@Julieta said:
I find this topic so complex and hard to be 100% sure of an answer to your questions. Part of me agrees with the earlier comments on how it is a step into the right direction, but I also find it that it is a way to create inaction, from companies and also social movements. This false idea of "doing something" lead people in the middle of the spectrum to feel more comfortable of what they are consuming and which corporations they are supporting just because they are buying carbon offset, etc. (I also feel slighty better when I buy them myself). But as you, Joshua, said, if "there aren't enough outsets", why are we even having this discussion if it is clearly something that it is not working to compansate for the carbon emission emitted?
Also at then end, who is responsible to offset those Carbon emissions? In The Carbon Rush they showed clear examples how again the burden of climate change is given to the global south, which were also the ones that historically emitted the least. Why does the Global South always need to clean someone else's trush? Poor women in third world countries were studied by OXFAM to be the most affected by global climate change because the burden of all the networks of the international market and its effects on climate change falls on them. Many of the carbon offset projects are part of this, and many organizations are ensuring that they are sustainable and benefitial for women and not creating another burden.
I completely agree that a carbon cap is needed, and at this point we should already have it. Is it feasible in the near future? I am not sure unless more pressure starts to happen around this topic.
Here are some articles on Global Climate Change and gender in case anyone is intrested:
(The OXFAM one is in Spanish but I am sure they have an English version somehwere) file:///home/chronos/u-e0d01c7093272f5c73db32cefe16c526b2ecacb3/MyFiles/EQUIDAD/Adaptacion%20cambio%20climatico.pdf
file:///home/chronos/u-e0d01c7093272f5c73db32cefe16c526b2ecacb3/MyFiles/EQUIDAD/2018GenderJustClimateSolutionsEnglish.pdf
Yeah I really see what you're saying in terms of who's being asked to offset carbon emissions and the burden falling on the global south. I'm also hesitant of these programs for that reason. I want to think more about what you're saying in terms of carbon offsets leading to inaction. I don't think I buy that there's a direct link between an ineffective policy and people having a sense of assuaged guilt. I feel like a lot of social movements (at least the ones I'm interested in supporting) see through the problems of cap-and-trade and carbon offsets, and still try to demand further action, I don't think anyone on that end is backing down because their demands were met. Similarly, I'm thinking that someone who's thinking about flying but feels bad because of the associated emissions. On the individual level, I think that person is buying an offset to make themselves feel better, but it's rare that someone would have chosen not to take the flight all together, even without the option of buying a carbon offset.
I totally agree though that there needs to be more accountability about where the offsets are going and who actually benefits from them. I also don't think carbon offsets are the key to solving the climate crisis, and i don't think they address any underlying issues of consumption and hyper-development. I just struggle with the line of thinking that cap-and-trade or offsets encourage inaction. Ultimately, if people are fired up, inadequate legislation can fuel the fire, rather than leading them to think their concerns are being addressed.
@Charlotte I think that I fundamentally agree with you but I also see where @Julieta is coming from. I see the issue as continuing to treat climate change as a consumer issue, by selling offsets, as opposed to a structural issue which needs to be redesigned by government organizations. For example, labelling certain palm oil products as "sustainably grown" due to them being funded as offsets, but are truly responsible for the displacement of indigenous communities. That tag of "sustainably grown" may lead to millions of people thinking that they're doing right by the environment and calling it a day with that "positive" purchase. Every purchase would continue to support that industry, and lead to further expansion of those farms, and the further displacement of indigenous peoples. It all reminds me of the movement against plastic straws. Yes, we shouldn't use them. But, in actually the difference not using a straw makes is minute, yet may lead people to think their environmental responsibility is all set and done. But, I agree with your point that the other side of this phenomenon would be igniting millions of environmentalists with the political motivation to go work and change the system. I think that's where all of the people in this class fall, but may not encompass the scale of action truly needed. However, I think continuing to make the flaws in the system clearer, and making education on what "sustainably grown" really means accessible will lead to more people's outrage, and a greater social movement.
