• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    some years later, once corporations had more solid control of legislatures and were no longer afraid of legislation, they started using the carbon footprint idea in reverse as propaganda - they claimed individual responsibility was a myth, only legal action against corporations will help with climate change, so eat whatever you want and buy all the gas you want and buy all the corporate products you want, and don’t feel guilty about it, because it doesn’t matter.

    citation needed

    • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Sure. The Google term you’re looking for is called “discourses of delay”.

      Tldr: The propagandists recognize the global consensus, that climate change is real and must be addressed, is too strong to attack directly. Instead, they work to discredit potential solutions and discourage people from acting. The hope is to delay action on climate change until fossil fuel companies run out of oil to sell.

      The four ways corporate propaganda encourages climate delay are by redirecting responsibility (“someone else should act on climate change before or instead of you”), pushing non-transformative solutions (“fossil fuels are part of the solution”), emphasizing the downsides (“requiring electric vehicles will hurt the poor worst”), and promoting doomerism (“climate change is inevitable so we may as well accept it instead of trying to fight it”).

      And here’s the thing. We need both individual and collective action to mitigate climate change.

      Arguing that only individual action can stop climate change is delayist propaganda used to discourage climate action.

      Arguing that only collective action can stop climate change and individual action is useless is also delayist propaganda used to discourage climate action.

      The propaganda takes an extreme position on both sides and encourages people to fight with another instead of unifying and acting - much like how foreign propagandists in the United States take aggressive, controversial positions on the far left and far right to worsen dissent and discourage unity.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/08/05/scientists-dissect-the-tactics-of-climate-delayers/

      European scientists last month catalogued what they call the “Four Discourses of Climate Delay”—arguments that facilitate continued inaction.

      1 Redirecting Responsibility

      U.S. politicians blaming India and China, Irish farmers blaming motorists, organizations blaming individuals—these common techniques evade responsibility and delay action.

      “Policy statements can become discourses of delay if they purposefully evade responsibility for mitigating climate change,” the scientists say.

      The scientists label as “individualism” the claim that individuals should take responsibility through personal action. I asked if it weren’t also a discourse of delay when activists insist that individual climate action is pointless, that only systemic action can address the problem.

      That too is a discourse of delay, replied Giulio Mattioli, a professor of transport at Dortmund University. The team considered including it under the label “structuralism,” but decided it’s not common enough to include.

      (Depends on where you are. I’d argue that’s very, very common among high consumption American activists.)

      A fascinating study about how much people have internalized these discourses of delay is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378024000797#:~:text=Consisting of four overarching narratives,with its own emotional resonance)%2C