IIRC the study that the “X% of companies are responsible for X% emissions” is somewhat misleading. For example they use the combined output of everyone’s car exhaust and attribute that to the major oil companies since they provide the gas. Not saying that large corporations and the wealthy in general contributing to climate change exponentially more than the average person, but its misleading to say that as an individual it doesn’t matter if we try to use less energy.

jonkenator
link
fedilink
342Y

This exactly! We need to go after the corporations with policy changes but that doesn’t mean that we, as individuals, are completely blameless or that individually actions are inconsequential. If nobody chooses to drive less or to take the bus then collectively we’re telling the major oil companies to continue with business as usual at if nothing’s wrong. The corporations are to blame but we’re all active participants!

I have some troubles with this line of thought.

For a big majority of people, there isn’t simply a lot of options, or any options at all, to take the car less, or buy less over packaged items, or reduce the pollution footprint.

The corporations won’t offer any alternative unless legislations make these alternatives the right choice business wise.

So toothless legislation is a problem and the governing bodies absolutely have the lion share of responsibilities and the personal efforts are worthless without the support of the governing bodies.

Well I myself have a problem with this blaming game going on. Big corporations say they do their best and try to make people feel guilty about their lifestyle choices. People say they have no alternative and that anyway it’s mostly big corporations who are responsible. Politics say whatever they need to get elected. As long as everyone keeps doing what they do, blaming someone else and finding excuses for not changing how they run their household, corporation ou party, nothing will change. Everyone is responsible. How much I am responsible compared to you, or compared to ExxonMobil’s CEO, is becoming more and more irrelevant.

b3nsn0w
link
fedilink
42Y

On the topic of what we do though, campaigning for actually effective legislation 1) actually works, and 2) has a far greater effect than trying to micro-optimize our individual lives. Optimization problems are solved by gathering data and focusing on the largest contributor, not just picking shit randomly.

Also, make no mistake, enacting a carbon tax, for example, would make all of our lives harder, we simply wouldn’t be able to afford as much stuff as we do now. But it would align the market forces to find efficient, low-carbon solutions, as opposed to find efficient solutions despite carbon emissions. Trickle-down economics is bullshit when it comes to rewards, but no company (that stays in business) ever shied away from passing along operating costs. (A similar thing happened to nutrient labeling, the food industry fought tooth and nail against it because it would be a downturn in the business, but it was ratified anyway and since then options across the board got a lot healthier, because there was simply an incentive for the corpos to fix their shit to some degree where there previously wasn’t. And that was just about informing consumers, not fully ) So don’t make this out as if we’re just pointing the blame so you can sit back and let the big companies do all the work, because that’s not what this is about, it’s simply about the fact that capitalism doesn’t run on morals (as it is so clearly apparent in its results) so we need a little more than that to force the corpos to work along with the rest of us. Because if they don’t, all our efforts will be in vain.

The point is, regulation would actually work. We tried to make climate change the individual’s responsibility for decades and we’re still barreling straight towards the climate apocalypse, so it’s time to add some other measures too, not just try to slightly increase individual contributions and see if that solves it. Spoiler: it won’t, but it’s comfy to some high-ranking execs if we waste valuable quarters trying that again and again and again. And I guess it gives us a comfy delusion of control too.

htrayl
link
fedilink
72Y

For many people, there absolutely is an option and they refuse to take the mild inconvenience.

jonkenator
link
fedilink
32Y

This 100%

Marxism-Fennekinism
link
fedilink
54
edit-2
2Y

Don’t just cut out beef from your diet, replace it with the flesh of billionaires.

It’s too fatty.

@[email protected]
creator
link
fedilink
162Y

If sociopathy can be transmitted by prion disease, that’ll be a quick way to find out.

For science!

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
12
edit-2
2Y

💀

spoiler

I am Vegetarian

That’s nowhere near what a spoiler alert is…

spoiler

I want to fuck an elf unprotected


Is the usage ok now? 🥰

Not any more correct, but significantly more entertaining, so I’ll allow it 😁

Druid
link
fedilink
192Y

Go vegan, my guy. You’re almost there.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
2Y

Nah, not even my food is obligate vegan, I’ll stick to eating opportunistic omnivores.

Uh, wrong.

Banning wood and coal fired pizza in the city is going to single handedly refreeze the polar ice caps and produce no less than 72% more sea ice YOY than we currently see.

  1. They arnt banning coal/wood fired pizza ovens.

  2. They are restricting particulate emissions not Co2 emissions. It’s not a climate change thing it’s an air quality thing. The pizzareias need to filter out the particulate, not get rid of their pizza ovens.

  3. Even if they were banning coal/wood fired pizza ovens it wouldn’t effect pizza. Pizza ovens get up to 900f and the pizza cooks in 90 seconds. There is no time for any smoke flavor to penitrate the pizza. A natural gas or electric oven is going to yield the same result so long as they hit that 900f temp.

