ELI5: how does the "most carbon is emitted by 100 large corporations" narrative get us closer to climate action? How do the solutions look different when we start from Shell and Exxon rather than starting from a discussion of individual action?
This narrative bugs me, and I'm looking to understand why it shouldn't.
Part of my objection is that it seems most often to be presented as a balm -- don't worry, you don't have to turn out the lights / drive less / eat lower on the food chain, because climate change isn't your fault -- rather than as an actual strategy. And in that sense, it's presented in opposition primarily to people who are proposing concrete individual/aggregate actions.
My other concern is that the end result looks the same either way to me, and the 100 corps narrative distances the solution from the humans affected.
For ex, we need to reduce driving of motor vehicles, esp single-occupant ones. If we start from asking/understanding why individuals drive so much, we're more likely to achieve the outcome in a way that supports those individuals' mobility needs, where if we start from "it's Exxon's fault, kill oil", we risk leaving people stranded w/o options.
@murphmonkey but Tesla will save us
Are you sure? I mean, this really looks a lot like a silver bullet.
@murphmonkey haha I figured as much. Will happily engage in spirited discussion after work
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!