Honestly, I'm a bit with arthwollipot when it comes to your 1. It's hard to take your attempted argument seriously, here. As was pretty consistent, he states that individual action is good for a number of reasons, hence the 'will make a genuine difference.' He also pretty clearly states that an individual's action will not have much effect with regards to the specific issue of climate change.
Arth said the difference an individual could make was close to zero. My point is that this is a discouragement to people to take action in their own lives. A thing cannot be both good for a number of reasons, and have an effect close to zero, and in any case, I think we should be trying to persuade people to make good choices, not belittle and devalue the effect of those choices. Arth seems to think that telling people they can do what they like, but the effect will be close to zero is encouragement: I don't.
This bleeds into the collective action part, really so I'll address this more a little later. The statement that no one is saying that one single individual out of 7 billion going green is meaningful, though, and arthiwollipot was correctly called out after he posted a problematic argument invoking something close in
post #1186.
Absolutely correct. Arth tried to make a point that we were talking about one individual, one single person in the whole world, rather than individuals acting independently. That was, as you say, wrong.
Honestly, what you stated there makes it sound like the focus is solely on individuals making personal changes in a personal capacity, not in a professional capacity, invoking your separately mentioned pressuring governments, shareholder pressure on industry, or anything else. Thus, it's entirely understandable to balk at that wording.
Perhaps, but Arth has had plenty of opportunities to take in my idea in its fullness, and respond to it. He continues to ignore or reject my points.
If I understand what you're referencing correctly, it's a well established truism that individual behavior is very often not reasonably equatable with the behavior of groups, especially organized groups. Hence, trying to use arguments based on individual behavior to project upon groups is fundamentally problematic.
Sure- but that's not what I'm doing. I'm not talking about organised groups, collectives or crowds. I'm talking about individuals, acting of their own volition. I am not projecting that behaviour onto groups at all.
To bring forward that last bit you quoted - corporate entities are a grouping of people with behavior that is poorly understood and described when dealing with them as individuals. The same applies to populations, really, which is where the market forces bit comes in. Certainly, if all the individuals involved are absent of other constraints and forces in play, that would be one thing, but that's really, really not the case in reality when it comes to groups, especially groups like corporations where there's increasingly been constraints on the individuals to focus their actions and which actively work to change the forces that act on everyone to make things more profitable for themselves, generally with much more power and tenacity than any remotely comparable unorganized group. It's pretty literally the job of many employed by organized groups to do so, after all, and unorganized groups just don't tend to have anything close in play.
Sorry, but you are still not getting my point. I am not talking about the group behaviour of corporations. I am talking about how people, individual people, can influence the directions of businesses.
Here's an example:
British oil and gas major Shell will face another shareholder rebellion as major investors, including the UK’s biggest pension fund, agree to back a fresh climate resolution after the last one was rejected in 2023.
A total of 27 investors are prepared to back a resolution filed by Dutch shareholder activist group Follow This. The climate resolution calls for Shell to do more to cut its emissions and align its medium-term emissions targets with the goals of the Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit global warming to below 1.5°C.
https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/shell-faces-shareholder-climate-rebellion/
27 people. Just 27, and they are having a go at making one of the oil giants behave in a more sustainable manner. I said this before, many times: shareholders and stakeholders can bring significant influence to bear.
This kind of action is becoming more and more widespread, as investors demand greater environmental responsibility from the firms they hold shares in:
https://www.dw.com/en/activist-investors-pressure-firms-to-go-green/a-60570878
I do not see how any of this has anything to do with the mysteries of corporate behaviour. I'm talking about how we can influence businesses by our own decisions.
Slightly tangentially from that, there were potshots earlier in the thread about politicians just fulfilling the will of their constituents, which is how they get elected. That's made me roll my eyes, honestly. When it comes to the US and action to reduce climate change in particular, the problem political party is quite openly the Republican Party. The Republican Party is actually pretty notorious for openly ignoring the will of most of their constituents and often even sabotaging them on a lot of matters and for depending on much different tactics to gain and hold their power.
Yes, I think the US is pretty much a lost cause, at least for now. However, there is hope for the rest of the world, I believe.
Forgive me, but I'm uncertain of the specific difference you're relying upon here to differentiate between the two. Cumulative effects does speak to more of a time element than collective action does, yes, but otherwise, I see little difference to be had from describing such as collective action.
I have already spelled this out, but OK, let me do it again:
My first example is the solar power situation in Australia, as linked to by Arth.
Individual people have been putting solar panels on their roofs. One person on a street. Then another. Then another- and, over time, the difference is described as 'staggering'. The article mentions the long life of solar panels, saying that capacity added 10 or more years ago is still there, leading to a huge cumulative effect. No collective action was needed here. No dumb, panicky animals.
I'll take as a second example, meat-eating in the UK. The beef industry is notorious as a major contributor of greenhouse gasses and of deforestation. Now I'm a vegetarian (yes, yes, spare me your howls of outrage: I am well aware of the intolerance of vegetarianism on this forum, but just leave it, OK?): I stopped eating meat back in 1985. At that time, vegetarianism was seen as weird, cranky, and I was the only veggie I knew, for years and years. Fast-forward to the present: now, almost 10% of Britons are vegetarian, and
meat-eating is at its lowest level since records began. The effect of this is, again, cumulative. Not much difference with just me, but- and I reiterate, I am not a lecturing veggie: I have made one single convert in all my meat-free years- but a huge difference as others have chosen to do the same thing. No collective action: just individuals. No dumb, panicky animals, just reasoned choices. As meat consumption goes down, it cannot be denied that the effect on the meat industry will be profound. Less meat production means fewer cows, so less methane, less deforestation, and a smaller carbon footprint as less meat is transported around the world.
THAT is what I mean by cumulative effects.
To speculate - the rejection likely has more to do with wording and emphasis than a complete rejection of what you say. Your focus on individuals is not inherently wrong, in and of itself, but it neglects to acknowledge how the main entities in question cannot be reasonably approached as if they were solely unconstrained individuals, be it government, corporations, or the population in general. That can easily lead to rejection on the basis that it feels like a trick is being played by omitting very relevant things.
That may or may not be Arth's reasoning for rejecting my attempts at a mutual agreement.
However, what you say here is a misrepresentation of my argument. I have at no point claimed that industry is solely made up of uncontstrained indidivuals. I am saying that individuals can act. A CEO is an indivudual. A major shareholder is, too. If I own 51% of the shares of a company, I can absolutely influence the direction that company takes. As a consumer, I can influence that industry too, by buying or not buying their offerings, dependent on their sustainability. Governments, too, can be influenced, by putting pressure on individual MPs. If enough MPs can be persuaded, then governments will act. I have been very clear by what I mean by individuals influencing industry and governments: if you think omittng relevant things is a trick, then I wonder why these parts of my arguments are being omitted, so as to make them look like I'm saying something I'm not.
Hopefully, this helps a bit?
It does.
A bit.
Whether that benefit is cumulative remains to be seen.
