If we HAD trains and public transit, I would LOVE to take them!
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.
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.
For me, it's both more expensive and takes longer, to take the train.
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?
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.
This reply misunderstands the fundamentals of market economics. If we, the consumers, start making the global climate more of a factor in our purchasing decisions, that will directly affect what gets produced in a capitalist system. Not trying to absolve these corporations of responsibility for the problems they’ve caused, just saying that if enough people start taking the bus/train instead of driving or substituting meats for plant based foods, we can have a significant impact. Of course the best thing we can do is vote to get ignorant climate science deniers out of office.
Choosing what to buy is a luxury most people don’t have. Companies need to be forced into changing because the market proves time and time again that it can’t regulate itself
Chosing to eat chicken instead of beef impacts the whole chain from fertilizer to animal feed to clearing the Amazon for pasture to methane produced by cows.
You have more choice than you think, like which meat to pick or to use more eggs and cheese as replacement instead. This is just one of the obvious everyday choices. Not all fish is equal too, with sustainable aquaculture being the best choice for the world.
If the oil majors, or just one of them switch off the taps tomorrow we will just get Russian gas crisis x10 and make OPEC and friends insanely rich. We need to transition to something else, that's for sure, but blaming them for everything is super naive.
The issue with that logic, voting with your money, which I once used as well, is that richer people get more of a vote than poor people. And as a bunch of the issues with global warming didn't really hit rich people, we shouldn't depend on them to fix it.
In order to make an actual impact on the environment, we'd need to all go back to living without electricity in stone houses. Everyone in the world could take the bus and it would do fuck all. Society needs to change how we produce energy and how we construct things. That's stuff consumers cant do by changing their habits.
That's a 2 hour video from a guy with 35k subscribers and it starts off with Chad memes and an ad break for an alpha male bro podcast...
Do you have any response to the substance or is the style the only thing you want to attack?
The video does not "debunk" kurzgesagt" but disagrees with who to blame. It's the same conundrum that is happening in this thread. When telling individuals to do what they can to protect the environment you aren't telling them that they alone are responsible. I don't understand how people so regularly make this jump.
This Video is badly researched and the worst you could accuse Kurzgesagt is that they have sloppy research on sponsored Videos. Which in my opinion is also not correct.
the worst you could accuse Kurzgesagt is that they have sloppy research on sponsored Videos
Oh boy. If you think that's the worst thing you can accuse Kurzgesagt of you must have entirely missed the whole Coffee Break drama, where not only did Kurzgesagt reveal himself to be a complete dishonest arsehole in his private commications with Coffee Break, he also stood by while a whole heap of his fellow large creators sicced their audiences on a small-time creator who was putting out really interesting stuff.
Plus, unrelated to all of that, his former business partners at Standard/Nebula do not have positive things to say about how he completed himself there. Supposedly he and CGP Grey saw Standard as a way for those of them who got in early to essentially leech off of the newer creators as Standard expanded, and when the other creators wanted to keep expanding it in a way that way mutually beneficial to all, those two creators tried to shut down the whole thing. It only survived because the others agreed to buy them out.
Can't buy what doesn't exist, can't buy a healthier option if one isn't produced, can't buy a more sustainable product if one isn't produced, can't buy a solar powered utility vehicle if one isn't produced, can't buy wind power if it isn't produced, can't buy items without single use packaging unless they're produced.
Needs and wants may drive a market, but nothing is consumed before production.
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.
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.
For many people, there absolutely is an option and they refuse to take the mild inconvenience.
They’re not just wrecking the environment for no reason, they make products people consume
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 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.
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.
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
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
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%...?
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.
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
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!
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:
Ok CNN. I'll follow your lead and start using public transportation.
That just involves me leaving my house at 4am and driving 9 minutes to the local bus stop, then take a bus ride for 37 min, transfer from there to another bus for another 19 min ride, transfer to another bus and ride for an hour, then either call an Uber for a 3 min ride or I can walk for 30 minutes to reach my workplace.
Or... I can just drive and reach my workplace in 40min.
I would love to use public transportation, and when I lived in Japan that's all I ever used, which I much preferred to a car.
America first needs to get serious about establishing actual reliable and accessible transportation in order for more people to use it.
To be fair the big three (Ford, GM, Chrysler) made some politicians very rich suppressing light and cross country high speed passenger rail, also public transit all across the nation.
