Revolutionary.

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?

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

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.

non-consumer. ;^)

Board member

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

AK47's😇 ?

CEO?

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.

Politics.

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.

Entrepreneur

Voter

How many people would a gun nut on a rampage have to kill to reduce CO2 emissions as much as a climate change activist?

Politician?

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.

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.

none of these is sufficient. it takes collective action, coordination, and government intervention.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

… 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.

politician

@nordstadtrockt what role do you and I have to play to get politicians to do what's necessary?