And while the hyper-violent “rivers of blood” framing may be useful for some - I thoroughly refuse the “sad” positioning as I’d much rather build toward happiness in the ideal of “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution”

I’m reminded of the old saying from the days of the AIDS crisis, when Reagan decided HIV was God’s solution to homosexuality and researching a cure went against His will - bury your friends in the morning, protest in the afternoon, and dance all night.

Which does kind of put things into perspective.

And as to the OP’s article - I got to the part where it said “Solidarity is a learned behavior” and was like, okay, yes, this is what prefigurative politics is for. You go out and do stuff together so you can learn to do stuff together so you can do bigger and more important stuff together.

But the article seems to use “prefigurative” to refer to slacktivism and online shitposting and political discussion that serves as virtue signaling rather than a goad to concrete action and so on.

Edit: I do think the article makes half of a good point. If we want to make a change we have to put in the work, go out, work with people, get our hands dirty. I’m not so sure about the sadness and the rivers of blood. I suspect that’s counterproductive.

This has always been one of those, “why the fuck don’t we do this already?” things.

Because the black roof lobby has spent a ton of money to keep roofs black.

Not kidding.

How would you feel about purely secular “mumbo jumbo” ceremonies meant to encourage care for the environment? Like, for example, an organized moment of silence before or after a cleanup (to stop and think about the natural area you’re cleaning up, listen to the birds/bugs/water, whatever)?

Green roofs do need more support. But think of it by percentages. A one-story house is going to need significantly more structural stability than a normal house if it wants to support a green roof. If your building is already built to support 10-20 stories, the additional weight (and cost) of the green roof and the reinforcement underneath is not as big a concern.

Personally, I would prefer solar panels on roofs and green spaces on the ground where the public can enjoy their benefits. But more green is better than less.

The form factor is the problem. We carry a propaganda faucet slash ad delivery service with us 24-7-365, we check it obsessively for a quick dopamine fix throughout the day, and we have convinced ourselves this is good for us.

Thank you for reading it!

Taking away a billionaire’s private jet, as cool as that would be, won’t cut your electric bill. Shitty Euro bakery curtains will 😆

I agree. Biden’s presidency was the biggest lost opportunity of my lifetime for exactly that reason.

FDR responded to a similar global challenge - the Great Depression - by transforming the American government to serve the needs of struggling Americans - and the American people rewarded his courage and vision with overwhelming support when he ran for his second term.

Biden? Barely tried to improve America. And everything he tried failed. He couldn’t even reduce student loan payments. And when Harris had the opportunity to break with him and fight for her own vision of what America could be, she either had no vision of her own or was too afraid to fight for it.

The American “left” is terrified to promote anything more than a return to the Obama-era status quo. But if they don’t find their vision and courage the United States is guaranteed one party Republican rule for another generation.

I cannot say I agree, and I think I recall that some indicators currently suggest we’d need about 3 planets to keep going at the same pace.

The back of the envelope calculation says if everybody on Earth lived like an average American we’d need the resources of about four Earths to cover it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712

That being said, from the same source, if everyone on Earth lived like an average Indian we’d only use half the Earth’s resources and could support twice as many people.

So it’s not about the number of people - it’s about the standard of living those people have and the resources they use.

I think the most effective way forward is more efficient and sustainable lifeways - if the richest countries learn to consume less, if people around the world get access to better technology and better institutions to raise their standard of living without raising their resource consumption.

And it’s interesting to note, the better off people are, the fewer children they tend to have. If we improve people’s lives worldwide, a steadily declining population will be a natural side effect.

An incredibly difficult goal, of course, but worth pursuing.

