This is a false dichotomy, the way you shutdown O&G is through political action, making personal choices to limit your personal carbon output is a political action. It directly hurts O&G and directly helps the alternatives.

Making a personal choice helps drive political will which changes how people make personal decisions which drives political will. Arguing about which step to bootstrap the process seems pointless. If it's easier for you to show up at Tuesday at 11am to city council meetings and yell for more bus routes do that. If it's easier to increase your commute 20minutes and drive up ridership to give ammo to the council people, do that. If it's easier to drop a big sum of money to lobby the government do that. Just do whatever you can that helps.

We are all drops of rain in an ocean, but without the rain the ocean would run dry.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You fell into the trap that this post is exposing. Of course personal action matters, everyone knows it and there's no chance we'll forget it, but the heavy polluting companies want to focus our attention on that alone, to keep it off of themselves. Please don't assist them in doing so.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

No they didn't. They clearly stated that we need to take political action which is the only way to force the companies to align with our goals. Policies that drastic need a lot of backup in the society that legitimises these policies, which is what they meant by "we are all raindrops"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

I think this is the same carbon emissions : just split differently. Shell consumers are the very same citizens. Also 16tons is huge, even compared to other developed countries in Europe for example (almost twice as much !)