The US (through its deeply corrupted electoral system) totally bought that ticket to ride that train... so to speak.
Please, think of the oil companies and quit being selfish! /s
You're right! How could I forget about the oil companies?
How ever would they make even MORE money now at the expense of Americans having better public transportation?!?
Flying pigs are actually carbon neutral, lets just use them
Swap your car or plane ride for a bus or train
Kinda hard to do when there's nowhere near enough investment in public transit
It's not actually about the transit; it's about the zoning. Both the reason we "need" transit in the first place and the reason it's too expensive per rider to be viable is that our homes and businesses are spread too far apart.
If you're not within easy walking distance of a grocery store, your town was built wrong.
That too, but it's not like transit investment isn't also lacking
"Just one more road, bro. I swear this time it'll work out, bro. Just one more lane in that 8-lane highway, bro"
Yeah where I live, there's a bus every 2 hours that needs ~30 minutes to get to where I work. If I took that, I'd have to walk an additional 15 minutes to my actual workplace and I'd still be an hour too early.
And after work, I'd have to again walk 15 minutes to the bus stop and wait another 30 minutes for the bus home.
So between leaving my house and coming back home, there'd be ~11.5 hours. When I use my car, that's ~9.5 hours.
My old job was located out of the city and the times I worked there were no busses running (4am til whenever we were done) so I drove ~30 minutes to work, then work between 12 to 14 hours then drive back, which can take between 30 minutes to an hour if there was an accident. Then only being able to sleep like 3 hours a night then repeat the process was torture.
I'm so glad I was able to get a remote job where now I actually have time during my work days to do other things like actually go to gym everyday and be able to see my family more rather than just work and sleep.
I literally cannot do either of these things. Haven’t ever been able to in my life. No town I have ever lived in had public transport available. Closest train station was literally a two hour walk away.
It’s a nice thought, but there isn’t enough infrastructure to play like it’s generally available.
This is such a fucking stupid argument to make.
The reason airlines make x% of CO2 emissions is because people want to fly, they're an airline, and there is no emissions free way to power a plane.
The reason the plastic company makes x billions of plastic sporks every year is because I want a spoon to eat my Taco Bell Nachos in my car. They're not making all the plastic pollution because they just hate the Earth.
They're not cartoon villains like in Captain Planet that pollute just to make pollution.
If it's that bad, then let's make a law that fixes the problem.
You can take this and just welp, plastic spoon is cheaper and all my concurrent are doing it so fuck it.
We want a greener industry? Make the fucking law reflect that otherwise, fuck off.
It's almost as if regulations are needed because humans are incapable of doing the right thing to protect themselves. Fairly common thing I might add but you'd require a slightly larger government to do it and we can't have that either.
Which is how this ends up being a chicken-egg problem.
Are people driving plastic usage or is capitalism driving policies that drive people to use more plastic?
And if so, why is industry writing policy instead of the public, or agents that are supposed to work for the public's interest?
None of this ends until enough "regular people" coordinate to take power back from industry so that we operate like an actual democracy again. If you want to preserve an environment on Earth fit for human habitation, you have to get loud about... Campaign finance reform : P. And then realized that as boring as that sounds, that that will be when things actually would get violent and scary bc real power would be threatened.
I am not optimistic we'll even get that far. Our population probably will take some very severe hits in our lifetime though. I'll cut down on meat where I can, but I am mostly just enjoying the good times we have left.
It doesn't help that a sizable subset of Americans will bitch and moan at any efforts to reduce the reliance on things like disposable plastic forks, plastic straws or plastic shopping bags because it's "woke".
Tbh the best way to avoid that is to use marketing instead of force, make carrying a reusable spork cool, market it differently to people (like for the woke say it's green and one company that makes a certain spork is employee owned by gay people, for the trumpets say it's good for their prepping or because the microplastics are estrogenating the children or some shit and also this other spork brand are god fearin' christians unlike GaySporks, etc), until they become common like nalgene bottles were and then you can either just phase out the disposables or then pass your law with more support, or just let them be as emergency rations for if you lost your spork on the way to taco bell today or whatever and you need another.
Edit: shit, you could even have fast food and fast food+ style places rebrand a spork with their logo and sell them instead of giving away free disposables. Capitalism is the problem and it won't go away? Exploit it against itself and make it work for the enviornment. To some degree it's not only doable but probably easier than force through law.
