"Humans are to blame for climate change".
Really? Is a Bangladeshi seamstress to blame? Is a street child from a Brazilian favela to blame? Or perhaps a subsistence fisherman from Somalia or an elderly tribeswoman from Papua New Guinea?
Some quite specific humans are to blame.
@datarama 💯 preach
@datarama the philosophical question how to read " humans are to blame"
Does it mean "all humans are to blame"
Does it mean "humanity as a whole is to blame"
Does it mean "some humans are to blame".
take your pick and fight those who see it differently forever if you like
Jun 26, 2026, 12:23 PM
Jun 26, 2026, 12:36 PMJun 27, 2026, 12:56 AM
Jun 27, 2026, 7:09 AM@hanscees @datarama the "blame" is very human concept. Thinking about natural laws and not human cultural views, the phrase "consumption of human species are causaly responsible for climatwle change".
Now... the blame. First of all, I don't really find oligarchs very useful, so blaming theym would mean appreciating their rile of being primary cause of anything, good or bad.
I just see huge wave, perhaps tsunami-like, of human consmuption, enabled by human knowledge and work. The rich are like surfers of this wave. They do not really cause the wave, the climbed on the top, using tricks outside the rules of economy as percieved by masses, and they enjoy riding the wave. But they are not primary cause of the wave. You can blame them if you like, but it would not change anything.
The wave is here, and the wave is us, all. And lot us are responsible. I did fly around the world a lot, when younger. I just thought "ok, let's plant more trees". But actuallt, it doesn't matter, if you fly economy class or private jet, in a way. Aggregating demand just means even more global consumption as a result.
Anyway, the concept of personal carbon footprint is not accepted by those, who could perhaps make difference. It is shame of course. But grounding private jet fleet would not save us. It would be perhaps important symbol, ok. Like putting out a cigarette, when you watch the building on fire...
The green thinking and left-socialist thinking is not identical. At the same time, while blaming anyone else (oligarchs, immigrants... choose your side!) Is psychologicaly healthier, than blaming yourself... still, blaming captain of Titanic would not be enough to stop it from sinking.
What we need is correct action, not blaming anybody. The reaction "let's burn private jets and then commit suicide" is little bit theatric. I would like to be able to imagine solution. If the private airplanes are converted to electric... would we still blame them?
@xChaos @hanscees @datarama I agree with a lot of what you say. But changing the fuel of private jets doesn't make them much better. The issue of private transport (of most sorts) is that it produces more pollution per person per mile. Changing the fuel may slightly reduce the 'per mile' bit, if it is more efficient or produces less pollution, but won't reduce the 'per person' bit. A public plane reduces the 'per person' bit a lot.
Jun 27, 2026, 8:04 AM@UkeleleEric Really, going into details of current supply chain and its carbon footprint is not what I intended.
Inequality of consumption is one issue. I mostly agree, that the the current level of inequality is unsustainable and unlike the usual historic levels of inequality, it is no longer motivating people (which is obvious, if you look around).
But the overall consumption is what is problem. Of course.. somehow telling the elites, that they are symbols, and that flying to international conferences about climate change is really not going to help much, that it is just doing different tricks while surfing the wave.. it would be nice.
But the overall mass of global consumption is still here and the blame should be somehow distributed equally.
The money really just reflect inequality of consumption, but not its total amount. I like to say "money is ordinal, not cardinal metric" - money just reflects your position in the queue (rich don't form queues).
The idea, that planet with limited resources would sustain unlimited number of people, if only everything was fairly redistributed, is probably as dangerous, as idea of doing carbon capture if enough wealth is available.
I am technically minded, so I tend to start with energy consumption. And there are lot paradoxes here. Living in a single household during harsh winter may have carbon footprint comparable to traveling south (like birds). If you use coal for heating (many central European houses still do), it may be even comparable to flying there in private jet....
BTW... individual energy consumption of birds is not so high... and the nature invented exactly this trick :-)
So somehow... the society will have to structure itself differently. And the change has to be coordinated, individual change is not enough.
@xChaos @datarama the engine in our society of wrongdoing is #capitalism
#billionaires are the product. It went wrong with Thatcher and Reagan handing over power from nation states to the financial system.
We need #tobintax to get our money back and to be able to steer society into a sustainable course.
So political parties and right wing oligarchy are to blame for sure.
