A while ago, a panel of UN scientists said that humanity needs to get off of fossil fuels by 2100, or we'll really be fucked. Ok. But the problem is that the huge majority of people and governments won't want to give up the cheap energy that oil and gas provide us. Even i won't like it, though i say i'd be willing to accept it.
The point is that individuals can never make a sweeping change such as that. Governments would need to seize the reins of industry and force a new direction. But that's not gonna happen in a democracy. But what about in a 1 party state? Yoyo explained to me that it's even less likely to happen in China, as every govt official reached their position through serious family and business connections: lots of people you can't alienate. So no dice there. Shame, that.
Anyhow we got into this weird conversation about my own environmental practice, which is admittedly pretty small potatoes. So i try and recycle a few bottles, reuse some plastic bags, ride a bike, and avoid flying once in a blue moon. Yoyo rightly says that the amount of change this creates, or the number of people it influences are far too miniscule to create real change. So i argue that i'm not exactly trying to create change but just to do what i'm supposed to do. If i have a platform to connect w/ the public, and i've certainly had a few, then i'll do that, but my goal isn't to change the world at this point in time.
Yoyo feels that if my environmental actions affect her own standard of living, then she can't accept it. I'm pretty sure it's a fact that the number of people, say, avoiding air travel for enviro reasons is pretty damn small. And fair enough, i've traveled to countries 'round the globe, loved every minute of it, and obviously anybody (especially Chinese folks) would also love the opportunity to do so. The discussion def wasn't an argument but it was kinda tense, i thought.