You get a lot less support with "plastic straws are now illegal, go buy a metal one and some pipe cleaners to carry now" than if you figure out how to make the straws popular with everyone first.
From what I understand, a lot of corporations have power over the options consumers have, the market isnt as free as this argument implies. For example, coal and fossil fuel lobbies do a lot to prevent sustainable alternatives from being adopted.
The US doesnt rely on oil and coal because thats what consumers want, or because its necessarily the cheapest, its because the people that run those corporations have the means to subvert democracy.
They are not cartoon villains, but they are absolutely villains.
What you are saying is true for plastic straws and airlines, but I would guess it doesnt really apply to many of these 100 corporations
there is no emissions free way to power a plane.
You can run it on biofuels. This is how Gates excuses his private jet, conveniently ignoring the possibility of combining biofuel AND comercial flights.
Some airlines are trying to, and electric on shorter flights.
Corporations create the heat and cooling, build the cars and airplanes, and raise the meat for... wait for it... consumers. These things go hand in hand. Asking people to make changes to their lifestyles that will help the environment IS demanding the corporations to stop producing so much pollution. No one wants to take the blame.
When the world is on fire, no one will care, but the idea that corporations are somehow a separate entity from the consumers/individuals that line their pockets with profits is equally irresponsible. It does come down to daily choice, because the corporations follow demand. But no one wants to suffer the inconvenience of changing their lifestyle, so we blame the corporations that we then buy gas, electricity, meat, and cars from. It's blindingly dumb from either direction.
Spiderman points at Spiderman.
Note that the IPCC acknowledges that no one is paying the true cost of energy or food. You could decapitate all corporate executives, and, if we truly wanted to pay the environmental costs of heating, cooling, and food, all prices would go up. If you think things are hard now, give it a decade. Prices for everyone for everything will go up. You could kill all the rich people on the planet, and it wouldn't change that fact, and it wouldn't suddenly make the environment sound. It truly does come down to fundamental lifestyle changes that none of us want to enact.
You cannot eat money.
This is classic dog wags the tail and vice-versa. Is it the demand causing these corporations to make the product or are they creating the demand through plentiful supply and marketing?
If these entities were to make something with lower emissions and marketed that as a better alternative will nobody buy that something? I highly doubt it...
I remember when the things we bought were extremely durable and could last for decades if taken care of, I'm talking about anything, from tools, to cars, to clothes.
Now, from the 2000s to present day, everything is made to be consumed extremely fast, products are made with cheaper materials and most likely designed to fall apart sooner, this increases consumption by A LOT on a shorter span of time meaning more money in less time, something corporations just drool at.
With things being replaced on a shorter span means more energy required for the factories, more materials, more waste, and yes, way more pollution.
A lot of the times the "consumers" were created artificially with this tactics. Many things that lead to the current state of nsumption by the common folk is engineered.
I'm glad someone else understands this. Everytime I see the statistic about corporate emissions, I can't help but think about how it's so misleading. Exxon et al keep polluting because we keep collectively buying their product.
That doesn't absolve them from their efforts to discredit climate change research, but to suggest they are just some evil entity polluting at will is just ridiculous.
You can't expect someone not ride a car if they need one for survival.
The same is true for the fast-food industry: a lot of people dont cook anymore and just go to McDonald's. Hell, a lot of people don't even make their coffee in the morning anymore.
If we want to get back on track, make a law that reflect this otherwise, fuck off.
Admittedly part of the issue is that huge parts of many cities, especially in the anglosphere, are designed in such a way that living there without a car is impossible, because they've been built too spread-out and too far away from anywhere people want to go
And remedying this would basically require densifying everywhere close to urban centres, up to 5 stories in most places, then fucking razing the suburbs to the ground and making it abundantly clear to anyone who wants to live at that old suburban density or lower that the price will be having a septic tank and dirt roads
Electric cars won't change this, btw. Mass adoption of them is not practical due to their weight, strain on the grid, tendency to catch fire in a way that takes 1 entire tender per car, and use of finite lithium, and should be reserved for those with a very specific set of disabilities that make walking difficult while not impairing driving abilities, or those who actually want to live out in the country and put up with aforementioned septic tank and dirt roads
I think it's hard to estimate how much effort corporations put into getting us to do what they want. If you've ever looked at why the public transportation in the US is shit you'd know there's something suspicious going on with it.
