Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ixqmsz1 wrote

We agree with each other.

I guess I'm using the word consumerism less as an individual practice, and more as a culturally accepted state of the world. To me, that state of the world of course implicates the companies you listed such as McDonalds, and the idea that we need all of that international shipping you mentioned. While i think it's naïve to remove individual humans from sustainability, after all, our consumption habits in the Global North will in fact have to change for a more sustainable future. We also though indeed don't individually have the power to change it, it must be initiated far earlier in the chain. Environmentalists have been traumatized by "consumerism" being weaponized by highly-polluting companies to shift blame to individuals, and that's disingenuous of companies, but removed from that political context we must be sober-minded about how we are a part of consumerism. I find it equally disingenuous when people paint a picture of companies making changes, our lives (in rich countries) being largely unaffected, and the world subsequently healing. Our lives will be affected because if the planet consumed the way the US does, we'd have already run out of planet.

You pose the harms of mining against the harms of fossil fuels, but that's not what was happening in my head. The harms of fossil fuels are a given and out of the question. I think about the harms of mining vs not mining (as much as possible) and not burning fossil fuels.

World A: Status quo - very bad

World B: Consumption and energy needs stay the same, but we use renewable energy - bad

World C: Consumption and energy needs go way down, and we use renewables for what's left that is required - good.

Note on refining metals from used products back into usable materials, that's so good, but still not ideal if paired with current consumption and energy needs. Not having to mine more for a new solar panel would be cool, but that solar panel would still fuck with the environment the way solar panels, and wind, and hydroelectric, and geothermal, currently do. That's why less all around is preferable. I really fuck with Degrowth as an economic policy, rather than "Green Growth." I recommend Jason Hickel and Giorgos Kallis as excellent scholars that have written a lot of super accessible and persuasive stuff on the subject.

Edit: Formatting on mobile

1

DannyBlind t1_ixrrimp wrote

Refreshing to see a constructive argument on reddit these days.

I agree with your points however i am more cynical as a person. In my eyes your arguments are too idealistic. Humans are greedy. It will be extremely hard to shift an entire society to consuming to such a less extend that your vision becomes reality.

That is to say that my vision is also verly idealistic but I think better achievable. I see the mining more as a bad investment that makes up for it in the long run as the pollution is more localised and therefore easier to deal with. In addition it puts less emphasis on the production of fossil fuels.

We already see this with the recent mass adoption of electric cars and covid. Fossil fuel prices went down across the board making it less tempting to upscale production. On the contrary, it helped downscale production. I think continuing this trend is the key

1