I don't say the single person is responsible - I say the population as a whole is - and for that to happen there needs to be a massive shift on the individual level as politicians won't vote against most of their population.
It's less about the individual responsibility for climate change but about a motivation to become politically active and get more people on board - leading by example is just a very low-level approach that everyone can do.
I'm not pinning anything on poor people - I'm just saying that pointing fingers will do literally nothing and I think we should work within the current democratic systems which in turn means that everyone is at least a bit responsible for who they vote for. And voting and advocating for a party that promises to cut down emissions of everyone is the most logical thing as just removing the billionaires won't fix a thing if polluting isn't made more expensive which definitely WILL influence everyone.
It just seems very immature to use this thing as a "get out of jail card" to continue flying every year and doing the shortest possible trips via car instead of taking the bike for a change or advocating for more bike infrastructure in cities.
It's not going well because a lot of people seem to think they are not affected and want to ignore the whole issue until it's too late and nature forces them to change - and it's frustrating. Everyone should've started adapting to a more ecological lifestyle yesterday but that obviously didn't happen. If it did it would be much easier to actually get politicians to change something
I'm as left as you can get without being straight up communist - I despise neoliberalism and think that countries should to a lot more to make billionaires nonexistent via redistribution of money and higher wealth- and inheritance-tax but for this issue it's just not enough if everyone washes their hands in innocence and only points to them
sure their personal lifestyle is much shittier than the one from the average person but pinning the emissions from companies they own on them is just making things far too easy on the average person
People need to vote for a green transition and not for some shortsighted utopia of "if we just remove the billionaires climate change will be fixed" - that's not the case as long as demand is still there
since they included pollution from the companies those people own (which is a very weird way to attribute it) not a thing will change as long as there's demand for what those companies produce
Yeah - at best they are morally responsible for not choosing to invest in something else but in the end as long as there's capitalism and people are creating demand for whatever polluting thing they procude someone else will step in
The Demand has to be slashed by making those products less profitable if the general public is not acting in their own interest because polluting is cheaper and more comfortable
Especially if people are just going directly to "eat the rich" after articles like this I really wonder what they think will happen if the oil-production is stopped completely from one day to the next? And that even assumes that noone will step up to continue the production - what if the state takes over the oil-company and spreads the emissions evenly among every citizen - would that solve the problem of climate change in their minds?
I only looked up the distribution for the last time an article about the top 10% was published and at least here in Germany if you earn the median amount of money you are part of that 10%
I seriously have the impression that a huge amount of people can only see things in black and white
They seem to think if someone condemns Hamas they condemn Palestrina as a whole - or that if someone says the terrorism and taking hostages was bad they automatically support whatever Israel is doing since whatever it is it will be less cruel than what Hamas did.
Why does it seem so bewildering to do many people to see both sides as bad but also see that removing Hamas is a goal that's worth fighting for as it's the only road to peace for Palestine?
What are they protesting FOR - they are only against the current war (which is fine but very shortsighted) as far as I can tell.
They want them to stay under Hamas control? They don't want a proposed united Palestine under control of the west bank government?
They want a Palestine "from the river to the sea" which means all Jews and Israel as a country is gone - but what happens if they won't go peacefully? Would it be okay to attack civilians to drive them out of the country you claim is yours?
This whole thing is fucking complex - by picking a side like this it's cutting too many corners and very shortsighted imho...
I also pay my energy for myself but the heating usually is per building and not per flat so it's not really easy to split up so if you live in a multi-flat apartment at least the heating is usually paid up front by the landlord who includes part of it in your rent
you're not paying for you electricity in the US? Here in Germany you pay an expected amount for heating and electricity and then at the end of the year the landlord has to send you a statement telling you how much was used exactly and either pay you back the difference or you have to pay additionally and that usually results in changes in what the expected amount is in the future
Also every bit of atomic energy we use now humans have to pay for for centuries to keep the waste safe
Normally these guys are all about passive income and buying over subscriptions and things like this but if your actions lead to generations having to pay for it suddenly it's not as bad...
Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against legitimate military targets.
If you look up the definition of military targets you will see
"In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."
You can ask pretty much every lawyer that Hamas actually made the hospitals into legitimate targets under the Geneva Conventions. The only party that clearly broke that law without a doubt is Hamas.
I don't say the single person is responsible - I say the population as a whole is - and for that to happen there needs to be a massive shift on the individual level as politicians won't vote against most of their population.
It's less about the individual responsibility for climate change but about a motivation to become politically active and get more people on board - leading by example is just a very low-level approach that everyone can do.
I'm not pinning anything on poor people - I'm just saying that pointing fingers will do literally nothing and I think we should work within the current democratic systems which in turn means that everyone is at least a bit responsible for who they vote for. And voting and advocating for a party that promises to cut down emissions of everyone is the most logical thing as just removing the billionaires won't fix a thing if polluting isn't made more expensive which definitely WILL influence everyone.
It just seems very immature to use this thing as a "get out of jail card" to continue flying every year and doing the shortest possible trips via car instead of taking the bike for a change or advocating for more bike infrastructure in cities.
It's not going well because a lot of people seem to think they are not affected and want to ignore the whole issue until it's too late and nature forces them to change - and it's frustrating. Everyone should've started adapting to a more ecological lifestyle yesterday but that obviously didn't happen. If it did it would be much easier to actually get politicians to change something