Skip to main content


In what role is a person most effective at fighting climate change?

#EvanPoll #Poll

  • Citizen (29%, 167 votes)
  • Consumer (26%, 152 votes)
  • Activist (30%, 173 votes)
  • Donor (14%, 82 votes)
574 voters. Poll end: 1 year ago

Evan Prodromou reshared this.

@Irreverent_B I'm dubious. What are some good resources to read more?
Just about anything by anyone serious about climate, who realises the scale of what must be done, and the power of vested interests to keep making profits come what may, and damn the consequences.

The Drilled podcast by @amywestervelt is excellent.

Season 5 of the Scene On Radio podcast with Amy and John Biewen is a must listen.

Greta speaks a lot of truth. She's got a book out I think.

Peter Kalmus (NASA Climate Scientist) wrote a book "Being The Change. Live Well and Start a Climate Revolution" and it's a good place to start. You can buy a copy or read it free on his website here:

https://peterkalmus.net/books/
I voted "donor" because none of the lest qualifies for "decision maker on the government or institutional level". People who push for and make decisions are still people, right?
@jonn so, if you're not a decision maker in government, how do you get decision makers in government to do what you want them to?
bribes and direct action. But direct action is best when spiced up with cash too, if we want it to be sustainable.

Sadly, direct action is often sponsored by agents who aren't participating in fixing #ClimateChange at all.
Nonexhaustive list of things I think each role does:

- Citizens vote, pressure their representatives, run for office, form parties
- Consumers choose what to buy and how to live, engage in boycotts
- Activists protest, occupy, spread the word
- Donors give money to parties, NGOs, mutual aid
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
Well there's a few roles you missed here...

- Regulator/legislator: craft rules and incentives
- CEO: can just... decide to leave it in the ground
I feel like boycotts are no longer effective when done by those leaning left politically because the political right’s machine wakes up and drives support to it. Here in NA, not enough folks are willing to sacrifice anything to mitigate climate change.
citisen does all the things.
They are all important. How can you be an activist unless you are practicing what you preach?
I know you only have four options, but I wish I could choose an option that said "no one will be effective at this"
Man, vote with your wallet. Consumer power.

Kraft just ditched their *entire* cheese division for plant based alternatives. You know every Big Food is looking to do same. Yeah right now soy milks and plant based cheese is still a bit more expensive than real dairy, but that's going to last maybe a few more years. Once plant based scales they make so much more money per L or / kg AND they get to greenwash by saying its better for the environment! "But it tastes-" they'll figure it out.
@chrisfarnham how do you and I sway board members?
I guess I'm cynically saying that none of the options presented have much of an impact. Corporations have done a great job convincing consumers it's their problem. But companies and their board members really are the only ones that can make a significant difference
@chrisfarnham it very much *is* our problem. We live on this planet.
Billionaire held hostage by citizen, consumer, activist or donor.
I voted "citizen" because it's the best I can do and I want to feel better about that.
I’m a bit terrified that the consumer option is not the main choice. But I guess that I can explain it because we always find ways to let others take responsibility for our actions or lack of it.
Capitalist. They could just, ya know, not polliute and make trash right to the maximum allowed by law and beyond. They have the power there.
@hellomiakoda so, how do we get them to do that?
There are only 2 languages
capitalists understand.

1 - Money. Good luck making the right thing to do more profitable than wanton destruction.

and

2 - Violence.
I don't like it, you probably don't like it, but we're running out of time. They're making it necessary.
Contentious question and I don't feel comfortable answering. The reality is all are important, and different people have different levels of ability to fight at each level.
@mark I like having you in my social circle. Always a good comment!
Naw thank you! ☺️
NONE of those.
We need structured support from government. Motivated response requires incentives. If not, people just act in short term interest.
This is obvious, just look at how people vote
@krisvdm how do you and I get the government to do those things?
5. Political leader
6. Business leader

Those may be too obvious and inaccessible so I agree they don't belong in the poll. The role of the other four is to push these two, basically.
@clacke obviously. So, how do we get them to do what needs to be done?
activists who organize citizens, including spreading the word.
Clearly the answer is going to be different for different people.

Are you rich enough to make a difference with donations? If you are that rich, are you competent / streetwise enough to get your money to a place that matters? (The implosion of the "effective altruism" scene has convinced me almost no one is capable of effective donations.)

I voted activist because it seems like the biggest potential impact for any one person. The others tend to be a matter of numbers.
@skyfaller hmm. But big numbers are made up of individuals working together.
Of course. But I think the symbolic power of one Greta Thunberg has the potential to be much larger than that of one donor, voter, or purchaser.

If you aren't uniquely positioned for one of the other roles, e.g. you're not a Kennedy or other political dynasty that can definitely claim an influential role in govt...