I just had to reply to this one again at the audacity of claim #3 when we’re discussing wood fired NY Pizza vs a fucking electric oven, of which, our power plants are natural gas.

  1. They can get fucked.

  2. They can get fucked.

  3. They can… Get. Fucked.

the oceans are rising, and so are we!

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
7
edit-2
2Y

deleted by creator

And they are just burning that shit into nothing for no reason. Not my fault the world is burning, it’s the evil corps forcing us to buy shit.

Maybe they aren’t forcing us to buy shit directly, but a lot of the things they sell, particularly oil and gas are things we depend on because that’s how society is built.

A lot of these completely blameless companies you are defending hire lobbyists to make it harder for individuals who are trying hard to make a difference to have any real effect on government policy. This ensures said companies can keep operating in the way they currently are to maximise profits.

Yes, we could all be doing more, but it’s hard when huge multinational corporations are not only not working together with us to help, but spending billions of dollars to oppose legislation that could help because it would hurt their bottom line.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
42
edit-2
2Y

It’s so strange to see all the comments here defending CNN of all things.

Imagine a game where you can buy sustainable, ethically sourced resources for $5 and unethically sourced resources for $3. The manual tells you it’s nice of you to buy ethically sourced but there’s no governmentally enforced consequences. Which ones are you going to buy as a consumer?

Now worse, which ones are you going to buy as a downstream corp CEO? Your shareholders demand maximum profit and you are required to give them maximum profit. Justifying that you’re “doing your part” for the environment gets you thrown out as CEO.

At the end of this game, it’s cheaper, and necessary, to buy the shit that kills us all.

People unironically saying we’re all to blame. No shit, the system is designed so we are all complicit. It takes authoritative intervention to prevent corps from using and selling unethical and unsustainable products. You could also tax it for things like carbon emissions

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
2Y

I heard with some things it’s actually becoming cheaper to be green, as a result of engineering innovations leading to improved efficiency. Hopefully that trend continues.

Especially when some geniuses finally work out viable nuclear fusion. Real Engineering had a video on a US company working on some next-level fusion reactors, that seem really close to being actually ready.

Edit: of course, at the end of the day, the big oil companies won’t go out quietly. So in addition to all that wholesome stuff, maybe we should partake in some classic literature, such as How to Blow Up a Pipeline.

The fact that clean energy is cheaper without subsidies makes the whole corrupt apparatus even more apparent. Oil and gas beg congress to end subsidies for cleaner solutions because they’re having to compete which is a bad woke thing.

Just look at how long it took coal to die. And now we have “cleaner” nat gas which turns out causes more acute warming than CO2. And rather than convert to a sustainable solution they double down and green wash.

Removing pipelines would just let them raise prices and get richer but honestly if it curbs consumption it’s a net positive.

I mean, did coal die though? Germany basically runs on coal since they shut all their nuclear power plants down (AAAAAAAAAAAAAA FUCKING WHYYYYYYYYY), and the US still has a fair few places that use it as well. I don’t know what the situation is like in developing countries, but I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some were reliant on coal.

Yeah sorry I really meant just look at how long it took for coal to START to die.

Nuclear is such a no-brainer I can’t really understand why we don’t have more development. I assume its lobbying and initial investment costs but I don’t know for sure.

What happened is nuclear reactor failures at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima caused a huge public backlash, resulting in an actual mass anti-nuclear movement. Like I mean protests, political parties, the whole deal.

There was a huge popular push to decomission existing nuclear reactors, and in Germany the relevant political party became hugely successful and basically closed all their nuclear plants.

This is a big part of why the green energy movement, while enthusiastically endorsing solar/wind/hydro/geothermal/etc, doesn’t really support nuclear.

Aside from all that stuff, the economics of nuclear fission reactors are just much more long-term than those other kinds of energy generation. Nuclear reactors take a lot of time and resources to build. Both in and of themselves, and to make sure everything is properly up to safety standards. That initial investment will of course be recouped as the power plant keeps running, but it takes years and years. Of course, this is mainly a “downside” because of our definitely very rational economic system, which is obsessed with quarterly profits and is apparently allergic to these kinds of longterm investments.

There is work being done on developing smaller scale fission reactors with fewer up-front costs, but public sentiment still seems to be against it. Research into nuclear fusion seems to be going pretty great (the stuff Helion’s been working on looks promising), so if that comes through maybe we won’t have to fight a tide of stupid public sentiment to get proper, stable renewable energy.

Exactly, corporation and individual behavior is predominantly emergent of the system. Theres some blame that can be passed on to the consumer or the corporation but only so much, it’s not my fault I can’t afford an electric car. It’s not my fault installing solar panels on my house won’t recoup the cost by the time I leave/sell.

If you want people to eat less meat you need to make it worth people’s while to eat less meat. You don’t need to outlaw meat, you just need to make it less attractive from a financial perspective.

If you want people to use less gas you don’t need to outlaw gas cars you need to make it less attractive.