US used to have cities that are great for public transportation, the grid design of the 1920s is excellent or public transportation. Some cities like NY still have that but cities like Detroit spent decades destroying that to build a highway going straight through the city. Suburbs in America are being built in a way that only suits car travel. And not just that, people have been conditioned to think that only poor people would use public transportation. Not only have been people made to believe they don't want public transportation, they couldn't have it even if they wanted to because it would be horribly inefficient.
Who benefits from those decisions? Definitely not the people who are now dependent on owning cars. But I'm pretty sure car manufacturers and oil companies are pretty happy because they get to sell more cars and oil. Now I can't point the finger at that those companies because there's no evidence they influenced this, at least none that I know of. But it's awfully convenient for them that when the car boom happened in the 50s the US government was happy to spend money literally rebuilding cities to make them more car dependent and keep at it, while the same thing was stopped in Europe pretty quickly.
I don't mind giving off some conspiracy theorist vibe, but I don't think it's far fetched that corporations are entities that put money above everything else and if needless polluting let's them make more money they will do it without hesitation. I wouldn't put it past them to deliberately build the narrative that somehow the people are to blame for this polluting. After all EXXON started the "is it even real?" and "is it even man made?" arguments that regular people used for decades to derail the climate change discussions, all with the purpose of shifting attention away from them. It's literally their MO.
I agree with this entirely.
Of course there are corporations responsible for way more than myself. But using it as a means to justify myself doing nothing to reduce my own consumption is just backwards and stupid. It's comparing a bad thing to another really bad thing but they're both still bad things. Should they stop doing what they're doing to contribute to this, yes. Should I also? Also yes lol. Plus like your comment said. These companies are driven by our own demand. It's our fault for supporting and relying on the way things are for sure.
Thanks for your reply. I think the hard truth that we all need to look at is, regardless of who is to blame, we all need to make daily choices that work towards a common goal of salvaging this planet. And I think often those choices are annoying, inconvenient, or expensive. Some of us can shoulder the expense portion easier than others, but until we start acting every day like the world is worse than it was 100 years ago, we're only going to make it worse in the future. Things are not going to be easier going forward. The more of us that make things harder now, the less hard things will be in the future for the young. It truly is a daily choice.
TL;DR:
Consumer choices can influence industries, but it is impractical to solely rely on this to drive ecological change due to factors such as lack of awareness, inconvenience, habits, price and limited to no alternatives. Government subsidies for ecologically detrimental industries and the lack of subsidies for ecologically beneficial industries worsen the effect. Improved legislation is necessary to address these issues by enforcing ecologically beneficial industry practises and guide consumers.
Verbose:
I agree with you partly. Yes, consumer choices do affect which companies get money and which don't. But I would say that consumers are not completely responsible for the practises of a company. If a company chooses to power their production based on fossil energy carriers there's not much a consumer can do about it. Sure, they can stop buying from them. But for that a lot of things must happen. First of all they must know about it. And if it's not printed fat on the packaging or news are screaming about it, there is a high probability that they will never know about it. They could ask the companies themselves. And even if companies would be transparent and honest about their response, there's only a small fraction of people who would do this. That's because it's inconvenient. As ugly as it sounds, people hate inconveniences. A lot of people don't want to spend their precious free time with writing or calling the hundreds of companies, whose products they use, to ask about their production practises. Finally, if consumers eventually learn about the ecological impact of their products, they still need to collect a significant amount of mental energy in order to make the conscious decision of not buying them and possibly looking out for alternatives. That's difficult, because people easily get used to stuff and it's psychologically hard to change habits. And they'd need to do this for every single product they use. Even worse, in a critical amount of cases there aren't even alternatives available to consumers. If you continue buying the wrong products (in an eco sense), because you don't have access to an (affordable) alternative, that will send the wrong signals. The market won't see an increased demand for ecologically friendly products in these (significant amount of) cases, but quite the contrary.
I don't say that it's impossible, clearly humans seem to have the capacity of intelligence and can be educated to do better, but I claim it's impractical for the everyday life of the masses. Especially, we don't have the time to wait until the majority of people is able to change their consumption behaviour. That's why we need laws, such that law makers do the hard work of paving the way for ecologically beneficial industry practises, so the Jon or Jane Doe going to the grocery store after a long day of work doesn't have to worry about which products to buy.
