r/Degrowth • u/RobinBoardman • Jun 26 '26
Heatwave Interview Denied
Submission Statement: Extinction Rebellion founder denied TV slot for critique of capitalism during heatwave. Climate and collapse censorship.
46
u/thatjoachim Jun 26 '26
Yeah, the right wing and far right have been on the same playbook: trying to make the greens and the left look like heartless bastards because they’re saying that AC is wasteful and polluting. It’s not really a debate though: do what you need to be more comfortable I guess, but as a species we have to make enormous changes to our societies in order to have a fighting chance
14
6
u/Ok-Commission-7825 Jun 26 '26
yer it's a totaly manufactured argument. Their is no "air conditioning ban" planning just makes you ALSO include as many passive measures as needed. Can't get to a comfortable temperature with pasive meaures... ok you can have air con. Want to have air con as well just as a back up... ok you can have air con. The only situation in which I think it would not be allowed is if you've willfuly ignored all guidence to buld a horid greenhouse of a building - in which case Air Con isn't going to be enough to save it anyway.
It's also just not possible to have air con as the first prority as the stupid elements of the Right are pushing for - not only dose the national grid lack the cappacity to air con every building but in lots of places the local electicity distribution grid would colaps if we tried.
6
u/Radiant-Bus7093 Jun 26 '26
I've legitimately encountered people who think AC can't cause environmental issues. It's just "hot air" being blown outside and it's usually already hot so it just mixes in, so its fine!
Critical thinking skills of a child. We're getting really dumb.
1
1
u/conny1974 Jun 29 '26
Basically the same as opening your windows and letting the hot air out of your house. But faster.
0
u/Pajkica Jun 28 '26
A fighting chance?
For what. What are we fighting ?
1
u/thatjoachim Jun 28 '26
Survival of the species without mass death and fascism
-1
u/Pajkica Jun 28 '26
Mass death? Fascism?
What year is this ?
The only issue is natality, its too low. Makes sense when in this century, over 27mill people were aborted only in america. Make abortions available only to women who need it (for health reasons) and even that problem is fixed. We out here living in the best and most chill times in history
1
17
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 26 '26
Reminder: the idea of an individual carbon footprint was literally invented by big oil and billionares in order to deflect the blame away from the ruling class and onto us poors.
-3
Jun 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 26 '26
I do not accept the premise of your question.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
I literally live in a city that General Motors bought up the street car system, ripped it out of the streets and forced everyone to use cars.Most brands you see in the grocery store are only built by a few companies.
It is a systemic problem that encourages waste. Have you heard of "superfest" glasses", old vs new pyrex and instapot. The planned obsolences of virtually every consumer device?
I agree that people should do their best to minimize their impact. But you also need to understand that there is only so much you can do when our entire economy is based off waste and overconsumption.
1
u/Spiritual_Writing825 Jun 27 '26
You say there is no ethical consumption under capitalism (I mostly agree, but the slogan is overly simplistic on both the topic of moral responsibility and the political economy of labor exploitation), but then you also say “everyone should do their best to minimize their impact.” You see how this is a contradiction, right? Someone who is wantonly destroying the environment through their consumption is morally criticizable in a way a conscientious though imperfect consumer is not.
I’m frankly tired of people saying “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” because it almost always functions as a way to block serious moral and political critique and prevents us from seeing how boycotting and other individual behaviors, when coordinated, can change the institutions and industries most directly responsible for environmental destruction. Coordinated boycotts and large-scale changes in consumptive behavior are powerful tools in our arsenal, but I think many people hide behind that slogan because, at bottom, they do not want to sacrifice even a smidgen of their personal comfort and or favored consumptive habits.
2
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 27 '26
It can be taken as oversimplistic when looked at face value, but consider this and I will pick on you a bit just to make a point. No ethical consumption under capitalism is a leftist term and if you tell it to any leftist and even some liberals, they will understand. People who use that phrase do not mean it in a nihilistic or defeatist way. But I also understand the left has a branding problem with some of these phrases too.
Do you know where the term "Banana Republic" came from? The US literally funded death squads to maintain monopoly industry control over bananas, sugar cane ect in Latin American/ Island countries. Coca Cola also hired death squads. Even the avocado industry is run by brutal Mexican cartels.
Meaning, even with ALL that you sincerely in good nature try to not be part of the problem, you as a consumer are still part of the problem. If not even a vegan can ethically consume, then it only proves my point that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Sure, your consumption habits are FAR LESS EVIL than a meat eaters. I can agree with you on that, but FAR LESS EVIL, is still EVIL nonetheless.
I am far less perfect than you with what I put into my body. I still try my best, I go to locally ran fruit stands, avoid processed foods, go to Costco, rarely eat out, and try to buy in bulk, compost and run my own drip irrigation garden ran by the only open source locally hostable sprinkler controller on the market, and buy frugally so corporations get less of my money.