You could write individual incentives and disincentives but a carbon tax is simple and hits at the crux of the problem. Remove beef, oil, gas, solar, wind, hydro subsidies and implement a carbon tax. Boom, meat alternatives are now cost comparable. Green energy is now handily cheaper than oil and gas. Theres also a sizable amount of conservatives who are for a carbon tax since it’s a “free market” solution instead of picking winners and losers.

Yep. Taxing is the logical solution that fits within capitalism, and yet corporations are so vested in the machine they realize it’s cheaper to spend money to lobby and advertise against it.

It’s a busted system that needed correcting decades ago, and here we are.

This is just a fact, and since media outlets never mention it you can tell who they are in the pocket of (the large corp advertisers)

BornVolcano
link
fedilink
342Y

Swap your car or plane ride for a bus or train

Ok one sec lemme just book a train across the Atlantic ocean rq…

Guys do you think he made it across ?

That and all the rich that take a private jet instead of walking for 15 minutes

There is less kerosene burned in all aviation in the world than is used in lamps and cookstoves in Africa and Asia. Aviation is really not the driver of climate change. Of all transport emissions aviation is 8% (in the US). 80% is cars and trucks.

Moreover, the aviation industry has a profit motive to reduce emissions because ever gallon of jet fuel saved is money saved.

The same applies to shipping (11% of global emissions), modern container ships are so fucking massive and slower than some wooden sailing ships from the 19th century because efficiency is the only real way they can make more money.

Fuel burned near the stratosphere contributes several times more towards global warming than regular stoves. We don’t need 70% of all flights while africa needs fuel to survive.

that makes sense though, their 15 mins is prolly worth more than enough to justify the jet

Ok Elon

oh btw you should buy this new shitcoin its calld se8fgs9coin and it gud bcaus it gro moni go bui it pls

Evelyn
link
fedilink
1712Y

If we HAD trains and public transit, I would LOVE to take them!

newIdentity
link
fedilink
15
edit-2
2Y

I live in Germany and while not perfect, I’m glad we have such a thing.

The problem is when a 10 minute car drive takes an hour with public transportation

Next problem is surge pricing and general ticket prices. I recall one city I was living in a few years back having advertisements for taking the train. And I was like “Yeah sure. It’s just double the price and triple the time”.

To me taking the train (at least for long distances) is a luxury thing.

Ok. If you don’t? There’s still countless aspects of your life that you interact through the economy to fulfill that have the potential for change and improvement.

Still buy new clothes from Old Navy or JCPenney? Maybe think about going to your nearest GoodWill or local thrift shop(s) (and on a regular basis) to see what gems pass by now and again. College towns right after the end of the semester are ripe for this, and I would wager that you have a college town somewhat closer to you than any kind of public transit. Not saying that you have to do this for your entire wardrobe, but choosing used over new means that resources are avoided in making that new garment, such as all of the fuels needed to move resources to and from each factory along the value chain, all of the solid waste destined for landfill or incineration from the scraps of cutting-and-sewing that new garment, all of the water pollution associated with dyeing or printing your new garment, or the potential human rights violations that could pop up throughout the value chain. A lot of these can be mitigated by buying more sustainable brands that seek to minimize these things, but a cheaper alternative is to buy used too.

Still have an air conditioner? Maybe think about hooking up a smart thermostat or equivalent and enrolling in peak-load demand response initiatives so that your AC or furnace works a little less hard in exchange for the entire grid not having to provide as much power (the alternative is blackouts or brownouts where everyone turns their AC on blast but kills the grid so no one has power anymore). Doing this means that demand curves by customers don’t reach as high of historical peaks, which allows utilities to avoid using peak response assets like Combined Cycle Combustion Plants that use natural gas to operate. You in turn create a greener grid, that’s also better for the climate. And if having a warmer house isn’t enough for you, there are other ways of mitigating this, like setting up phase-changers directly to your bedroom so that it stays cool, unlike the rest of the house, or buying ice vests that you can wear on your person, or going to a public facility like a library or mall and centralizing cooling loads to there instead of decentralized cooling loads via everyone’s homes.

How old are your assets like cars, AC units, furnaces, fridges, etc.? Perhaps if it doesn’t break the bank, look into purchasing models that are more efficient, as in those cars that have better mileage and/or that are hybrids and can be plugged in to a normal outlet to charge, or fridges and AC units that use coolants better and that have better insulation to keep things cooler for longer. These choices don’t necessarily have to be accompanied by the insane bits of technology and information that bigger companies want to shove down our throats with these newer, smarter devices.

Does your local grocery store carry organic goods as opposed to conventional ones? I know that ALDI near me carry those, and I’ve had to shop there for years thanks to the low prices they offer. If you minimize your costs while still going organic, maybe consider shifting your diet away from red meat and pork towards other options like chicken, fish, or straight up whole food, plant-based ingredients like vegetables, fruit, legumes, grains, nuts, seeds, mushrooms, etc. Or, if you’ve gone that far, have you considered seeking out local farmer’s markets near you that often offer these goods both organically (or “organically” since the official label is so expensive), in season, AND locally. A good resource for finding farmer’s markets near you is https://www.localharvest.org/.