Besides, in a lot of countries fossil based energy carriers are still cheaper than environmemtally friendy alternatives, sadly. If companies start to completely switch to green energy, this would increase the price. Increasing the price can lead to less consumers buying the products. Either because they can't afford it or because they want or need to save money. This again would turn the circle of environmental destruction once more, since the cheaper alternatives, which consumers are looking out for, are usually less beneficial or even detrimental to the environment.
Also let's not forget that also a lot of countries subsidise industries which are major contributors to greenhouse gases, e.g., the meat industry. Meanwhile there is a lack of sufficient subsidies for ecologically better industry segments. I live in a world where an organically grown cucumber is much more expensive than a pack of meat. That can't be right.
We need good laws and can't rely on the behaviour of consumers alone. There's no way around it.
People demand goods and services. They very often do not care how those get to them. If they did, most corporations would go out of existence for using child and slave labor.
Your average person is not the one fighting against climate change regulation. It is the corporations throwing billions at government officials to not regulate them.
Shortest answer to the problem. Corps would LOVE if they could charge some people more for environmentally friendly shit while shoving more plastic in the ocean and carbon in the atmosphere for everyone who doesn't and will never give a shit.
Not would, do. Energy providers, for instance, will often charge extra if you want to only use clean energy despite renewables being cheaper for energy production. That extra money subsidizes their failing coal contracts and investments.
Yeah you're right, didn't mean to say that doesn't already happen. Even Amazon has made it an option to have your delivery be delayed to be more "green" while they pocket the cost savings themselves.
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.
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.
We're not on Reddit.
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.
If you're gonna gargle corpo dick like bulldog on a firehose, at least be honest with yourself, son.
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.
Honestly curious, why did you call this place Reddit?
It's kind of ironic, considering your username.
Good catch. Report the account as bot. 🤌🏼
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
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.
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.
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.
Don’t forget that the biggest greenhouse gas produce is China which last I checked is not capitalist.
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
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
Sadly, your sarcasm is nearly as thick as they are and I'm not sure they grasped your tone. 🤷🏼♂️
You're so thick in your denial, you probably blame toilet manufacturers for your brain farts.
Man. The bar was already so low, and you still brought a shovel? Oof.
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.
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.
Who is this Reddit you speak of? I thought this was Lemmy
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Where's the electricty from your car coming from? Where does the lithium for the battery come from?
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.
It is less bad, but still pollutes a lot, especially in countries with high-carbon electricity production.
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.
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.
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
And my favorite tidbit not included here is how much pollution the US military causes. We know it's off the charts BUT they're allowed to operate with zero oversight and accountability regarding the bugfuck amount of pollution and wrecked ecosystems that military exercises have caused. We don't even know for sure how bad they are but you just look at how much fuel an single idling M1 tank uses and it's insane
A tank will need approximately 300 gallons every eight hours; this will vary depending on mission, terrain, and weather. A single tank takes 10 minutes to refuel. Refueling and rearming of a tank platoon--four tanks--is approximately 30 minutes under ideal conditions. 0.6 miles per gallon.
It's pretty accepted that the US military is the worst polluter on earth, but this never gets brought up
And on the other side of the coin military training areas in Germany are studied as potential nature reserves because just some limited amount of sane oversight goes a long way...
Yeah, I think I read something about how the DMZ in Korea is flourishing with wildlife because the animals there aren't heavy enough to trip the mine that both sides have laid. Thus no people are encroaching on them and they can just let themselves happen.
The US spends millions of dollars buying up land around military facilities and permanently conserving it. There are Federal grant programs that work in partnership with nonprofit land trusts to accomplish the very thing. Every conserved property has a conservation values inventory completed as part of the protection process that documents natural communities (including rare and endangered species). This inventory serves as the baseline for enforcement of the conservation restrictions. I’m a reformed real estate attorney that works for a conservation land trust.
That statistic is flawed it counts downstream combustion of coal oil and gas for energy purposes (this is 90% of the total company emissions in the metric) which means you can buy a fossil fuel car fill it with petrol and burn it and that will be counted as corporate emissions
The statement is flawed because it takes the personal responsibility out of those corporate profits. Oil production burns a lot of fuel but it's profitable because I keep buying it. Cargo ships make a lot of emissions but it's profitable because I keep buying foreign goods. Cow farms produce tons of methane but they're so huge because I keep eating beef.