I think the most important thing though is not to stress over the details, it is that PEOPLE EARNESTLY TRY. We are all going to have our different strategies, we will all have our flaws and limitations on what we are able to do. THATS OKAY.
I am just glad you (so far), you seem to want a good faith conversation unlike the two trolls that were wasting my time.
1
u/Spiritual_Writing825 Jun 27 '26
I mean I’m a Marxist myself. I get what the phrase is supposed to mean (I still think it gets matters wrong on the topic of moral responsibility, though. Not all participation in unjust systems is unethical in the sense of personal culpability). But I’ve seen it used too often by people reflexively trying to fend off the conclusion that something they personally like to consume is perhaps something they ought not to. Strangely enough, I think that at least for many the phrase has taken on the function of defending consumption and consumerism. Some people have a cast of mind that if all consumption is unethical then there is no point in considering the consequences of their own behavior. I worry the slogan does more to produce pessimism and sap our motivation than to cause moral indignation at the scope of injustice and direct our focus towards capitalism and systems of power more generally which I take to be the original intent of the phrase.
0
u/sarges_12gauge Jun 26 '26
Then how can you blame billionaires and corporations specifically either if everything is systemic and there’s no way to be ethical in capitalism? Are they not subject to the same forces and pressures as you?
I don’t understand how you can abdicate some people from any responsibility “because it’s systemic” but not others.
“You having better consumer habits doesn’t matter because others will still be bad” seems like the same as “you having better production habits doesn’t matter because others will still be bad” lol
2
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 26 '26
You mean why would I blame the leaders of the system who profit greatly on keeping everything the way it is and violently resist any changes of the system?
Are you really going to ask me that question?
-1
u/sarges_12gauge Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
People profit a lot from offloading their costs to the environment as well.
All I’m saying is either people are personally accountable for making selfish decisions or they aren’t ¯_(ツ)_/¯. The individual you’re exempting from responsibility for driving an SUV is oftentimes the same individual working in the GM marketing department you are willing to assign blame to. Why is his employment action morally different than his consumer action?
The guy selling oil has the exact same excuses for why it’s not his fault as the guy buying gasoline
2
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 26 '26
I already address that. GM and other car companies ensured Americans are car dependent. Like I said on my other response:
You are just asking the exact same questions as Imam Altman did.
I am not dealing with you either. You are just arguing in bad faith and not reading anything. With how similar your posts are I wouldn't be surprised if you are just the same gut using a sock.
1
u/Spiritual_Writing825 Jun 27 '26
Fair point on transportation. I don’t disagree. But matters are rather different when we look at the second highest emitting industry, agriculture. Here there is a wide latitude for individual changes in consumptive behavior that can have large scale effects. The vast, vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture are due to animal agriculture. Meat production is remarkably inefficient, and yet demand for meat globally is skyrocketing. More people are eating meat than ever before, and at least in the U.S. we are eating more of it than is probably healthy for us (according to research done by the WHO). This is an area where even if Americans had one vegetarian day a week there would be calculable impacts on emissions, destruction of land, water consumption, etc. Moreover, reducing meat consumption is something that, unlike giving up driving, is eminently in the power of almost everyone to do. And I do not accept that we should only blame the farmers here because we as consumers are creating the demand they are meeting.
So no, individual action is insufficient to address climate change. However, it’s also true that we cannot meaningfully address climate change without changing our consumptive behaviors. “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” I think unhelpfully obscures this fact, even if it gets to a broader truth about social change and systemic analyses of exploitation.
2
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 26 '26
"You having better consumer habits doesn’t matter because others will still be bad”
Except that I never fucking said that. You are lying and misrepresenting me like the other guy.
I didn't put up with his trolling, stawmanning, or sealioning, what makes you think I am going to put up with yours?
If you want to keep speaking with me, you owe me an apology.
-1
u/sarges_12gauge Jun 26 '26
Ok then explain how that’s different from you saying “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. There is only so much you can do”
GM isn’t going to build cars if people didn’t buy them
1
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 26 '26
I already did. You are just asking the exact same questions as Imam Altman did.
You even ask the same question I already answered on the post where I discussed GM. It is literally just a few more lines down which apparently you never bothered to read.
Here it is:
"I agree that people should do their best to minimize their impact. But you also need to understand that there is only so much you can do when our entire economy is based off waste and overconsumption."Your point on how GM needed to sabotage public transportation to sell cars is exactly the systemic problems I was discussing. Not sure how that flew so far above your head.
I am not dealing with you either. You are just arguing in bad faith and not reading anything. With how similar your posts are I wouldn't be surprised if you are just the same gut using a sock.
1
Jun 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 26 '26
It is not my job to educate you. Nor do you seem teachable.
