If you might be very near some threshold where the outcome can go from bad to good, then this kind of microoptimization in the face of macrowaste can make sense. Otherwise, it's actually more wasteful to do small things when the big things don't change.
The urge to "do my part" is a strong and important one, but in some contexts it leads to a more wasteful outcome.
Which eventually will enable new policies that do a better job of changing the big things.
Such as - I guess that the biggest, environmental, advantage of an electric car is signalling that hey, I'm willing to put many thousands of dollars and tolerate an reduced range - partly because I value the environment.
Doesn't matter if an electric car actually is better for the environment (buying a new car seldom is) - it signals a will and desire. Both of which are paramount for policy-makers.
Walk the walk and talk the talk in small ways on a daily basis, and learn about and push for policy changes to try and encourage big changes.
Or, to put it differently: on average, the people I know in my life who think about straw-waste reduction (and similar activities) positively are the ones also wanting larger changes. The people I know with disdain for "straw bans" and "plastic bag bans" also don't care about, or aren't aware of, the larger issues. They use the argument that "it's an irrelevant fix" as a shield to avoid thinking about the actual larger problems.
The skeptic in me believes the whole thing has been promoted to make people feel better and keep on consuming. Just like "recycling" where most just goes to a landfill or worse.
It's just another way to punt the problem to the end user instead of dealing with it in a systematic manner.
>It’s in the commodity itself the price of your leftist, honest, resistance to consumerism is included.[0]
Some hope for a consumerist or market solution because that is the easiest way to feel like a part of the solution and not part of the problem. Individual responsibility is a concept shared by both groups to varying degrees. This is exploited by the market to create a market for products advertised as solutions. These market solutions may not go far enough, but it signals a willingness to put your money where your mouth is. That it ends up being ineffectual or even counter productive is a cruel irony of consumerism and its way of serving its own ends and not necessarily those of any individuals market participants. It’s almost like the market is a means to its own end and any consequences bad or good are incidental to the goals of the participants. If we’re trained to shop on price or quality it seems that every kind of solution the market can provide will inherently be a marketable solution. As in a product or service or other good.
I guess what I mean to say is that the other group which is advocating for larger societal changes may not ever see progress. Social and legislative changes take time and effort. It seems the effect is much larger when these social changes are made in this way. Perhaps that is why regulatory capture is an important business concept. For market participants it is an existential necessity to make sure they can continue to participate in the market. We have misaligned incentives everywhere. It’s in the markets’ interest that we only see market based solutions as viable or possible or realistic. That makes us discouraged from pursuing other ways of signaling our desires and intentions and keeps us locked in as market participants. We never get better because we settle for less.
Sorry kind of all over the place and no real conclusion. Change is coming either way so might as well pull all the levers that make sense for your ethical and ecological framework and hope for the best.
>[T]his readiness to assume the guilt for the threats to our environment is deceptively reassuring: We like to be guilty since, if we are guilty, it all depends on us. We pull the strings of the catastrophe, so we can also save ourselves simply by changing our lives. What is really hard for us (at least in the West) to accept is that we are reduced to the role of a passive observer who sits and watches what our fate will be. To avoid this impotence, we engage in frantic, obsessive activities. We recycle old paper, we buy organic food, we install long-lasting light bulbs—whatever—just so we can be sure that we are doing something. We make our individual contribution like the soccer fan who supports his team in front of a TV screen at home, shouting and jumping from his seat, in the belief that this will somehow influence the game's outcome. [2]
[0] http://www.jonathanwaring.net/2010/07/16/slavoj-zizek-and-th...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/cqu5x/slavoj_ži...
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/269707-t-his-readiness-to-a...
We would likely be better off if we put all focus into the big things and completely ignored the small things.
This is immeasurably important.
Occasionally, the present needs to be destroyed regardless. But it's really a final resort.
It seems to me that you've made the assumption that all revolution involves violence and purges of dissenters.
historically speaking, revolutions are a crapshoot.
forward looking, revolutions are a crapshoot (often sold by people not acquainted with history).
With the current ordering of our society, most people do not have the power or economic freedom to effectively advocate for change in our urban design, reliance on cars, or subsidies on crop monocultures.
Do you really think the people making small changes in the ways that they have access to would reject more significant structural changes? This seems like a complete caricature to me.