Corporations do not exist without the customer. Massive buyout conglomerations greatly misrepresent true pollution per industry production units. If I said ExxonMobil is the dirtiest company in the world, does that mean they're polluting worse than BP? No, not by itself. You have to look at tons of oil produced between the two and figure out a pollution per ton figure. Would it make sense to say Amazon is a very clean business because part of their business uses unconditioned warehouses? Not really, you'd probably want to separate out their trucking and delivery divisions from their storage and then compare it to UPS and FedEx via gallons per ton delivered. I've even seen people argue their single-item order from Amazon isn't wasteful because "the truck is coming by anyway". No! The truck is not an autonomous sushi conveyor belt swinging by. It's a business asset being routed to customers.
I'm not saying these corporations are good or clean. I'm not saying they don't cheat, lie, hide, and bribe governments to ignore their hazards. I'm just saying you can't take a 100% hands off view of the issue, either. I drive a cleaner car and drive less so Exxon makes less. I wait for my ordering needs to build up a little to improve efficiency of the delivery. I buy more local and national so I don't demand a cargo ship to carry my trinkets. Obviously it's not perfect and I have a very, very minor impact, but that's the whole point of being in a society. A community works together for the common good.
I'll defer to the following point by the original Twitter OP though, which I still think is valid: "The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting," Johnson told us. "Individuals' choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn't be the focus of climate coverage."
tl;dr: Yes, personal responsibility and reducing one's carbon footprint is also very important, but there is chronic under-reporting on the other end of the equation.
still better than the opposite, where you're just trying to buy food but everything comes in some shitty packaging made of hydrocarbons and it will be counted as your individual contribution to the waste problem. regulation works (that's why they oppose it so hard) and it works a lot better than "voting with your wallet" which is what we would be supposed to do if it was up to us -- where certain people have a hell of a lot more votes than we do
That's interesting I wasn't aware of this. Would you by chance have a source for this data? I'd be interested to see the true numbers.
yeah its in like page 1 or 2 of the primary source the stat comes from one sec ill get it
Direct operational emissions (Scope 16
) and
emissions from the use of sold products (Scope 3:
Category 11) are attributed to the extraction and
production of oil, gas, and coal. Scope 1 emissions
arise from the self-consumption of fuel, flaring, and
venting or fugitive releases of methane.
Scope 3 emissions account for 90% of total
company emissions and result from the downstream
combustion of coal, oil, and gas for energy purposes.
A small fraction of fossil fuel production is used in
non-energy applications which sequester carbon.
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
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.
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.
Every time you suggest to meat eaters to eat less meat, they become violent.
Even if you suggest them cutting their 14 meat meals per week down to maybe 12 meat meals (skip one day), they flip their shit.
So ya, good luck suggesting to anyone to eat 30% less.
It's meat wiring. I don't know what it is actually called, but that's what I call it.
I used to be a meat eater- nary a meal was made that didn't have meat as a main and the rest of the meal built around that.I would say that I didn't understand vegetarians- we need meat, we evolved to eat it. Then meat started getting expensive. Then meat started losing its quality. Then meat (especially chicken) started having a rubber texture to it and was like $15 a pound and I had enough and went pescatarian/vegetarian. It was hard at first, but we really couldn't afford meat anymore so we made it work.
After a while I noticed that the smell of meat is absolutely nauseating. The idea of meat is sickening and I am dropping eating fish now in favour of full on vegetarianism.
As I went through a meat "detox" phase ( I know it's not a detox but I don't know how else to put it) my brain changed how it felt about meat while I wasn't even paying attention. I was focusing on finding new, enjoyable veggie meals and my brain was working away purging all the want for meats.
Either they've convinced themselves they can't eat less/no meat, or they simply do not care to.
That's interesting!
I am allergic to most meat, and the few types I can still eat I don't like to cook myself, because meat is something you need to make sure is cooked properly to be safe. So I end up rarely having it, and honestly, my life is no different. The rare times I do have it, it's great, I enjoy ribs, bacon, etc, but it's nothing I would get angry and defensive over.
I buy the beyond meat sometimes, and it's delicious as hell. I go to vegan restaurants, as I can guarantee my deathly allergy is not going to pop up there, and it's bomb ass food (usually. I find that some vegan places are -3/10, but others are 11/10 and their "meat" tastes 100% authentic and real, it's something you need to discover.).