On your point of inadequate legislation fueling the fire of social movement, I wonder if there's an inflection point as to what is deemed "inadequate" enough to spark a movement capable of altering legislation? While all of us agree that cap and trade is a fundamentally flawed system, does enough of the country agree with us to create a demanding outcry? And if built from the grassroots, how large does a network have to grow before pushing our current polarized climate to political change?
Oh wow we could have hours of discussion on the scandal of a plastic straw in 2020. There's nothing that better encompasses the really misguided ways people are taught to deal with environmental degradation than that. I totally see the point about viewing the problem as consumer choices. To your question about if legislation is deemed inadequate enough.. I think we're already at that point and I do think there's stirring of mass frustration. I don't think we've ever seen anything that feels "adequate" considering the sheer level of emissions and people getting harmed by degradation. I do think people are starting to get upset. I wonder how much of this is because of apocalyptic messaging and being at the point where people in power fear for their own lives. When marginalized people were affected inaction was still palatable but now that the future is in question for elites, more of them could be inclined towards drastic action. Really messed up but I think the reality of how this may play out.
I whole heartedly agree with all of you. Besides the fact that it diverts attention and action from real solutions, the solution to consumption cannot be consumption. It is ridiculous to leave the fate of rainforests and Indigenous communities to the bleeding hearts of midde to upper-class liberals.
@Julieta said:
I find this topic so complex and hard to be 100% sure of an answer to your questions. Part of me agrees with the earlier comments on how it is a step into the right direction, but I also find it that it is a way to create inaction, from companies and also social movements. This false idea of "doing something" lead people in the middle of the spectrum to feel more comfortable of what they are consuming and which corporations they are supporting just because they are buying carbon offset, etc. (I also feel slighty better when I buy them myself). But as you, Joshua, said, if "there aren't enough outsets", why are we even having this discussion if it is clearly something that it is not working to compansate for the carbon emission emitted?
Also at then end, who is responsible to offset those Carbon emissions? In The Carbon Rush they showed clear examples how again the burden of climate change is given to the global south, which were also the ones that historically emitted the least. Why does the Global South always need to clean someone else's trush? Poor women in third world countries were studied by OXFAM to be the most affected by global climate change because the burden of all the networks of the international market and its effects on climate change falls on them. Many of the carbon offset projects are part of this, and many organizations are ensuring that they are sustainable and benefitial for women and not creating another burden.
I completely agree that a carbon cap is needed, and at this point we should already have it. Is it feasible in the near future? I am not sure unless more pressure starts to happen around this topic.
Here are some articles on Global Climate Change and gender in case anyone is intrested:
(The OXFAM one is in Spanish but I am sure they have an English version somehwere) file:///home/chronos/u-e0d01c7093272f5c73db32cefe16c526b2ecacb3/MyFiles/EQUIDAD/Adaptacion%20cambio%20climatico.pdf
file:///home/chronos/u-e0d01c7093272f5c73db32cefe16c526b2ecacb3/MyFiles/EQUIDAD/2018GenderJustClimateSolutionsEnglish.pdf
Yeah I really see what you're saying in terms of who's being asked to offset carbon emissions and the burden falling on the global south. I'm also hesitant of these programs for that reason. I want to think more about what you're saying in terms of carbon offsets leading to inaction. I don't think I buy that there's a direct link between an ineffective policy and people having a sense of assuaged guilt. I feel like a lot of social movements (at least the ones I'm interested in supporting) see through the problems of cap-and-trade and carbon offsets, and still try to demand further action, I don't think anyone on that end is backing down because their demands were met. Similarly, I'm thinking that someone who's thinking about flying but feels bad because of the associated emissions. On the individual level, I think that person is buying an offset to make themselves feel better, but it's rare that someone would have chosen not to take the flight all together, even without the option of buying a carbon offset.
I totally agree though that there needs to be more accountability about where the offsets are going and who actually benefits from them. I also don't think carbon offsets are the key to solving the climate crisis, and i don't think they address any underlying issues of consumption and hyper-development. I just struggle with the line of thinking that cap-and-trade or offsets encourage inaction. Ultimately, if people are fired up, inadequate legislation can fuel the fire, rather than leading them to think their concerns are being addressed.