Getting back to the public transit problem you bring up:

Is there public transit near you? Do you know for sure? Most major cities like Houston, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and even the smaller ones like Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, etc. do have some version of public transit, whether that’s via subway, rail, tram, or bus, so perhaps there are more options near you thank you might think. And do you use these when you have the opportunity to? All of these services are offered via companies that use metrics like ridership and rider time to gauge how they might want to invest in these services into the future. If you start engaging with more and more public transit when you can, every human adds up on their balance sheets and can impact what happens with public transit in the future. I know that in my area, the public transit corp running our interurban train is constructing a new service line South, when it traditionally only extended East & West, which will capture an even larger portion of the market and make the service even more financially lucrative over time, leading to even more expansion and coverage. But I do agree with you on the lack of other interurban solutions like Amtrak. That service is downright terrible, and we as a country (assuming you live in the US) need to start demanding better service, as well as less of a grip on the railway network in this country by the railroad tycoons.

There are changes that can be made all around us that involve the economy and a corporation on the other side. All of the above examples I listed do. There are two sides to the economy, that economists tell us: Supply and Demand. Just because we can’t control supply outside of efforts like political action doesn’t mean we can’t control demand too. Little changes that every common person makes over time one way or another add up and show up on these corporations’ balance sheets.

Hope is not lost. Stay focused on sustainability and making what changes you can make in your life right now and into the future, including political action. All of this adds up.

Oops, there’s been another oil spill caused by a multi-billion dollar company shirking regulation and safety, all your effort is now void and moot.

Short-term catastrophes don’t negate long-term habit changes though. That oil spill doesn’t impact all water bodies across the entire planet at the same time. While I think more developed nations should introduce more punishments to prevent things like this from happening, we have technologies that can mitigate these things once they do happen.

Progress may be up and down, but as long as the slope trends upwards, it’s better than nothing.

Message stays the same: do as much as you can when you can in the specific ways you can.

No, but it does more local damage than 100,000 people do.

So, what are you saying, exactly? That the individual shouldn’t take any responsibility for their own behaviour?

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
2Y

I’m saying that the scale of individual effect to corporate producer effect is so large that your individual responsibility even pushed to it’s maximum will have zero meaningful impact. Not just that, but the combined individual responsibility of the majority of citizens is not something you can magic into existance especially when most are too poor to seek or have access to alternatives.

To give you an idea of the scale, the ~90,000 container ships that are transporting daily use twice the amount of fuel as the ~1,450,000,000 cars on the road globally. You could make every single land based personal vehicle in the world use zero fuel, and only remove 30% of the global fuel usage. Keep in mind that includes land based commercial transport, and doesn’t even touch aircraft.

Plastics make up 4% of global oil use, you not using products because they were made with single use plastics doesn’t stop them being made, but if it did, would still account for just about nothing.

Yes, the US has abysmal public transport (at least in houston, tx in my case) compared to even third world countries like Egypt. It’s downright embarrassing.

This is all by design of the oligarchs and their puppets in Congress. Democrats and Republicans are against progress.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
44
edit-2
2Y

deleted by creator

For me, it’s both more expensive and takes longer, to take the train.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
502Y

The 100 corporations include oil companies you rely on to put gas in your car, so it’s not like they are the one polluting directly.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
222Y

nah, sorry, we’re on Reddit, so capitalism is to blame for everything and we individuals cannot do sh1t.

I mean, how stupid do you have to be to shift the blame for pollution from cars on car manufacturers and oil companies. But, no, no. It’s corporations polluting and I as an individual cannot do anything about it.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
21
edit-2
2Y

Exactly! It just takes everyone to choose to not murder people, then murder is not a problem. It is all a question of individual responsibility.

I abhor those leftist communists who always aim to regulate matters to death, when it’s just so simple: Just individually choose to not murder people. Then we don’t need all this communist “laws” and “regulations” crap! Because individuals have the power to do everything. Everyone just has to be a good person, and do the right thing! The solution to every problem in society is so simple! America! Fuck yeah! /s

Piecemakers
link
fedilink
English
122Y

Sadly, your sarcasm is nearly as thick as they are and I’m not sure they grasped your tone. 🤷🏼‍♂️

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
22Y

You’re so thick in your denial, you probably blame toilet manufacturers for your brain farts.

Piecemakers
link
fedilink
English
82Y

Man. The bar was already so low, and you still brought a shovel? Oof.

Cosmic Cleric
link
fedilink
English
32Y

I’m guessing he’s a conflict bot, and a lazy one at that, considering the bot coders forgot to change the name from Reddit to Lemmy, in one of his posts.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
42Y

It is exactly what it takes. If everyone refuses to serve in the military, no killing will be done.

