,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I got a lot of pushback to this tweet, mostly taking the form “why not both?”
And I gotta say I find that really unsatisfying and unhelpful.
And I gotta say I find that really unsatisfying and unhelpful.
If you want to address or solve a problem, you need a useful and accurate problem definition.
Saying “climate change is a result of everything” is not completely inaccurate, but it is extremely unhelpful.
Saying “climate change is a result of everything” is not completely inaccurate, but it is extremely unhelpful.
I’m sorry but climate change as corporate conspiracy and climate change as widespread human failing cannot be equally true.
If you think climate change is caused by 75 companies who lied about science for decades, well, I disagree with you, but it’s coherent and I understand the divest/lawsuits/social license strategy at play there.
If you think that climate change is caused by human greed and consumerism, well, I disagree with you, but it’s coherent and I understand the downscaling/living lightly/degrowth strategy at play there.
These are…not the same thing. And incidentally, neither of them is as accurate or helpful as viewing climate change as a technological problem that can be managed principally (though not likely solved) by new/improved technologies.
Is greed real? Yes.
Is corporate malfeasance real? Yes.
Should we address those things? Yes.
Is corporate malfeasance real? Yes.
Should we address those things? Yes.
But tackling a problem means understanding it, prioritizing action and solutions, and executing.
Throwing up our hands and saying “it’s all of the above!” or “it’s capitalism!” or whatever is super unhelpful.
Throwing up our hands and saying “it’s all of the above!” or “it’s capitalism!” or whatever is super unhelpful.
Happy Friday!