@Charlotte I think that I fundamentally agree with you but I also see where @Julieta is coming from. I see the issue as continuing to treat climate change as a consumer issue, by selling offsets, as opposed to a structural issue which needs to be redesigned by government organizations. For example, labelling certain palm oil products as "sustainably grown" due to them being funded as offsets, but are truly responsible for the displacement of indigenous communities. That tag of "sustainably grown" may lead to millions of people thinking that they're doing right by the environment and calling it a day with that "positive" purchase. Every purchase would continue to support that industry, and lead to further expansion of those farms, and the further displacement of indigenous peoples. It all reminds me of the movement against plastic straws. Yes, we shouldn't use them. But, in actually the difference not using a straw makes is minute, yet may lead people to think their environmental responsibility is all set and done. But, I agree with your point that the other side of this phenomenon would be igniting millions of environmentalists with the political motivation to go work and change the system. I think that's where all of the people in this class fall, but may not encompass the scale of action truly needed. However, I think continuing to make the flaws in the system clearer, and making education on what "sustainably grown" really means accessible will lead to more people's outrage, and a greater social movement.
On your point of inadequate legislation fueling the fire of social movement, I wonder if there's an inflection point as to what is deemed "inadequate" enough to spark a movement capable of altering legislation? While all of us agree that cap and trade is a fundamentally flawed system, does enough of the country agree with us to create a demanding outcry? And if built from the grassroots, how large does a network have to grow before pushing our current polarized climate to political change?
Oh wow we could have hours of discussion on the scandal of a plastic straw in 2020. There's nothing that better encompasses the really misguided ways people are taught to deal with environmental degradation than that. I totally see the point about viewing the problem as consumer choices. To your question about if legislation is deemed inadequate enough.. I think we're already at that point and I do think there's stirring of mass frustration. I don't think we've ever seen anything that feels "adequate" considering the sheer level of emissions and people getting harmed by degradation. I do think people are starting to get upset. I wonder how much of this is because of apocalyptic messaging and being at the point where people in power fear for their own lives. When marginalized people were affected inaction was still palatable but now that the future is in question for elites, more of them could be inclined towards drastic action. Really messed up but I think the reality of how this may play out.
I whole heartedly agree with all of you. Besides the fact that it diverts attention and action from real solutions, the solution to consumption cannot be consumption. It is ridiculous to leave the fate of rainforests and Indigenous communities to the bleeding hearts of midde to upper-class liberal
Middle to upper-class people in the first world have some of the biggest carbon footprints, so should be fair they take some more action for the fate of rainforest or whatever else they care about. For sure it should not be close to be consider the only option, not even a main one. But as we saw with the carbon footprints, personal actions and better ways of consumptions create an impact and should be a step already taken at this point. But yeah, I still think that should not divert action from other solutions, and that is a personal critic I have for myself too (eventhough I do not consider myself a liberal ).
@charlotte I agree with you on that unfortunate truth, and that is really what I meant by using the term "inflection point", does it take twisted policies physically harming the elites for action to be taken? While marginalized communities have been suffering for decades, can education on these issues be enough to spark change or is our system controlled by such selfish humans that compassion won't be enough to override a system that benefits them? And on that topic, @SpencerFier I understand what you're saying on the subject of capitalism, and that it does have this strength as already being so engrained globally. But throughout this course we've seen the devastating ramifications of using the economy as our great unifier. While capitalism continues to work for those privileged within our society, it has failed millions. In addition, it devalues the opinions of those who do not operate under capitalistic ideals, leading to the further marginalization of indigenous communities. While yes, it is the system we have, and is the most realistic means towards mitigating climate change at this point, I think that continuing to see the economy as the end all be all solution is dangerous, and shouldn't be the goal we strive for. Capitalism will always be present, and can be a valuable tool for regulating corporations, it cannot continue to overpower the case for justice and equity.
