Any time you're told that the weak and vulnerable are responsible for how bad things are, rather than the rich and powerful, you're being lied to

ArseAssassin@sopuli.xyz to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world – 1062 points –
116

You are viewing a single comment

Do a ridiculous proportion of people still buy gas-guzzling SUVs and plastic water bottles and use plastic bags at the grocery store unnecessarily? Yes

It's not that this doesn't matter, it does. But almost every time it's mentioned is alongside industrial climate impacts as if they were at all in a similar scale.

They aren't even close. People doing the 'well actually' thing for individual climate impacts are inadvertently being patsies for corporations to continue to deflect scrutiny away from the absolutely ridiculous levels of climate impacts they have. And while consumers are trying to move to metal straws, corporations have basically not even started trying to address low hanging fruit ways to mitigate climate change, let alone anything slightly tricky.

Yes, but expecting corporations to do it on their own is silly. They operate in a competitive environment so game theory should tell us what's going to usually happen. The laws and regulations exist, and a lot more are needed, but it's also not as simple because costs of enforcement also range from inexpensive to infeasible. In the end, it's people making self-interested decisions, whether on behalf of themselves or on behalf of corporations. I don't know of any easy solutions - my feeling is that those don't exist - so the best bet is to steer society towards better and more effective politics. More distributed and less concentrated power structures, checks and balances, enforcement, novel, effective, and efficient systems through science based analysis, as well as lots of trials and errors and fast iterative improvements based on rapid feedback loops. In short, the world nowadays moves faster than the current government systems and it's a losing battle until governing adaptability can increase in speed.

What is the "'well actually' thing"? Claiming to correct something that's wrong? Is that not allowed?

People doing the 'well actually' thing for individual climate impacts are inadvertently being patsies for corporations to continue to deflect scrutiny

No one is doing that. I could very easily just say that you're just doing the opposite. That is, deflecting personal responsibility from individuals and just blaming corporations. It's very easy to just lean back and blame corporations for your choices but the reality is that they simply couldn't sell this bullshit if individuals weren't buying them.

And in the same turn, consumers can't buy a product that doesn't exist. Until more environmentally friendly products are on the market made by the producers, consumers don't have a real choice, abstention is not a viable choice.

I still need food, I require the ability to move those groceries from the shop to my car to my house, but if no one produces an environmentally friendly way to do so then I'm at the mercy of the plastic bags, bottles, containers, and wrapping I've been provided.

Just like we couldn't use unleaded gasoline until they started making unleaded gasoline.

Just like we can't start using renuable energy until they start making renuable energy.

Just like we can't recycle our waste because we don't have the infrastructure to recycle our waste.

Just like we can't take mass transport that hasn't been built, or use green energy infrastructure that doesn't exist, or buy products without plastic that don't exist.

The idea that there is only two options: do nothing or do 100 %, is a comfort zone. People who argue for personal responsibility argue that everyone should do as much as they can.

And those that argue for corporate and government responsibility do too, with the addition that they are smart enough to recognise personal responsibility isn't enough and isn't possible at scale without systemic change.

It's not that you're wrong, it's that you're wasting your breath preaching to a choir that has additional comprehension.

I require the ability to move those groceries from the shop to my car to my house, but if no one produces an environmentally friendly way to do so then I'm at the mercy of the plastic bags, bottles, containers, and wrapping I've been provided.

Bruh have you never heard of reusable bags? Made of cloth? Or even just bringing your plastic bags back to the store?

You're right about most of these things, but those aren't the types of things I'm referring to.

Bruh have you heard of packaging? Go buy a packet of chips in something that isn't plastic, good luck purchasing those and toting them out in your reusable bag with that handful of sour cream, and pocket full of frozen peas.

those aren't the types of things I'm referring to.

And those that argue for corporate and government responsibility do the things you are referring to, with the addition that they are smart enough to recognise personal responsibility isn't enough and isn't possible at scale without systemic change.

It's not that you're wrong, it's that you're wasting your breath preaching to a choir that has additional comprehension.

Except that they clearly don't, or they wouldn't say such absurd things.

Except we do because I am one. Reusable bag using government responsibility pusher right here. So instead of being disingenuously belligerent, check your ego at the recycling center. Oh wait, they haven't built one.

Then maybe say what you mean instead of telling people who are responsible that they aren't.

I did say what I mean, your lack of comprehension and inability to ask clarifying questions is a you problem.

That's good. Blame other people for not asking questions when you say the opposite of what you mean. You're so dark and mysterious.

Everyone else gets it, why can't you? You're in charge of your own education.

4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...
4 more...