Yeah, that’s definitely a camping/survivalist/prepping question and outside my expertise. I suspect it’ll take you a long time to learn to be “comfortable” living that way, though 😆

poVoq linked an article from Low Tech Magazine, which is a great resource for low energy sustainable living. I wanted to highlight this older article from them, too:

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2016/05/how-to-get-your-apartment-off-the-grid/

It’s not clear to me, from your post, if you’re thinking about making a home/apartment “off grid”, and limiting your powered appliances to what solar power can cover to prepare for future disruptions to the power grid, or about living outside a fixed dwelling and using portable solar to power a few accessories like a portable induction stove. This matters because solar panels are bulky and batteries are heavy - charging a laptop and phone is trivial with a man-portable setup, but a solar generator capable of boiling water and cooking is not going to fit in a reasonably sized backpack 😆

If you’re thinking about “bugging out” or “going off the grid” in the survivalist sense, living with only the equipment you take with you, you might get better answers on equipment from camping and survivalist forums.

On the one hand, yes, it does.

On the other hand, I don’t want to hear it from an AI content farm.

I think that’s what happens when you wear pants too big for you - the extra material has to go somewhere.

I know it’s not intuitive, but taking in the waist - actually reducing the waist instead of just cinching it with a belt - can help with crotch bulge. You take it in in the back, so that the front is pulled tighter and lays flatter; some excess material is removed, and the rest gets bunched up in the back where it’s not as noticeable.

https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Your-Jeans-Tighter

I’d suggest practicing on a pair of jeans you don’t really mind putting holes in first - I totally screwed up the first time I tried 😆

In this particular article, I think, the author is advocating for rural communes as a solution to the American housing crisis - and, in general, as one potential form of sustainable living - that’s both cheaper and more sustainable than what the United States has been trying for decades.

The author does believe Western urban society is unsustainable due to fundamental resource constraints, but you don’t have to agree on that to think about “Hobbit villages” as one possible sustainable community model.

Let a thousand flowers bloom, right?

You’re not a poser. You’re starting somewhere. And starting anywhere is better than not starting at all.

To supplement what you’re already doing: I strongly believe the most important thing you can do to create change is talk about it.

https://www.talkingclimate.ca/p/the-most-impactful-climate-actions?triedRedirect=true

So when you grow a native lawn, you could let people know what you’re growing and why - talk to your neighbors, put up signs next to your flowers with QR codes linking to species identification, etc. If you’re deciding what to buy based on packaging, tell friends and family why you buy what you buy - you could even write to companies thanking them for using less/no plastic or whatever, you’d be surprised how few people contact companies and how big an impact a single letter can have. Etc.

Your individual action may not have much of an impact, but collective action starts with individual action - with one person inspiring another, and then they go on to inspire more, and more, and more. Be the change you want to see in the world 😆

Why not try to do both?

Okay, let me write in “Climate for President” and see how that goes.

That factoid is vastly misinterpreted. In particular, the term “responsible for” does not mean “emitted”.

The study it’s referencing studied only fossil fuel producers. And it credited all emissions from anyone who burned fuel from that producer to that producer. So if I buy a tank of gas from Chevron and burn it, my emissions are credited to Chevron for purposes of that study.

The study is not saying that 100 companies emit 71% of global emissions. It’s saying that 100 companies produce 71% of the fossil fuels used globally.

Why not vote and protest and consume less?

A whole lot of people hate this notion because it essentially frames it as the consumer’s fault, but at the end of the day it kind of is.

Absolutely. Producers and consumers have joint responsibility for getting us where we are. Climate action requires joint action by consumers and by (or, more likely, against) producers.

Because politicians follow the money. And they understand voters follow the money. So polls may show that legislation against fossil fuel companies is popular. But politicians look at all the gas consumers buy and ask themselves “what will voters do if we pass fossil fuel legislation and gas gets more expensive”? And then they decide not to pass fossil fuel legislation, because even if voters say they want fossil fuel legislation they know how the voters will respond if that legislation makes their consumption habits more expensive.

It’s a lot easier to pass higher gas taxes in cities where 90% of residents take public transit to work than in cities where 5% do.

I was ranting in a different thread about the “discourses of delay” that corporate and right-wing propagandists use to delay climate action. And the fascinating thing is, the idea that only individual consumption matters (the BP carbon footprint ad campaign) and the idea that only the actions of corporations matter (a typical American activist attitude) are both industry propaganda. The former is meant to discourage political action. The latter is meant to discourage individual action. And by framing it as one against the other, propagandists discourage us from taking effective action on either.

We can do both. We have to do both.