A friend of mine who is also friends with Scott Galloway emailed me about Galloway’s initiative to influence politics by changing consumer behavior. The initiative aims to lead people to stop doing business with companies that influence politics he and his followers disagree with.

Context

Galloway calls it “Resist and Unsubscribe.” Our mutual friend’s email included screen shots of his cancelling his accounts with Amazon, X, and ChatGPT. He included his strongly-worded statements for why: their support for actions he despised.

---

Years ago, I spoke to this mutual friend about reducing support for pollution and depletion. He flies a lot. He responded that flying only contributes a few percent to global carbon emissions. I left it there, since I felt like I was in Monticello listening to Thomas Jefferson.

I could point out to him that we need the words of Thomas Jefferson and work of Robert Carter III. Instead we have the words of Carter and acts of Jefferson. I could ask him If you would have done what Thomas Jefferson didn’t, do you act now?, but experience has taught me that my time is better spent on leading others in my workshops and writing my upcoming book.

Galloway’s initiative, however, focused on few-percent differences. It focuses on AI since AI companies support politics our mutual friend dislikes, but fossil fuel companies support those politics far more, not only domestically, but globally, particularly Russia invading Ukraine.

I emailed the mutual friend the following:

My open email to my mutual friend with Galloway

Hi,

Thanks for sharing about the initiative. It took me a while to listen since I already avoid using Amazon, Google, X, Tiktok, Instagram, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Apple, etc. As an author, I want to write reviews for other authors, but Amazon requires I spend at least $50 in the past year to post reviews and I haven’t spent a penny there in at least a decade. I run Linux and Libreoffice, not Apple, Microsoft, or Office.

The Resist and Unsubscribe page and audio talk about small percent changes reminded me of your response when I talked about avoiding flying: that it only contributed a few percent to carbon emissions (neglecting the many other ways it causes suffering and that a small number of people contribute). Trump benefits more from polluting, depleting companies especially fossil fuel extraction than AI.

You and Galloway are smart, determined, and thoughtful. You may know things I don’t or see consequences or risks I haven’t thought of.

Still, in that light, it seemed to me that most of the page’s initiative based in the value of small changes in effective places applies yet more to spending that funds activities that pollute and deplete, as well as the lobbying and advertising that grow it. Such activities include flying but also plastic, driving, mining, etc.

This statement seems to apply to avoiding spending on activities that pollute and deplete: “Small changes in consumer behavior … could have an enormous ripple effect, one that extends all the way to the White House.” Why not behavior that hurts and kills people most, on top of being a large part of the market that this initiative targets? 9 million people die from breathing polluted air annually, as one of many effects of pollution and depletion.

Then this statement about AI, naming relevant companies to avoid, would apply to polluting, depleting companies:

If enough people cut spending on AI, it could spill over to other companies, including Nvidia and Microsoft. You could also unsubscribe from a range of other tech offerings — Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, and Uber — and hold off on buying your next iPhone or Mac. While tech and AI are the main focus, the strike could expand to target companies enabling ICE, including AT&T, Dell, and Fedex, which have contracts with the agency.

Why not avoid spending on companies like these?

• Exxon/Mobil
• Chevron
• United Airlines
• Delta
• American Airlines
• Emirates Airlines
• Qatar Airlines
• Turkish Airline
• Shell
• BP
• etc

As someone who flew something like you did for reasons you do, and having seen others with similar behaviors and reasons stop, I have also learned that the personal benefit from stopping flying is much greater than the personal benefit of stopping using Amazon, social media, and AI — especially for those with family and business that they think requires flying. People like us are the ones who personally benefit most, though disadvantaged and marginalized groups benefit plenty too. But people like us face the challenge of withdrawal, which can rival the withdrawal of people with heavy dependencies on behaviors like gambling or substances like alcohol, tobacco, fentanyl, and meth.

Since oil is a commodity, spending less on them will affect:

• Gazprom
• Rozneft
• Lukoil
• and other oil companies funding Putin and Russia
• Saudi Aramco
• Petrochina
• Sinopec
• etc

AI pollutes and depletes a lot, raising energy prices for all, affecting the poor the most. The arms race in the field led several companies to abandon sustainability pledges, including ones named in the initiative, so avoiding spending on polluting, depleting companies will augment the current initiative.

Bottom line: What do you think about applying Galloway’s initiative to industries more influential and harmful?

Josh

• ← Two months of Christmas pagan trees, hundreds of trees, thrown away