I had good friends to ply me with cheese and avocado. I still like meat but can eat it less frequently and with smaller portions.
But one of my dark secrets is patience. In the 70s, mom tried to quit red meat cold-turkey and didn't last one menstrual cycle, and I learned it's consistent among most women, that they are one period away from running down an elk in the woods in bloodlust.
So I'm only ever a week at most before someone nearby goes STEAK! TODAY! and we're feasting once again on the fresh, sautéd flesh of dead animals.
I have high hopes for cultured meat (lab-grown chicken is on the verge of hitting the restaurant supply market) which will serve the cruelty factor. Nutrition balancing is a whole 'nother matter.
This is a weird comment.
I get that a lot.
Nah, I am a woman and stopped eating meat when I was 9 years old. I still got my periods in puberty and still have them regularly so that sadly did not work out for me.
Do all that and a single cruise ship will undo it in about 3 second
Ban them. Private jets too.
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.
Do you kill mosquitos that try to feed on you? Flys that contaminate your food? Mice that destroy your home?
I agree killing someone is wrong, even when they have committed a crime. The only time I think it’s acceptable is when it’s a life or death situation. But you’ll never convince me that it’s wrong to kill for food when that’s what the majority of animals do every single day.
Edit: I also disagree with many of the “facts” presented by your “article.” Describing the harvesting of honey as theft, completely disregarding home/hand raised chickens and the fact that infertile eggs will literally rot under the chicken.
Animals do kill each other a lot, does that mean that we are justified in copying this behaviour? The animals that kill eachother either have no means to survive otherwise or have no rational capabliity to deduce that its wrong, I cannot reason with a lion but I hope I can reason with you. As it happens lions also eat their young and forced intercourse is the norm in the animal kingdom, are we justified in copying these acts because it's "natural" to do so?
Furthermore even if we were to conclude that carnivores/omnivores are morally culpable for their killings how does that justify us killing cows, pigs and chickens that did nothing to harm us
The actions of non-humans in the circumstances of non-humans have no bearing on the actions of humans in the circumstances of a modern human
Ugh I deleted that comment by mistake while editing it.
Let me ask you: Does the world currently have the ability to live 100% vegan? I’m not asking “will it ever be 100%” I am asking “can the entire populace live vegan?”
There are also major issues with your linked arguments. It seems to like to skirt around things with half truths. “Eggs are immoral because we kill the chickens” ignores the fact that many people have egg chickens, intending to just let them live and produce. There is no rule that says once a chicken stops producing it needs to be killed.
I’m not doing a deep dive. But when you are the one asking the questions, of course you’re going to have all the answers.
no not everyone can eat a plant based diet, but they can still avoid other animal products and testing
Plants are also living creatures, aren't you just drawing the line a bit further, and acting like its the only true way?
Why is it ok to harvest, kill, eat plants and not animals?
I spent years fighting against veganism, and there was literally no valid argument against it beyond "I don't care, I'll eat animals anyway".
There's just nothing. Eating meat is bad for the planet, bad for the animals, and more often than not in western cultures bad for the human.
First of all I think that violence in self defense or survival is justified, plants have tropisms which means they have small hard coded responses to certain stimuli like leaning toward light, they do not have any form of sense processing thus no awareness no preference theyre an object
Even if you wanted to minimise the harm caused to plants, it takes far more plants to feed livestock to sustain an omnivorous diet
There is no scientific reason to assume that plants have the capability to suffer. And different scientists try again and again to look into that. But the cold hard truth is, to feel something you need a somewhat complex nervous centrum that plants simply don't have. The same is true for microorganisms and many other simple lifeforms, btw.
Pigs, cows, chickens, even fish experience pain, stress, fear, etc. very similar to how we experience it. And we people know that, that's why many countries have laws against animal cruelty.
If you're concerned about plants, that's a good reason for going vegan.
to "buy" a laying hen you are almost certainly going to be buying from a breeder that kills the male chicks
Tasty, tasty murder.
That reminds me, I should take out a moose roast for dinner.
Most meat eaters are too chicken shit and lazy to slaughter their own food. I certainly don't have the stomach to, which is why my meat eating is rapidly approaching zero
I have shot, gutted, skinned, butchered and processed more animals that most people have laid eyes on in their lifetimes. I've either raised or hunted nearly every bit of meat I've eaten in the last 15 years, and given way more of it away to food banks and needy neighbors than I've eaten myself.