And if everyone goes vegan tomorrow, the whole meat industry will simply disappear.

But I guess you’d prefer to regulate the whole society to live the way you believe is better. If that’s the case, you might wanna look up the definition of socialism and communism in the dictionary.

Piecemakers
link
fedilink
English
322Y
  1. We’re not on Reddit.

  2. Those same manufacturers don’t give a flying fuck if you drive. They’ll still make fuel for airplanes, ships, industrial machinery, etc., and will still continue to blatantly ignore regulations in pursuit of profit.

  3. If you’re gonna gargle corpo dick like bulldog on a firehose, at least be honest with yourself, son.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
92Y

Well, keep driving your car while blaming big corpo for the climate change. Surely you’re not the problem. Everyone else does the same cuz they’re not the problem either. And oopsie, somehow the planet is in fire. Quick, hang some car manufacturer CEO on the tree, that will solve the problem.

Cosmic Cleric
link
fedilink
English
52Y

Honestly curious, why did you call this place Reddit?

It’s kind of ironic, considering your username.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
12Y

because the comment section felt exactly like reddit. Your usual whining about the world with a zero willingness to take any responsibility or do anything. I always said reddit revolution will never happen. Recent events have proven it perfectly.

Cosmic Cleric
link
fedilink
English
12Y

Well, considering the irony of your username and the dumb mistake you made, I do appreciate your self-deprecating entertainment value.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
12Y

whooosh!

Piecemakers
link
fedilink
English
42Y

Good catch. Report the account as bot. 🤌🏼

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
22Y

There are a lot of bots getting through and they make these kinds of terrible bad faith arguments. Just report them and don’t engage imo

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
12Y

I am a robot. Bip boop yo momma! Report me to the robot authorities, you beep bop.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
42Y

You’re right, individuals can do a lot. We can take all of our politicians, CEOs, and corporate shareholders, and throw them out to one of their private islands that they love so much. Then, build a society where you aren’t pressured or even forced to drive, to replace tech every 3 years, or have a logistics system reliant on fossil fuels. Oh was that not the kind of public action you were talking about?

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
12Y

Compared to you I already live in a place where you don’t have to drive. In fact, I never owned a car in my entire life. Yet an obscene amount of people love their cars.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
22Y

Sorry about the other tangent.

Rebuilding the society from scratch is very utopic. Everyone stopping to eat meat, or at least reducing it consumption to once a week is a very realistic action plan. It only requires individual willingness and action. Given how current agriculture works, everyone switching to a “meat once a week” diet will completely solve all the draught problems. It will also cut down greenhouse effect by 20% or so (methane bad, kids). There is a very realistic action to climate change, that doesn’t require any sort of revolution. But hey, I’m sure Pepsi is to blame for this not happening.

Now, where I live it’s also very realistic to cycle everywhere. And it’s not Ford or Volkswagen who are to blame that almost no one does.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
22Y

I realize it sounds utopic but it’s not nearly as insane as people think it is, especially when compared to mass boycott proposals.

To illustrate this point I will use meat because it’s probably the easiest to ditch of all major environmentally irresponsible behaviors. You first need to have a public where ~40-70% of the population is passionate about ditching meat, with most of the rest not caring and so falling into line. You then need to make sure that people who depend on the meat industry one way or another(which includes farmers/ranchers, fast food workers, people who cannot easily access vegetables, etc) are taken care of or understand that the overall social benefit to them outweighs the individual cost of ditching meat. You also need to have some way to coordinate this action to happen reasonably synchronously so that societal ideas about meat aren’t reinforced. This level of public organization and power is more than enough for things like general strikes or even regime changes.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
82Y

Who is this Reddit you speak of? I thought this was Lemmy

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
312Y

Capitalism IS to blame for everything and we individuals CANNOT do sh1t.

Firstly, capitalists have convinced everyone they need to buy a lot of stuff.

Secondly, humans are selfish and in a capitalistic system it’s difficult to achieve your goals without money. Imagine you’re a young person, say late 20s or early 30s, who makes some money, but isn’t rich by any means. Are YOU going to pay twice or thrice as much for everything you consume just so it’d be carbon neutral? No, because you’re probably saving up for something, whether it’s a home (because, y’know, capitalism - you need to pay out the ass for a place to live), retirement (because with the aging population in most western countries, the national pension schemes can’t be trusted long term), or that foreign vacation you feel you deserve after 10 years of hard work.

Say you DO cut your carbon footprint by 90% or even 100%. I have bad news for you. 98-99% of the rest of people didn’t, because they want to go on with their lives instead of worrying about the future, so your changes are meaningless. What’s more, BP execs will smile at you for believing the whole carbon footprint thing they spread. Now you’re living like you’re in a 3rd world country, but everyone else around you keeps up their expensive polluting lifestyles, making your sacrifice meaningless. You can’t have a negative amount of cars, but someone else CAN have 5.

