Whilst they didn’t invent it, BP put a lot of money into popularising the idea of a carbon footprint. It is a lie of a concept that blames the powerless for the actions of the powerful.
Do what you can to fight climate change, do what you can to reduce your emissions, but actions that can influence policy are a thousand times more important than any amount of reduction you can make in your own carbon footprint.
I suspect BP popularized the idea so you would say exactly what you just did. To give people a way to absolve themselves from accountability for their involvement in the companies actions.
It is of course true that government regulation is effective when not mired by corporate interests, and corporate lobbying (regulatory capture) greatly reduces the individuals ability to respond to climate injustice; however, the issue of personal accountability remains, even if one is essentially powerless do anything about it, no matter what BP says.
I think BP popularized the idea in order to allow people to blame each other instead of the real perpetrators, people who knew they were destroying the planet decades ago and engaged in a well documented and persistent campaign to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt in any movement that would halt their crimes.
The idea of a carbon footprint was a gift from heaven for them as, under the weight of overwhelming evidence, they stopped being able to fight the idea that it was happening. Now they had to convince us all that the most ineffective possible strategy was the truth. Not only does the idea of personal responsibility for structural evils blind us to better strategies, it also conveniently polarises the issue, making people feel judged and pushing them away from the actual truth that climate change is very real, very deadly, and extraordinarily solvable with structural change.
I would have preferred we had the global political will to solve it decades ago by having a plan to ban the use of fossil fuels over a reasonable period (or some such), but we’re well past that world, and I now have hope that the economics of renewables will force the world’s hand, as they’re simply a cheaper option and continually getting moreso. That is to say I would have preferred the structural change be by the will of the people, but it seems it will have to be by the will of capital.
Whilst they didn’t invent it, BP put a lot of money into popularising the idea of a carbon footprint. It is a lie of a concept that blames the powerless for the actions of the powerful.
Do what you can to fight climate change, do what you can to reduce your emissions, but actions that can influence policy are a thousand times more important than any amount of reduction you can make in your own carbon footprint.
I suspect BP popularized the idea so you would say exactly what you just did. To give people a way to absolve themselves from accountability for their involvement in the companies actions.
It is of course true that government regulation is effective when not mired by corporate interests, and corporate lobbying (regulatory capture) greatly reduces the individuals ability to respond to climate injustice; however, the issue of personal accountability remains, even if one is essentially powerless do anything about it, no matter what BP says.
I think BP popularized the idea in order to allow people to blame each other instead of the real perpetrators, people who knew they were destroying the planet decades ago and engaged in a well documented and persistent campaign to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt in any movement that would halt their crimes.
The idea of a carbon footprint was a gift from heaven for them as, under the weight of overwhelming evidence, they stopped being able to fight the idea that it was happening. Now they had to convince us all that the most ineffective possible strategy was the truth. Not only does the idea of personal responsibility for structural evils blind us to better strategies, it also conveniently polarises the issue, making people feel judged and pushing them away from the actual truth that climate change is very real, very deadly, and extraordinarily solvable with structural change.
I would have preferred we had the global political will to solve it decades ago by having a plan to ban the use of fossil fuels over a reasonable period (or some such), but we’re well past that world, and I now have hope that the economics of renewables will force the world’s hand, as they’re simply a cheaper option and continually getting moreso. That is to say I would have preferred the structural change be by the will of the people, but it seems it will have to be by the will of capital.