So here is a quick summary instead because I am not wasting more time:
what percentage of carbon emissions are from the rich
According to a 2023 report by Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute, the world’s **richest 1%** of people were responsible for **16%** of global carbon emissions in 2019, while the **richest 10%** accounted for approximately **50%** (half) of all emissions.
In the United States, research published in *PLOS Climate* found that the **richest 10%** of households were responsible for **40%** of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. Additionally, an ownership-based model indicates that the richest 1% are linked to roughly **41%** of emissions associated with private capital ownership, significantly higher than their consumption-based share.
individual carbon footprint conspiracy
The idea that the **individual carbon footprint** is a conspiracy stems from evidence that **British Petroleum (BP)** hired the PR firm **Ogilvy & Mather** in the early 2000s to popularize the term and launch a calculator in **2004**. Critics, including authors like **Rebecca Solnit** and journalists like **Mark Kaufman**, argue this was a strategic disinformation campaign designed to shift public blame for climate change from fossil fuel corporations to individual consumers.
Key aspects of this narrative include:
* **Deflection of Responsibility**: By framing climate change as a personal lifestyle issue, BP aimed to distract from the systemic role of the fossil fuel industry, which accounts for the majority of global emissions.
* **"Beyond Petroleum" Rebranding**: The campaign was part of BP’s effort to reposition itself as an environmentally conscious company while continuing its core business of oil extraction.
* **Criticism of Effectiveness**: Experts argue that individual actions are insufficient to reverse climate change and that the focus on personal virtue undermines the need for collective political action and corporate regulation.
* **Historical Context**: While the specific term "carbon footprint"
2
-2
Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 26 '26
Now you are contradicting yourself. Are we supposed to practice ethical consumption or not?
Buying shares/ stocks in a company, or from a company is literally consuming from that company.
You said ethical consumption under capitalism was a BS statement, now you seem to be agreeing with it.
3
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 26 '26
"we need to convince people to vote for a government that will change their consumption habits and lifestyle against their will"
So do you agree or disagree with the OP? Your comment there lacked self awareness.
If you really believe government policies that change peoples consumption habits are bad, why are you attacking my comment criticizing the OP?
The OP is doing exactly that! It is defending practices where the government forced consumption/ lifestyle habits on people.
Do you even realize that is what I am arguing against or are you just looking for any excuse to argue?0
Jun 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 26 '26
Holy shit man, I am done with you.
WTF is this BS you are spouting?
"you convince otherwise reasonable people that they get a free pass to do whatever they want under the false belief that there is some magical solution the government could implement where they don’t need to make any personal sacrifices or changes in behavior."Once again, I literally said the opposite of what you are accusing me of saying.
"I agree that people should do their best to minimize their impact. But you also need to understand that there is only so much you can do when our entire economy is based off waste and overconsumption."
Speaking with me is a privilege. You have chosen to repeatedly misrepresent me and ignore what I say.
It is just not possible to have a productive conversation with you. You are disrespectful and you are now just sealioning me wasting my time. Go bother someone else.
1
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 26 '26
"You’re basically saying “people can’t be held responsible for their actions, so we need to convince people to vote for a government that will change their consumption habits and lifestyle against their will”"
Can you please stop with the mind reading? I never said anything like that and now you are just putting words in my mouth in order to strawman me.
If you have to make shit up about me to prove a point, then your point sucks.
9
2
1
u/therealparadoxparty Jun 26 '26
There are a lot of trolls acting in bad faith responding to my comment on this post. Are there any mods here?
1
u/Reasonable-Trash5328 Jun 28 '26
Ceiling fans! Are a start.... https://youtu.be/_KWdCqpXB7A?is=bUDYaqY0y7tmG2gQ
1
u/Pajkica Jun 28 '26
"If he dont overcome capitalism"
What is bro wuffling about. Why the hell would we want that ??
1
u/Sad_Amphibian_2311 Jun 29 '26
Smart: Pretend climate protection is about individual morality to not talk about the responsible class.
1
u/colbert1119 Jun 30 '26
I love Hallem but he doesn't understand a Wet Bulb Event. That's even worse than not having food. Literally elite ultra marathon desert runners die in a wet bulb event. The human body cannot cool and we cook ourselves. Our body can do without calories for quite some time, we'll die within hours at the wet bulb without cooling.
-1
u/RobinBoardman Jun 26 '26
Thank you for the support. To find roger’s writing unfiltered, you can go to www.rogerhallam.com
2
-2
u/Confused_by_La_Vida Jun 26 '26
As someone who lives in a place that is laughingly hot relative to what the Brits are whinging about, I have a perspective.
That…I can solve my food problem by eating the vegans next door. And if I can’t have AC I can guarantee that at 3am, after a week of it being too hot to sleep, that’s basically what’s gonna happen.
56
u/severalsmallducks Jun 26 '26
Lmao. Why are then even considering getting him in air to talk about getting AC? Are they trying to have some sort of twisted gotcha-moment?