The only thing that can change anything is political change - tax the companies to oblivion for CO2 production. Watch them scramble to reduce their CO2 footprint in any goods and services where it’s possible, and stop offering goods and services that can’t be optimized. The individual carbon footprint was invented precisely to prevent this - make climate activists blame other civilians (who for the most part won’t stop consuming, thus having no negative effect on oil company profits) instead of politicians (who could actually effect some change). Yes, a carbon tax would affect end users and particularly poor people. But that’s the only way forward, and government programs can help those who are affected the worst.

Individuals can NOT bear the full responsibility for something that affects all of us. It simply doesn’t work, because humans don’t work that way. There has to be government level effort. It’s also why libertarianism doesn’t work. “The free market will regulate itself, you can vote with your wallet”. Well, if 99% of people don’t care about being poisoned by their food, or their video games being overmonetized, or the planet dying… Guess what, the free market doesn’t regulate itself, and no amount of awareness is going to make a dent in it.

So sure, make changes to your lifestyle. Tell your friends and family about the low-hanging fruit in their lives to reduce consumption, educate them. Spend tens of thousands on solar panels if you can afford it. These are all good things to do! But don’t blame the individual for the failings of society. We’re all playing the hand we’re dealt, and unless you’re born a millionaire, that hand is “shit is expensive, shit that pollutes less is even more expensive, I’mma do what I have to”.

PS: Ya know what is the worst part? Capitalists want worker drones back in offices so that people would consume more and office space values wouldn’t drop. 2020 was the ONE time in history we managed to curb our emissions, but that doesn’t jive well with capitalism, so working from home is now considered “immoral” by billionaires.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
12Y

nice mental gymnastics. Capitalism simply enabled free will of the people. Who want to consume no matter the consequences. It doesn’t bother them either if the goods they’re buying were made by starving children. But hey, blame the system.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
12Y

That’s the problem with the system. It comprises of PEOPLE, which is why everything that people arguing for capitalism say about capitalism regulating itself, is bullshit. Not only do masses of people not care about intangible effects of their consumption, capitalism makes it profitable to advertise to people to make them consume more, and a lack of carbon tax makes it more profitable for companies to pollute a lot of the time. The will of the people (aka car company propaganda) is the reason Americans pollute so much. It was advertised to them that driving is the only true freedom, in the 1950s. And now 70 years later there are nearly no walkable cities left, because Americans demanded wider roads.

It doesn’t bother them either if the goods they’re buying were made by starving children. But hey, blame the system.

The system is what makes it profitable to abuse straving children. Also, thanks to the system, it is ridiculously hard to save up for things like, idk, housing, because it’s all being bought up as a speculative asset. So if your average person buys a 5$ t-shirt made in Bangladesh instead of a 50$ sustainably sourced one because they can’t afford the latter on their budget, can you really blame them, or has the system failed them?

Milk is way cheaper than oat drink and if I go to a gas station, they charge me more for the burger to have a meat substitute, which doesn’t feel much like meat.

Most people will never get past the “okay, this might be bad, but everyone else does it too, and if I don’t, I’ll be at a financial disadvantage” mentality about buying cheaper products, because capitalism is a competition for resources, and we can’t afford to give up the advantage of buying cheaper foods, cheaper (ICE) cars (where public transit isn’t an option), etc.

Bottom line is, you can get your friends and family to forsake themselves for an intangible goal, maybe you can convince some strangers, but there’s no way to get 8+ billion to stop doing what’s convenient for them with just propaganda. You need regulations. And that’s why any system that depends on the will of the people to achieve intangible goals DOES NOT WORK. It’s super easy to get the majority of 8 billion people to start consuming more with just advertising and propaganda. It’s impossible to get them all consuming less. I said it before too. Oil companies realize this and that’s why they invented the carbon footprint, to keep the people who do care fighting those who don’t - that way nobody has energy left to lobby for real, regulationary change.

So sure, maybe capitalism isn’t at fault. Maybe the fact that humans exist is. But the goal should be to design a system fit for humans, not to kill all humans or whatever it is that is required to fix capitalism.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
5
edit-2
2Y

Say you DO cut your carbon footprint by 90% or even 100%. I have bad news for you. 98-99% of the rest of people didn’t, because they want to go on with their lives instead of worrying about the future, so your changes are meaningless.