@ccstein said: @charlotte I agree with you on that unfortunate truth, and that is really what I meant by using the term "inflection point", does it take twisted policies physically harming the elites for action to be taken? While marginalized communities have been suffering for decades, can education on these issues be enough to spark change or is our system controlled by such selfish humans that compassion won't be enough to override a system that benefits them? And on that topic, @SpencerFier I understand what you're saying on the subject of capitalism, and that it does have this strength as already being so engrained globally. But throughout this course we've seen the devastating ramifications of using the economy as our great unifier. While capitalism continues to work for those privileged within our society, it has failed millions. In addition, it devalues the opinions of those who do not operate under capitalistic ideals, leading to the further marginalization of indigenous communities. While yes, it is the system we have, and is the most realistic means towards mitigating climate change at this point, I think that continuing to see the economy as the end all be all solution is dangerous, and shouldn't be the goal we strive for. Capitalism will always be present, and can be a valuable tool for regulating corporations, it cannot continue to overpower the case for justice and equity.
I'm super interested with what you are saying here. I just I struggle to envision a capitalist society that is just and equitable. I also want to disagree (I'm not sure if I believe this deep down, but I want to!) that capitalism will always be present. Even though it's so deeply engrained, and maybe here for our lifetimes, it's not like political revolutions have never happened. Maybe not on the scale of global capitalism, but why not? Why not strive for that I guess. I feel like even if you can't get there, you make the world slightly less messed up on systemic level along the way. I think I'm already seeing some cracks in people's commitment to capitalism. Not from people in power but I see people's political alignments moving farther away from the subscription to the "free" market that feels like the norm. I do think using the economy as a great unifier can be super problematic, and I'm not proposing a prescriptive new system to replace it, but I don't think calling out & working against the ways in which capitalism reproduces oppression is negative. There are other ways to combat climate change on a more feasible scale and I totally agree that you and @Julieta that those are important. I just don't think we should shy away from calling out capitalism for what it does to people.
Comments
I whole heartedly agree with all of you. Besides the fact that it diverts attention and action from real solutions, the solution to consumption cannot be consumption. It is ridiculous to leave the fate of rainforests and Indigenous communities to the bleeding hearts of midde to upper-class liberals.
Middle to upper-class people in the first world have some of the biggest carbon footprints, so should be fair they take some more action for the fate of rainforest or whatever else they care about. For sure it should not be close to be consider the only option, not even a main one. But as we saw with the carbon footprints, personal actions and better ways of consumptions create an impact and should be a step already taken at this point. But yeah, I still think that should not divert action from other solutions, and that is a personal critic I have for myself too (eventhough I do not consider myself a liberal
).
@charlotte I agree with you on that unfortunate truth, and that is really what I meant by using the term "inflection point", does it take twisted policies physically harming the elites for action to be taken? While marginalized communities have been suffering for decades, can education on these issues be enough to spark change or is our system controlled by such selfish humans that compassion won't be enough to override a system that benefits them? And on that topic, @SpencerFier I understand what you're saying on the subject of capitalism, and that it does have this strength as already being so engrained globally. But throughout this course we've seen the devastating ramifications of using the economy as our great unifier. While capitalism continues to work for those privileged within our society, it has failed millions. In addition, it devalues the opinions of those who do not operate under capitalistic ideals, leading to the further marginalization of indigenous communities. While yes, it is the system we have, and is the most realistic means towards mitigating climate change at this point, I think that continuing to see the economy as the end all be all solution is dangerous, and shouldn't be the goal we strive for. Capitalism will always be present, and can be a valuable tool for regulating corporations, it cannot continue to overpower the case for justice and equity.
I'm super interested with what you are saying here. I just I struggle to envision a capitalist society that is just and equitable. I also want to disagree (I'm not sure if I believe this deep down, but I want to!) that capitalism will always be present. Even though it's so deeply engrained, and maybe here for our lifetimes, it's not like political revolutions have never happened. Maybe not on the scale of global capitalism, but why not? Why not strive for that I guess. I feel like even if you can't get there, you make the world slightly less messed up on systemic level along the way. I think I'm already seeing some cracks in people's commitment to capitalism. Not from people in power but I see people's political alignments moving farther away from the subscription to the "free" market that feels like the norm. I do think using the economy as a great unifier can be super problematic, and I'm not proposing a prescriptive new system to replace it, but I don't think calling out & working against the ways in which capitalism reproduces oppression is negative. There are other ways to combat climate change on a more feasible scale and I totally agree that you and @Julieta that those are important. I just don't think we should shy away from calling out capitalism for what it does to people.