Jun 27, 2026, 9:04 AM@hanscees @datarama It is definitely not the first time I hear this ideas and arguments. It even may be the direction in which the events will take turn... just like Roman empire en-masse turned to Christianity, after first prosecuting it heavily...
What I am saying, that things like Tobin tax change don't magically optimize the consumption.
As for flying, the European tax cuts for airlines are ridiculous, but everybody is silent, because the voters won't vote for more expensive holidays.. but still, the total amount of consumption would not change. The money flows would change, but unless you totally restrict access to certain resource, the resource is going to be consumed.
Less private jets and more people flying to cheap holiday would be nice.. but the environmental impact is not social impact. Environmental impact It would be the same. And it is extremely unpopular opinion, because, no one really wants less consumption: people on right blame people, who supposedly don't work, so there could be more consumption, people on left blame inequality of consumption, but still want total amount of consumption to rise.
There is no easy way out. Of course, some solutions are easy: like do not force everyone to use AI, with its ridiculous energy consumption, or so.
@xChaos @hanscees @datarama "the total amount of consumption would not change"
If that were true, further subsidising resource consumption would have no effect as well.
But, in reality, most resources are consumed more when they are cheaper. And the reverse is also true: resources are consumed less when they are more expensive.
@ahltorp @xChaos @datarama To make co2 go down we need other rules/ laws / treaties. Because of the current power of rich people thats not gonna happen. So we need to take their power / money away and sifon it back to society. When that is being done and their power erodes society ( nation states) can alter the rules / laws / treaties.
Thats why we need a big fat #tobintax.
The power should be with nation states, not with oligarchy. Its fundametal for chage toward #ClimateAction
fundametal is the new #music trent for people being very angry they cant buy a house
(funda is a house buy and sell platform in the Netherlands)
#metal #shitposting
@datarama I think it is more nuanced than that. The favela street-child has few opportunities to make choices that affect climate change, while the top politician that takes oil-company bribes to deny reality has much more agency.
Most of us are somewhere in the middle, and most of our choices (decarbonising transport and heating, eating less meat, flying less, not voting for climate-denying politicians, etc.) have middling impacts.
As individuals we are only to blame for the choices we have.
@EI3JDB That is my point.
Abstracting both the street child and the oil executive into "humans" and assigning the blame to that category unfairly places responsibility on the former and absolves the latter.
@EI3JDB I maintain a low footprint by the standards of my country and social class. I don't fly, I use public transit, I don't own a car, I'm vegetarian and I power-optimize my electronics. (And, yes, I live in a small apartment that doesn't have AC and is designed to be kept warm very efficiently during the winter). I wear and repair my clothes until they're worn out - in fact, I generally try to buy things with very long operational lifespans to minimize how much garbage I produce.
And my footprint is still *a lot* larger than any of the four fictional representatives of much of the human life on this planet. I've made some individual choices that are a tiny drop in the bucket (but at let me live with myself) - and many of which are only possible because I'm in a relatively privileged position. It's the Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness: I avoid buying junk that needs to be constantly replaced because I can afford to do that.
But despite my relatively privileged position, my choices are still quite constrained - in the wrong direction; they constrain me to have a *larger* environmental footprint than I think I ought to have. If I were poorer and still lived where I do, I would probably *increase* my environmental footprint. And the network of power and trade that establishes these constraints are maintained and expanded by people. People who represent a very tiny and absolutely unrepresentative part of "humans".
@datarama I agree that this absolves the street-kid but I don't think it absolves the middle-class worker who chooses an SUV where a compact car (or even a bus) will do.
For example, my neighbourhood is much more sparsely populated than yours and we can't really avoid car ownership. That's systemic. But we chose a compact EV instead of a pickup - which is a choice we can make (now)
Those sorts of choices do matter if enough people make them.
@EI3JDB As we say in Danish, "mange bække små gør stor å" (many small streams make a great river).
I have an American relative who tells me that one of the reasons many of them drive ridiculous giant cars over there is ... road safety. This is because the giant cars are normalized, and driving a compact car puts you at risk of getting hit and killed by someone driving a Suburb-Panzer. The statistics bear this out: The increased popularity of large SUVs has *increased* traffic fatalities for pretty much everyone who's not driving a SUV. This means that in that context, buying a big SUV sure looks like a reasonable way to keep your family safe.