This mindset of defeatism is EXACTLY what is holding us back. “Either we get an instant 100% perfect governmental solution or everything is meaningless anyway”. You’re letting perfect be the enemy of good. Cutting back your consumerism of oil and meat or atleast being mindful is not useless. It is creating new markets. The meat substitute market saw a growth of 8-10% annually worldwide for the past 6 years. Are you telling me a market that grows at 4-5 times the average typical inflation rate is “just useless”?
If you buy a soymilk pack instead of a pack of milk, you’re helping. That’s less income for the dairy industry. Sure it’s not as efficient as it could be if if soymilk and -use would be perfected but it’s still better than subsidizing the dairy industry. And you are not alone. Sure maybe you’re not in majority but there are a few millions Americans that that are also doing this. That is atleast a few millions a year that are going to different markets than the dairy industry. Where I currently live in Switzerland among my friend group we have all drastically cut down on our meat consumption. Sure it’s not 100% but I consume on average about 100g meat per week and get my “easy” protein from substitute products, which are cheaper and more environmentally friendly. Am I privileged? Sure. But just throwing in the towel and going on eating meat and driving cars because “it is meaningless anyway”, will doom us all much more than atleast trying.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
4
edit-2
2Y

It’s not defeatism. It’s identifying the problem, and identifying that political change should be the priority. When liberals are out there deregulating this shit, subsidizing the industries that contribute to the issue, and then saying it’s the fault of the consumers, you can start to see why just telling people to cut down on their carbon footprint and leaving out that we should be advocating for environmental regulation, walkable cities, etc. might be an issue.

TL;DR Saying that corporations are the primary ones at fault isn’t “defeatism”, it’s saying we need to do something about them. If you’re such a doomer that you think corporations are invulnerable, that’s on you.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
1
edit-2
2Y

Ah, you’re doing the bidding of the oil companies I see. Shame the consumers, and nothing will happen. But you will feel good about your changes, at least.

If you want to stop climate change, it needs to be not 2%, not 5% of people, but more like 90% reducing their consumption to near-zero. But without government intervention, you can’t get much. Matter of fact, shaming consumers alienates a lot of people. There’s a pretty large “Fuck Greta” movement in many countries, because people are idiots.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
32Y

Don’t forget that the biggest greenhouse gas produce is China which last I checked is not capitalist.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
8
edit-2
2Y

china is capitalist, also they produce less per capita than the US, this is silly

Oh what’s that, the party calls themselves communist? Guess north korea is a democracy now cause they call themselves that, this totally makes sense

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
12Y

Around 1/3 of GDP is from state owned businesses. They definitely have a strong market economy there but my point was that capitalism causes greenhouse gas emissions like the guy I replied to stated is not true.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
5
edit-2
2Y

State owned doesn’t mean not capitalist. This is silly.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
12Y

No but state owned is the exact definition of communist. China has a communist government which allows a high degree of market/capitalist activity.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
12Y

The original definition of capitalism used to be an economy where 90% of businesses and property are privately owned. And while I admit that the meaning of words tend to change over time I think that the meaning of capitalism was deliberately changed so that the Soviet Union doesn’t sound as insane as it was to future generations. L

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
12Y

No, it’s definitely capitalist, even if not by name. And it produces a bunch of goods for a bunch of other capitalist countries, for profit.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
112Y

Are you dumb on purpose?

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
92Y

Why are you insulting me?

Piecemakers
link
fedilink
English
22Y

What a low-effort bot you are. 🤦🏼‍♂️

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
52Y

wtf? Why are you calling me a bot? It’s either a joke I don’t get or a low-key insult just because you don’t agree with me.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
62Y

You are correct. I think that a substantial portion of people don’t connect the dots and understand that companies only produce goods that consumers want/need.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
112Y

I have electric though. Worst case is the pollutants gone into the mining of the lithium and manufacturing of the vehicle. But how much of that can be controlled for mining and manufacturing?

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
2
edit-2
2Y

Worst case is all the power you use to charge comes from dirty sources. Over the lifetime of the car it might never break equal with an ICE car in emissions

Karyoplasma
link
fedilink
English
92Y

Where’s the electricty from your car coming from? Where does the lithium for the battery come from?

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
212Y

This is a bad take. The EPA has a list already made because these lies keep going around. It is better for the environment through out the entire life cycle of a car, from raw material mining and processing to manufacturing and use, to be Electric than use an Internal Combustion Engine.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
72Y

It is less bad, but still pollutes a lot, especially in countries with high-carbon electricity production.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
92Y

Sure. But the guy above me is implying that at worst, EVs pollute more, and at best, the two are just the same in terms of pollutants.

The reality is harm reduction. It would be better to take a train or bus than drive any car. Better still would be to ride a bike, even better would be to just walk. But that is not feasible. Instead we just do what we can and make marginally better choices.

Don’t let perfect get in the way of good. We’re after incremental changes.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
22Y

Oops, didn’t catch that part from the parent comment. You’re right, it breaks even in most if not all cases.

A side note : EVs are and will be needed for a long time, but an important reduction of personal vehicle use will be needed as well. Shifting the same usage to EVs will surely not be sufficient.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
12Y

Many cars are charged from solar or from renewable energy. You look at the environmental costs of extracting and refining oil, storing it, the carbon cost of shipping it and then driving it to its final destination via HGV to the fuel station. It then had to be electrically pumped from the ground into your car then you burn it off back into the atmosphere for everyone to breathe back in again. The lithium comes from the same mines used to make the phone battery you are reading this message from. The EV battery will live much longer than your ICE car as it can be almost totally recycled and end of life or used as storage for home battery systems.

