Getting rid of the conservative party is up there too
Comment on Around 80% of Rosebank field oil will not be kept in UK to boost energy security
Jho@feddit.uk 5 months ago
Just want to being particular attention to this quote:
“…around 80% of the oil produced in the UK is refined overseas into the products demanded by the UK market."
It’s quotes like this that convince me more and more that one of the best things we common folk can do to help tackle climate breakdown is just buying less stuff…
Docus@lemmy.world 5 months ago
ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That also highlights the hidden cost of moving the materials to and from countries. Building and refining near the oil field will save a huge amount of travel costs, reduce the carbon footprint of the oil tanker fleet that moves the oil, and provide a huge number of jobs to the area.
But capitalism says it’s wasteful to provide locally when you can save pennies abroad. Whatever will this island nation do?
byroon@lemmy.world 5 months ago
We need systemic change (which can only be effected by the government) not individual action (although we as individuals can still pressure the government to do this)
Jho@feddit.uk 5 months ago
Yes I agree. I hope my original comment didn’t imply otherwise.
queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
Reduce, reuse, recycle.
It comes first for a reason.
danielquinn@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
So long as it’s understood that “we should buy less stuff” translates to “legislation reducing carbon dependent travel and mandating repairability” and not “if only everyone made the same decisions as me”.
The former has a measurable effect, while the latter is just something we do as individuals to help us feel better.
Jho@feddit.uk 5 months ago
I don’t really agree with your last point. Every little bit helps.
That said, legislation would be much more effective.
Our society encourages to consume things we don’t need, and we can endeavour to recognise when this is occurring and resist where we are able. But there is much we are forced to consume due to lack of appropriate legislation (lack of repairability is a good example of this).
Both of these things are issues. One is bigger than the other for sure, but I don’t think it’s fair to discourage people from taking individual action where they are able by implying it doesn’t have any positive effect.
danielquinn@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
There’s nothing wrong with encouraging individual action, only in suggesting that in doing so they’re solving the problem.
I stopped driving 20 years ago, cycle or transit everywhere, drastically reduced plastic and meat consumption, etc. etc. and while this all makes me feel good/righteous, it hasn’t actually solved anything. There are perhaps 1 million people in the world applying similar efforts. They too probably feel good about themselves, but the world is still on fire.
The vast, vast amount of people will never change on ideology alone. Partially due to things like financial or class limitations, but also just limited knowledge. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to explain to people just which plastics are recyclable, which tech is more sustainable, which foods are more environmentally healthy, and what the best options are for heating your home. It’s just too much for most people. Their minds are busy with other things like, “how will I pay rent this month?”. You gotta remember how many people vote based on lies they hear on TV or even just which party uses their favourite colour.
It’s a constant battle that cannot be won by individuals and allowing ourselves to think that we’ve accomplished something by “doing our part” is precisely why we’re still having this conversation 50 years after global warming was identified. We need collective action that limits harmful acts while promoting helpful ones and you can’t do that alone.
YungOnions@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
You’re right, you can’t achieve collective action alone, but I’d argue that individual action, such as what you’re doing is part of that collective action, no?