Advocacy and personal action go together. While we work for systemic change, it's essential that we address the component of climate change in our direct control - the emissions caused by our actions.
True. An all of the above approach is best. I'd also add that here in Asheville our local government has been very responsive to our concerns about reducing carbon. As just one example, the city and county installed large solar arrays on most many government buildings (including schools). We can affect governmental change on a local level. Maybe statewide next??
For those of us who can afford it, buy an electric car or at least a plug-in hybrid. As a bonus, Duke will reimburse you for the level 2 charger that you have installed at your home.
Also, buy a heat pump water heater. Duke may provide rebate money for this (if you're switching from an standard electric tank). A heat pump water heater is 3 to 4 times more efficient than a standard electric and twice as efficient than a gas water heater. Switching to a heat pump water heater will pay for itself more quickly than just about anything else you can do to your home.
Nice article. On additional benefit of making personal changes is identifying the barriers to the change you desire. That allows us as activists to be more effective in our policy choices. For instance when I replaced my gas boiler with a heat pump I realized that the cost would be a barrier for some families and that renters don't have that option. Therefore I am advocating for tax incentives for heat pumps for both homeowners and landlords.
Yes, we are much more effective advocates when we can tell our story about our actions and ask for help (for those with less income in this case, or for parts of the system we have a harder time changing.)
Good points, Jim. With regard to corporate “morality,” of course their overarching mandate is to maximize shareholder value. In fact, that’s their legal responsibility as fiduciary entities!
So the only way around this is for government to impose rules that align shareholder profit with moral benefit.
In the matter of climate, this means carbon pricing. If use of fossil energy results in a cost that exceeds that from using non-fossil energy, the corporation will do the ethical thing because it costs less.
As Bob Inglis has said, this is the proper role of government — to serve the public interest where private interests will otherwise fail to do so.
I agree that carbon pricing is a great policy that drives both individual and corporate behavior. AND I simultaneously believe that we shouldn't wait for carbon pricing to shift our own personal behavior to lower emissions consumption. There is now reason to wait for the government to raise prices on high emission options before I make my own changes.
The people of this country are known for their love of individual freedoms, but that sadly has translated into—freedom to do what I want, period. I recently watched the documentary The White House Effect (2024) on Netflix. It’s done entirely with archival footage to document the 1988-92 era. It was enlightening to see, for example, how some people reacted to Jimmy Carter asking citizens to put on a sweater and conserve.
Remembering that we “get out” what we “put in” to any endeavor is helpful. When it comes to cutting emissions, I would suggest we get much more out of our efforts than we put it. I appreciate your blog and hope the information will empower and inspire. Onward!
The “systemic change” comment can be a way to rationalize not committing to personal change. While systemic change may accomplish bigger needed improvements, we can’t rationalize away our wasteful personal habits that collectively make a substantial hit on climate change. We can all individually do better, one change at a time.
I also think some people simply have not thought through the full consequences of the point they are making. Suggesting the government should tell me to make changes I am not willing to make on my own seems misguided to me. Yet some very well respected voices make this argument.
True. An all of the above approach is best. I'd also add that here in Asheville our local government has been very responsive to our concerns about reducing carbon. As just one example, the city and county installed large solar arrays on most many government buildings (including schools). We can affect governmental change on a local level. Maybe statewide next??
For those of us who can afford it, buy an electric car or at least a plug-in hybrid. As a bonus, Duke will reimburse you for the level 2 charger that you have installed at your home.
Also, buy a heat pump water heater. Duke may provide rebate money for this (if you're switching from an standard electric tank). A heat pump water heater is 3 to 4 times more efficient than a standard electric and twice as efficient than a gas water heater. Switching to a heat pump water heater will pay for itself more quickly than just about anything else you can do to your home.
Nice article. On additional benefit of making personal changes is identifying the barriers to the change you desire. That allows us as activists to be more effective in our policy choices. For instance when I replaced my gas boiler with a heat pump I realized that the cost would be a barrier for some families and that renters don't have that option. Therefore I am advocating for tax incentives for heat pumps for both homeowners and landlords.
Yes, we are much more effective advocates when we can tell our story about our actions and ask for help (for those with less income in this case, or for parts of the system we have a harder time changing.)
Good points, Jim. With regard to corporate “morality,” of course their overarching mandate is to maximize shareholder value. In fact, that’s their legal responsibility as fiduciary entities!
So the only way around this is for government to impose rules that align shareholder profit with moral benefit.
In the matter of climate, this means carbon pricing. If use of fossil energy results in a cost that exceeds that from using non-fossil energy, the corporation will do the ethical thing because it costs less.
As Bob Inglis has said, this is the proper role of government — to serve the public interest where private interests will otherwise fail to do so.
I agree that carbon pricing is a great policy that drives both individual and corporate behavior. AND I simultaneously believe that we shouldn't wait for carbon pricing to shift our own personal behavior to lower emissions consumption. There is now reason to wait for the government to raise prices on high emission options before I make my own changes.
The people of this country are known for their love of individual freedoms, but that sadly has translated into—freedom to do what I want, period. I recently watched the documentary The White House Effect (2024) on Netflix. It’s done entirely with archival footage to document the 1988-92 era. It was enlightening to see, for example, how some people reacted to Jimmy Carter asking citizens to put on a sweater and conserve.
Remembering that we “get out” what we “put in” to any endeavor is helpful. When it comes to cutting emissions, I would suggest we get much more out of our efforts than we put it. I appreciate your blog and hope the information will empower and inspire. Onward!
The “systemic change” comment can be a way to rationalize not committing to personal change. While systemic change may accomplish bigger needed improvements, we can’t rationalize away our wasteful personal habits that collectively make a substantial hit on climate change. We can all individually do better, one change at a time.
I also think some people simply have not thought through the full consequences of the point they are making. Suggesting the government should tell me to make changes I am not willing to make on my own seems misguided to me. Yet some very well respected voices make this argument.