that it's one or the other? I'd wager that the majority of politically active people trying to change things at a high level are also changing smaller things in their day-to-day life, because it's an issue that they are passionate about.
In my opinion, the attitude that you promote ("why do the little actions when only the big ones matter") is more likely to cause inaction, and the people I've met who espouse that viewpoint say a lot and do nothing at all.
Sure people should make those lifestyle changes where possible! I’m not against small change.
I get frustrated when I see people generalize the rest of the population as “abhorrently selfish”. Especially when their own lifestyle comes from a position of excess and privilege.
To clarify my position:
If you wanna make lifestyle changes for the environment, more power to you! I’ve got no beef with that. Just don’t use those tiny aspects of your modern life to paint the rest of the world as immoral.
The purpose here is probably not to be a “better person” but to inflate their ego while belittling others.
What does it accomplish to shame drivers while simultaneously using AC and running water in the California desert?