If you're in an area that is gerrymandered, or where there are no green options to purchase, etc...

Direct action or civil disobedience can be done alone.
Your question is about "a person" and I interpret that as there being no guarantee anyone else will join you. The answer for what you could do with a large organization may be different.
@skyfaller so, I don't think there is ever a guarantee of that. But this is a collective problem that needs collective solutions.
@v how do you and I get the CEOs to do what we want?
we could invest in hypnosis? 🤷‍♀️😅
My chosen role isn't on the list; I've picked worker, choosing my job based on that which would be likely to have one of he biggest impacts on climate change that I could.
@unlambda good choice! I wish more people would make it.
Between those options, it’s a tossup between citizen and consumer. But by actual answer is something like “entrepreneur”, although broader (since you don’t necessarily have to be doing it for profit).
consumer; for as long as we derive our self worth from the possession of certain things or qualities, the root cause to climate change will still remain in place.
How many people would a gun nut on a rampage have to kill to reduce CO2 emissions as much as a climate change activist?
@almad how do we get politicians to do what is necessary?
By becoming politicians?

IMHO that’s the core tenant of democracy, and a way for the government to be “us”, not “them”.
None of them will win without /all/ the others. Also, politicians/electorate, who can choose who to listen to
I don’t think “citizen” and “activist” are discrete categories.
@bobkopp I think you're wrong! I listed out discreet activities of both roles.
Yes, subsequently saw that, but still disagree. Protest (activist role in your schema) often has a goal pressuring representatives (citizen role in your schema). And how does one run for office or form parties (citizen role) without a suite of activities that include spreading the world (activist role)?
the most effective role in fighting climate change has been taken by billionaires and corporations, and their fight to avoid any climate change back to prior levels has been a wild success for half a century. Hence, donor and lobbyist are clearly the most effective roles within our systems of government.
@zachnfine so, how do you and I convince the government to do what's necessary to keep temperature rise under 1.5C?
I think that’s what you intended by the question. But as it was stated, the most effective actors have been donors by a long shot.

If asked what the 99.9% who don’t have that kind of personal power could do, I’d say the most effective action would be activism that convinces those with power that they’d be better off with <1.5C temperature rise, or that sidelines their power.
none of these is sufficient. it takes collective action, coordination, and government intervention.
@exchgr how do we organize and coordinate collective action?

How do you and I get government to intervene?
by talking 1:1 to lots of people with opposing views and convincing them of the truth, and having them do the same
i guess more accurately, organizer
So, I've had some responses with violent ideation in them.

Even if you're "just joking" or "only saying", it is not welcome in my head or on my timeline.

I had to block some nice people I don't know well, which was regrettable.
haven't seen the replies, didn't occur as a response to your question, but ... How do you feel about e.g. Ministry for the Future? I haven't read it but my understanding is that it revolves around the idea that inaction on climate change *is* violence (not just ideation) by politicians and capitalists against esp. the global south / BIPOC and that at some point agonism unavoidably turns to antagonism?
@blaine I very much liked the Ministry for the Future!

I can't have my personal feed and site, with my real name and real associations, be a place for graphic speculation on terrorist violence.

It would interfere with my work and my colleagues' work, both on the fediverse and for climate change tech.
When I said revolutionary, I certainly did not mean or mean to imply violence.

I'm guessing you realised that as I'm not blocked, yet want to be clear:

Yes, I think we need revolutionary changes. No I do not see violence as acceptable or useful.

Only peace can overcome violence.
@Irreverent_B Understood. Honestly, I just don't want obviously problematic keywords showing up in my public feed.
Mastodon is only searchable by hashtag if that helps.

I'm sorry people were disrespectful.
please tell me what "ideation" means. Wikipedia is not helpful 🤔
thx, I still cannot imagine what they have said - but then I maybe don't want to know anyway :flan_wink:
"Donor" being a euphemism for oligarch.

The public's opinion has been shown to be *indistinguishable from noise* when measuring it's effect on political decisions.
I voted citizen.

To paraphrase a successful environmental campaigner, conservationist, natural historian, and wildlife conservation charity CEO (with PhD in ecology) I know: if you're at the stage of chaining yourself to trees, it's already too late; you've already lost. We need to operate at the policy level for any chance of sustained success.
Also, citizens can also be consumers, activists, and donors.
@charlesroper yes, I said roles of the person, not different people.
This poll is missing "Dead".
Interesting poll, as usual, but I wonder if maybe activist couldn't be bisected into different subtypes that might significantly change the numbers. 1) The passive advocate working mostly political levers, (e.g., Planned Parenthood) vs 2) the much more aggressive (and/or militant) political agitator and civil disobedient who deploys much more social, human and economic capital and stunts to disrupt the status quo to impact a political end. (e.g., Operation Rescue)
if by "a person" you mean any random individual, I think activist, though I think that effect is really de minimis. If the question is how could a single individual have the greatest impact, I think the answer is to pick a very wealthy person and for them to be a donor.
@mjec great. How do you and I find them and get them to be a donor?
@mjec
Interesting spread of results on this one. Not clear cut in people's minds, evidently.

