> Everyone has always had the option to vote with their dollars.
Imagine for a second that this was an actual election. To vote for fossil fuels, people just have to call a phone number or drive to a polling place (gas station).
To vote for carbon neutrality -that is, to be actually carbon neutral- a voter has to buy a new, more expensive car. They have to stop flying. They have to change everything they eat. They have to plant a bunch of trees. They have to spend hundreds of dollars on renewable electricity to ensure at least someone is getting renewable power, even if it isn't them personally. Or they can just stop using electricity, I guess.
Imagine an election where you had to fulfill all those requirements for a year in order to vote annually. Would you say that voters "had the option" to vote? I wouldn't.
Money has unequal power depending where its spent. You personally, trying to buy renewable electricity, have to spend hundreds of times more than a large scale coordinated action. Think of it as like the economy of scale.
Imagine for a second that this was an actual election. To vote for fossil fuels, people just have to call a phone number or drive to a polling place (gas station).
To vote for carbon neutrality -that is, to be actually carbon neutral- a voter has to buy a new, more expensive car. They have to stop flying. They have to change everything they eat. They have to plant a bunch of trees. They have to spend hundreds of dollars on renewable electricity to ensure at least someone is getting renewable power, even if it isn't them personally. Or they can just stop using electricity, I guess.
Imagine an election where you had to fulfill all those requirements for a year in order to vote annually. Would you say that voters "had the option" to vote? I wouldn't.
Money has unequal power depending where its spent. You personally, trying to buy renewable electricity, have to spend hundreds of times more than a large scale coordinated action. Think of it as like the economy of scale.