But I'd say that the most productive place to cast blame here isn't a random American family who somehow has to keep existing in the middle of an insane vehicular arms race, but rather the politicians and automaker executives who allowed that arms race to kick off in the first place (and, in the latter case, directly profit from it).
Likewise, it's a *choice* that basically the entire so-called western world changed our approach to living arrangements in a way that makes it difficult to function without a car. It's not something inherent to the human condition, it's a politico-economic decision that can be (and in some places, to various extents, *has been*) reversed.
@datarama And one of the things we can do is vote for politicians that will make those changes.
At least those of us who live in countries with sane-ish politics can. Not sure what to suggest in two-party FPtP countries. :-(
Jun 26, 2026, 12:09 PM@EI3JDB @datarama I'm not condoning violence here, but in a country where you can buy guns over the counter, any concerned citizen can take their gun, point it at the evil trying to profit from killing millions, and pull the trigger. As was aptly demonstrated in recent history btw.
Pretending a broken system of governance somehow prevents citizens from seeking justice is historically incorrect and ridiculous.
If you would come up with a creative nonviolent way to do something, I would respect that. This "can't change the system because of the system" attitude is the problem imo.
@iwein @datarama Here in Ireland voting (kinda, sorta) works.
For those where voting doesn't work, I genuinely don't know what the best course of action is. I could make pronouncements but they would be coming from a place of ignorance. If you're asking the question and you live in such a place, chances are you know way more than me, and have much more skin in the game.
Good luck!
@datarama @EI3JDB
Absolving the random American family is a claim that American democracy & capitalism have completely failed - I have some sympathy in that argument. However I don't believe it's entirely true.
Today more people complain about the price of gas or the lack of parking than notice the deaths & hospitalizations cars cause even in their own communities let alone climate change.
The refusal to look at the problems because they object to the potential solutions is so strong among the 'random Americans' that it has become culpability IMHO.
Something like 11 years ago Picketty found that the top 10% of emitters produced 45% of the pollution.
@JeffC1956 @datarama @EI3JDB
We don't all benefit though. All those practices you cite mean there's fewer resources available each year and they are more controlled by fewer people leaving most people more vulnerable to monopolies, trade wars, etc etc. Every year those things go on fewer people benefit.
@EI3JDB @datarama Good point. But there is no hard guilty or not guilty. There are various levels of responsibility. As consumers, we need to look at our individual CO2/environmental footprint. As a society, we need to look at the type of infrastructure we build and the consequences that has. As voters/politicians, we have to look at the laws that guide our companies so that they are disincentivized from making harmful decisions.
@datarama I night be out of the loop here. Is someone trying to collect reparations from those people you mentioned?
@rudolfs @datarama
"Humans are to Blame for Climate Change" is the same sort of statement as "Jews are to blame for the Iran War"
It is a blanket statement that unfairly maligns everyone in the group, when there are specific people with names and addresses that are to blame for both the catastrophic destruction of the planet, and, likewise, the illegal war with Iran (many of the same people).
@JizzelEtBass @datarama in case of climate change, the list of people to blame is a very long one. Using public transport to get to work? Guess how much CO2 that emits.
@JizzelEtBass @datarama This whole thread is stupid. For starters "Humans are to blame for climate change" is not "Each human is to blame [...]" in any reasonable interpretation. Noone was blaming a street child for climate change. Seriously, who was harmed?
"Jews are to blame for the Iran War" is not the correct analogy. A better one would be "Israelis are to blame for the Iran War". And this is a much more reasonable take.
@JizzelEtBass @datarama But back to topic. I am saying that anyone who lives a somewhat modern life is contributing to climate change. If the person is buying anything that is produced industrially (food, clothing, transportation etc.), they are part of the problem. There are a lot of such people. Sure, maybe a guy on a bus is emitting less than someone driving an SUV, but they still pay for oil companies to keep drilling.
@rudolfs @datarama At this point, it is appropriate to refer to Mister Gotcha by Matt Bors.
https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
@JizzelEtBass @datarama your search for a label is not done yet. A gotcha guy would object to imperfect people pointing out flaws. I object to idea that there is a somewhat limited list of people to blame. Sure, some have done more harm than others, but that doesn't absolve the rest.
@rudolfs @datarama
Given your previous responses, it appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Populations & sub groups and/or logic.
My guess is that you are just a #ReplyGuy , AKA a #Sealion, IOW a #Troll. It appears you didn't read the original post thoroughly which stated:
{
"Humans are to blame for climate change".