@[email protected]
link
fedilink
English
1
edit-2
2Y

That’s what I’m asking 🙂

They’re not just wrecking the environment for no reason, they make products people consume

Exactly. Saudi Aramco is wrecking the environment because (among others) Dow Chemical keeps buying their oil. Dow Chemical keeps buying their oil because Sterilite keeps buying the plastic that Dow makes. Sterilite keeps buying Dow’s plastic because people keep buying Sterilite bins to store all their junk. Ultimately if there wasn’t a person consuming things at the end of the chain, the oil wouldn’t be removed from the ground in the first place.

Ultimately it all comes down to people’s lifestyles. When you buy something that’s made of plastic or transported on a container ship, you’re giving these companies money they use to wreck the environment. If instead of kiwi fruit, you buy melons from an Amish farmer who brought them to market using a horse-drawn carriage, that lifestyle choice has an impact on the environment.

Having said that, it’s true that companies use lobbying to twist laws in their favour, and use sales and marketing to drive demand for their products. It’s hard to know whether a product you’re buying is damaging to the environment because the companies that damage the environment don’t want you to know and will oppose any law that makes it clearer. It’s hard to choose to purchase a less environmentally destructive item if you don’t know it exists.

But, it’s just ridiculous bullshit to pretend that nefarious companies are out there burning coal just for fun, while cackling evilly. Everything companies do is in service to making money, and virtually the only way they make money is to sell things that people want to buy.

australian coal producers:

EnderWi99in
link
fedilink
142Y

It’s largely a problem of government that is exacerbated by the influence of the businesses themselves. It’s the governments job to enact policy change that force business to address these issues and develop more sustainable production process and product offerings, but since the government has essentially been bought out by those same businesses, nothing happens at all.

We can’t decouple business from government without policy changes that would place limitations on such influence, and we cannot enact those policies because of the influence from businesses. I don’t see a solution unless people wise up and elect a lot of people in the same election cycle not beholden to these groups, but I don’t know how that can be accomplished.

Whoo, you saved me the effort of typing out a response!

@[email protected]
creator
link
fedilink
532Y

The average person isn’t wrecking the environment for no reason either, and yet they always appear to be the target for “environmental sustainability” snipes presented by mainstream media as fact. There are an innumerable number of practices that large industries can practice to limit their carbon footprint, but it is never a priority.

I mean yeah for a whole host of reason we should shut down animal agriculture. But until we can make that happen people shouldn’t support it. People don’t support it for no reason but they do almost always support it for bad reasons like habit/tradition and sensory pleasure

Private companies aren’t going to do the right thing just for the sake of it, because any moral sacrifice on their part will give ground to other companies that won’t do the right thing. It has to be fixed through regulation, ushered in through representatives elected by average people.

But most average people don’t care. They want lower taxes and cheaper gas.

I like the whole “save water” bullshit. like in california. Or anywhere else being fed by lake mead. Like, “You need to take shorter showers! conserve water”. the ten minute shower they’re berating consumers for… is literally nothing compared to the water straight up wasted for California’s agriculture. (and by wasted, I mean water lost before it even gets to the plants.)

Most of Lake Mead and the Colorado River aren’t used by people. it’s used by corporations that don’t give two shits because nobody gives a damn about them wasting water- can’t harm the jobs, now.

bestdude
link
fedilink
192Y

yes i think this goes both ways, both producers and consumers should be responsible. but we shouldn’t forget shell wouldn’t continue selling gas and instead shift their operations if gas wasn’t in such a demand.
also if you’re littering you can’t blame corporations for that lmao

@[email protected]
creator
link
fedilink
112Y

Public transport probably isn’t a viable option in some cases, so I’m hoping EVs do catch on for this reason. Reducing or eliminating meat consumption, or at least finding more sustainable ways to provide it (i.e. lab-grown meat) also would definitely play a significant role. I am not advocating for eliminating all responsibility from the consumer side

33KK
link
fedilink
62Y

It is a viable option in about 90% of cases.

your statement is highly dependent on where someone lives. I wonder what percent of people live within about ten minutes’ walking distance from useful public transportation. I bet it’s not 90% or even anywhere close. most people on Earth do live in cities now though, so maybe it’s ~50%…?

33KK
link
fedilink
English
22Y

I meant in general, not just with the current infrastructure, sorry for a late reply

The thing about big companies like oil companies is that they’ll do anything they can to prevent alternatives from taking hold. Often it involves lobbying or spreading disinformation to fight against renewable energy for example. Car makers also fight public transportation.

Bitch those companies are emitting to subsidize your fucking lifestyle.

Those companies are emitting to subsidize your lifestyle.

Create a post

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

  • 1 user online
  • 3 users / day
  • 3 users / week
  • 3 users / month
  • 1 user / 6 months
  • 0 subscribers
  • 2.64K Posts
  • 13.9K Comments
  • Modlog