You’re arguing that the actions of individuals have no impact on the collective actions of humanity, the sum of 8 billion individuals.
Similarly, you probably never had a conversation where someone said “Gee, I’ll stop burning fossil fuels now!” But when you use public transportation, or patronize businesses on foot, policy makers are motivated to continue supporting such options. Not for you personally, but for you and others like you.
Why do you think BP produces emissions? They may be evil, but it’s not out of malice, it’s for profit. People, like the 26 million residents of Australia, pay BP to give them more fossil fuels.
A top-down response, where governments just outlaw all extraction and burning of fossil fuels, would be a lovely, quick solution to the climate crisis. By all means, try and make that happen, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
One thing you can do today to make an impact is to adjust your lifestyle to give less money to the fossil fuel industry. An individual carbon footprint is small compared with a company, just like the money they give to BP is relatively small, when compared with their total profits. But when you add up all the customers, their money adds up to the revenue of the industry, and their carbon footprints add up to the footprints of the relevant companies.
According to their study, cycling commuters had:
A 47% lower risk of dying from any cause. A 10% lower chance of ending up in the hospital for any reason.
So statistically, it’s safer than sitting on your ass all day, even including the risks.
I had one interesting experience when it came to explicit consent. I walked to the date, she drove. No alcohol was consumed by any parties.
She offered to give me a ride home, which I politely declined, and then accepted when she pushed. I asked her if she wanted to come inside, and she said yes. I asked her if she wanted to come upstairs, and she said yes. We went up to my bedroom, did the deed, I asked her if she wanted to take a shower together and she said yes. I asked her if she wanted to go for round 2 and she said no. She left, shortly thereafter, and I was pretty confused when she told me she had felt pressured into sex and didn’t want to see me again, when I thought I had intentionally given her lots of opportunities to say yes or no.
I still don’t think I need to get a legally binding document agreeing to engagement in sexual intercourse, but that experience really demonstrated to me that an extra awkward question or two is better than the alternative.
That’s valid.
I do think it’s reasonable to have an interest in what kind of development is approved and funded. I wouldn’t support developers who wanted to build McMansions, and luxury condos are less appealing than affordable housing. I expect there could be some extreme, unrealistic case in which you too might oppose a specific development, even if it was high density.
Aesthetic appeal (and yes, NIMBYism) is what kept a lot of small cities in North America, including mine, from being replaced by strip malls.
Of course, this line of reasoning could be continued to oppose anything and everything.
Pointing out that the proposed development would be out of place does not make you a hypocrite. Maybe you and any like-minded neighbors can explain your viewpoint, emphasizing that you would be happy with a smaller apartment building.
It may be that in a few decades, such structures will not look so out of place in your neighborhood. Developers seem to think there’s a demand. You live in a desirable location.
I can commiserate. I’m in a similar area, with a mix of single family homes, duplexes, and small apartments, a few blocks from a walkable downtown. I don’t think a 6 story building would be aesthetically pleasing next to the 2-3 story structures near me.
With that said, I emailed my representatives, and hope to attend the city meeting in support of a new zoning plan allowing for more apartments and businesses, without parking minimums in my neighborhood.
Maybe it will even happen before California HSR!