Really? Is a Bangladeshi seamstress to blame? Is a street child from a Brazilian favela to blame? Or perhaps a subsistence fisherman from Somalia or an elderly tribeswoman from Papua New Guinea?
Some quite specific humans are to blame." [1]
}
To which you replied:
{
". Is someone trying to collect reparations from those people you mentioned?" [2]
}
The post was clearly not about "reparations" "in any reasonable interpretation" but about groups & sub groups.
You state: "Humans are to blame for climate change" is not "Each human is to blame [...]" in any reasonable interpretation." in your reply [3] to my response [4], yet this is exactly the correct interpretation. This was also the point the Original post author was trying to make.
Rather than 'Humans', would you prefer a more general statement, such as:
" 'Members of the family Hominidae' are to blame for climate change?" Or:
" 'Members of the Class Mammalia' are to blame for climate change? "
How about one that is much more specific? Given your statement "anyone who lives a somewhat modern life is contributing to climate change..." [5]
Reformatting this, it would become:
" 'Humans who live a somewhat modern life and enjoy goods produced by industrialization' are to blame for Climate Change "
Would you agree that 'Humans who live a somewhat modern life' are a sub-set of 'Humans' AND that Hominidae contains the group 'Humans who live a somewhat modern life' ?
[
#Source :
1) https://hachyderm.io/@datarama/116815738467957424
2) https://toot.lv/@rudolfs/116816022978725908
3)https://toot.lv/@rudolfs/116818304651904954
4) https://kolektiva.social/@JizzelEtBass/116816094979445204
5) https://toot.lv/@rudolfs/116818336180095648
]
@rudolfs @datarama No, the point is that the abstraction of "humans" into a group, rather than naming and pointing out what systemic practices and people involved in furthering those practices is taking the bite and direction out of what needs to be done.
There's plenty of humans trying to fight against those practices and make better alternatives, but those who have earned their money on keeping them going continue to do so.
@datarama even within west, ones who fly around the world on holidays yearly, changing their wardrobes every season, buying all the latest itoys, yet they frown upon the poor for driving around ancient dinosaur juice cars unlike their flash EVs and wants to promote policies to tax/ban those out of existence when in reality those poor have tiny carbon footprint even with a junker. But suggest reducing consumption to them and spontaneous meltdown takes place saying shit like don't blame the user.
Jun 26, 2026, 11:41 AM@junes Yes, exactly.
@passwordsarehard4 @junes @datarama could be rounding error?
Jun 26, 2026, 11:47 AM
Jun 26, 2026, 12:25 PM@HakeemG @dtm @datarama @harold@mastodon.social
I collect books about cars and motoring - those I have from late 20th century mention USA around late 1960s onwards as *leaders* in developing eco-friendly vehicles (including experimental EVs), many states banned leaded petrol long before European nations did - but this all seemed to go out of the window when Reagan was elected..
Jun 26, 2026, 1:21 PM
@tamarasellman @svavar @vfrmedia @HakeemG @dtm @datarama Maybe split the difference and pin it at 1964 with the chicken tax, "which imposed a 25% tariff on potato starch, dextrin, brandy, and light trucks imported from Europe as a retaliatory measure against European tariffs on American chicken imports. Today, only the light truck component of the Chicken Tax remains, upheld by continued lobbying efforts from the auto industry" https://publications.lawschool.cornell.edu/jlpp/2024/11/25/the-unchecked-rise-of-trucks-and-suvs-in-america/
Jun 26, 2026, 12:40 PM
@maxthefox @dtm @datarama @harold
If the average driver in the United States upgraded to a highly fuel efficient car, the impact on greenhouse gas emissions would be massive. It would reduce total emissions by 10%, equivalent to shutting down 130 coal fired plants.
Jun 26, 2026, 2:18 PM@HakeemG @maxthefox @datarama @harold
You’re putting the blame on citizens rather than corporations or governments and you’re virtue signaling to do it. It will never be an effective strategy. Everyone doesn’t have access to fuel efficient vehicles. Most people get what they can afford.
@dtm @maxthefox @datarama @harold
Yes!!! All these fucking assholes driving their huge gas guzzlers are to blame. Virtue signaling my ass, why is it anytime someone in this country isn't a self absorbed asshole they get accused of virtue signaling? Believe it or not some of use are just genuinely decent human beings, you should try it sometime.
