> My personal lifestyle changes don’t impact the state of CO2 emissions in any significant way.
Collective action requires personal changes. You, and everyone else, must alter your personal lifestyle. You are only a little bit responsible for the harm, but in aggregate, the collective you are enormously responsible. Each individual must change.
> It’s the same reasoning behind targeting drug dealers and cartels more heavily than end-users.
I don't like the drug dealer analogy because it implies that targeting drug dealers has been reasonably effective in combating drug use. It hasn't.
To combat substance abuse the users must be targeted; to combat climate change, the consumers must be targeted.
I think we are talking past each other a bit. I guess it boils down to the question “where does the incentive to make widespread personal changes come from?”
Perhaps the CFC problem is a better analogy. CFCs cause problems with the ozone layer, so CFCs were mandated to be removed from products that people bought like ACs and hairspray. In that instance, the supply chain was fixed, so the option to buy CFC hairspray was removed.
I think the same fix applies here. Renewable energy, ending single-use plastic packaging, etc. are all things that should be done in order to decrease negative effects. That’s not to say people don’t have to or shouldn’t also make our own personal changes, only that the impact of changing the supply chain is much greater.
I'm old enough to remember when CFC and non-CFC hairsprays were both available, and recall the public discussion over whether you should buy one or the other.
Regardless, even though the edict eventually came from on high to stop using CFCs, it was the individual use of them that was ultimately responsible for harm. Punishing oil companies won't make a lick of difference if it doesn't result in changes to our collective, individual behaviour. Like how we stopped using CFC-laiden hairsprays, we're going to have to stop commuting by car, ICE or EV, and stop buying products from overseas, and stop flying.
There is no technological panacea that will allow us to continue to live our lives as we do now.
Collective action requires personal changes. You, and everyone else, must alter your personal lifestyle. You are only a little bit responsible for the harm, but in aggregate, the collective you are enormously responsible. Each individual must change.
> It’s the same reasoning behind targeting drug dealers and cartels more heavily than end-users.
I don't like the drug dealer analogy because it implies that targeting drug dealers has been reasonably effective in combating drug use. It hasn't.
To combat substance abuse the users must be targeted; to combat climate change, the consumers must be targeted.