I voted for Citizen.

Consumers can't do enough at the individual level to achieve what's needed. Ultimately, regulation of what they can consume is required to have the scale of impact required there (eg. I'd love to avoid buying anything wrapped in plastic but it's nigh on impossible; ergo regulations are needed to force a reduction in the amount of plastic packaging).
Interesting poll, and yet -as always- some thoughts

Activist 1st. Major societal changes appear to happen when a leading minority of 10% set a new standard for what’s normal

Consumer definitely last. Purchasing power is overrated. That is, unless you put green investments (including pension funds!) in the consumer category. Then it would be a good 2nd!

I won’t discount voting, but I’d say lawsuits are more influential under Citizen - those have raised awareness in NL
All of the above? Though since filthy rich live without regulation or consequences and contribute most, it feels like aa futile task until elections result in responsible leaders not beholden to money.
@CStamp so, citizenship to get better government to regulate private actors?
Sounds right. 😀
consumer. The current governing economy paradigm would not survive a severe withdraw of consumption as it is based on this massige pillar. Working -in the economy- less and for a better final product goes hand in hand. Politics alao belong to “the economy” and serve it.
Wow, this was super contentious. Great conversations.

A *lot* of doomism. That's a bummer; it's a toxic disinformation trend that keeps smart and capable people from doing what's needed to save the planet.

If that's where your head's at, find a way out. We need your help.

My response is citizen; I think it's our best option for effecting change. It's really hard, I know.
if you're talking about being an engaged and active citizen, at the moment that's indistinguishable from "activist."

To me, "citizen" also makes the assumption that our existing systems of government are up to the task, when - as victims of corporate and industry capture at a vast scale - they patently are not
what do you think about the relevance of social infrastructure (e.g. ultimately the implementation of an UBI) in solving the climate crisis? As some sort of an all hands on deck effort.
I would go with consumer.
I voted donor because I kind of assumed that we're talking about a single person, and that a donor would be someone with lots of money. Money rules the world. Now I'm sad. Time for a beer.
@cambraca so, are you sure? I think there's a lot of power in ideas.
not at all. I just imagined myself as a wealthy donor.

Also, the country I live in, Ecuador, is *struggling* so much lower in the Maslowian Hierarchy Of Needs for Countries™️; I keep hearing how "next week" we may not have a president anymore. Makes it hard to think about the climate, which of course is its own issue.

But I agree, a good enough idea (which I guess would come from a citizen) could turn things around. But then you see Greta being taken away by the police.

Another beer...
… and we have to do it ourself. Every single action matters. It contributes to a common result.
I'm not sure that's displacement per se, maybe more a sort of learned helplessness? But it's also recognizing it's a systemic issue and the systems are governed by, well, governments and corporations (that often own politicians that prevent governments from enacting constructive change). It's normal for people who have never really had to fight someone/something far more powerful than themselves to feel intimidated and helpless (because on some levels you really do need to be ready to die when you're fighting for your life). It, also, can be an excuse for inaction or just putting one's head in the sand.

But, yeah, we need to apply pressure and also try to figure out ways to support each other because as things get worse it's going to be all about mutual aid. And building those networks is how we also find ways to join together to apply pressure when and where we can.
. I heard a radio show describing the agricultural Industry in Denmark. The internal Danish market only accounts for a fraction of the total agricultural production. So, for that industry if you try to be a political consumer you have lost in advance. It needs to be regulated by the government, hence i --voted-- citizenship. It could be funny to model the interactions between the different categories. How activism influences citizens and so on.
Hi @evan , i voted »consumer« because imho - logically - consumerism is the pivot of the whole mess.

If consumers don't buy, no demand, there is no production, no energy use, no pollution, no global heating etc.

And, not to forget, citizens, activists, donors are all consumers, too.

It is #petroconsumerism that drove the wheel in the ditch.
Not enough consumers willing to vote with their wallets
it's missing some of the most impactful role

* striking or seceding worker
* labor organizer
* saboteur
* community builder

Also climate change is not something you fight, it's something you either mitigate or adapt to. "Fight" sounds like something that can have an end or that can be won and neither case applies to climate collapse.
@nordstadtrockt what role do you and I have to play to get politicians to do what's necessary?