But I agree, people should be prepared to kill their own meat, it makes them appreciate it more.
"It gives me pleasure" is the logic for donating to charity as well
Ok yeah in full: "the suffering caused is justified by the pleasure I received" is the argument theyre using and it justifies a whole bunch of shitty things like rape
Got it. Eating meat is the exact same thing as rape. No difference at all.
That is not what they said. The argument is that we normally all agree that "but I like it" is not a valid argument to cause harm to others. Why should it suddenly be a valid argument to cause harm to animals?
ahhh, youth. To have the sanctimonious, patronizing zeal of a recent convert again...
I deserve to read this garbage for being one of you for more than a decade. Then my fucking system gave out and stopped being able to digest soy and gluten so I had to get back on the meat wagon. At least I dropped a bunch of weight and got my libido back, so I guess there's that
You can eat a vegan diet without soy and gluten.
Oh, isn't it annoying to be reminded of your own misplaced zealotry? I used to be like this about atheism, like 20 years ago. What a smug cunt I was. Not that I stopped being an atheist, just that at one point the smugness hit a singularity and I came out the other side going "what was I thinking? I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and in the process, being a twat to anyone I disagree with and getting my blood pressure up isn't doing me any favours."
And hell yah, eating mostly meat and fat is an amazingly effective way to lose weight and fix a lot of stomach issues. Carbs are evil to the body.
I mean, if you wanted to get the largest number of people to stop eating animals, the #1 thing would be donating money to lab-grown meat research, or at least getting other people to, rather than engaging in online arguments in a way that immediately causes people to get defensive and emotional. Sure, it's not doing anything yet, but the second it becomes less expensive than traditional meat (and that can't be hard, since you're only growing the flesh you want, rather than an entire fucking animal, it will be much more efficient given time), that's almost immediately going to sway a lot of people who do not give a shit about the ethics or morality of it, but do care about their budgets or bottom lines.
But hey at least you're not rounding up those ticks whose bite makes you allergic to red meat in order to do an eco-terrorism (8chan's /leftypol/ has just as much brainrot as the rest of that site), since a) that would cause an immense backlash and b) the difference would just be made up in chicken and fish anyway.
"Youre going about it all wrong: this method is how you convince people to stop slitting innocent animals throats. I know this method works because it didnt work on me." fyi if I could snap my fingers and somehow force everyone to leave animals alone I'd do it in a heartbeat, wouldnt you do the same to end all murder?
I mean, it's been scientifically shown that antagonistically trying to change someone's mind only serves to harden their existing views and make them less open to thinking about it. e.g. at this point I'm deliberately avoiding reading your response again, because all it provokes is my anger issues, all that achieves is putting me in a state where you are The Enemy and neither morality or ethics are considerations, and I try to avoid that with people I largely agree with but have one major sticking point against these days.
I've been in a similar position with urbanist/FuckCars stuff, where no matter how many arguments you make about how the suburbs are a blight upon the cities they parasitise and we need to densify now, how cars have no right being the #1 method of transportation within cities, or how SUVs should be banned within city limits, the carbrained suburbanite will ignore them all and continue going about their lifestyle without a thought about it. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
But you can always tap into the fear that comes with "this will economically ruin you if you keep doing this" and as such, high petrol prices are one hell of a gift for getting people to start catching public transport and/or biking, at least the ones who live in places where such a thing is physically possible. We're in the middle of a cost of living crisis, where the average person is getting evermore squeezed for what little they have, and you still can't shift your angle of attack from "you're a terrible person and you should feel bad" to "meat is the most expensive part of your diet and here are alternative ways to get that flavour/texture that cost far less (and incidentally are 100% plant)" and then work on them from there?
Just saying, the average(/mode) person using any English-language space on the internet a) is used to dishes where the meat, or at least some kind of fancy, dairy-based sauce, is the focal point and b) has no idea what the state of fake meat/meat alternatives is like right now.
"Meat" describes wild venison and grass raised cattle as well as factory farmed meat. Factory farmed meat is akin to an animal holocaust, sure, but what happens to deer if we stop eating them is worse than that. First the population explodes, and with increased proximity to each other, diseases such as CWD also explode amongst the deer population. Good grazing land dwindles as deer slowly starve to death while a growing portion of them live as literal zombies due to CWD. The best case scenario is that the wild predators return and torture them all to death by eating them ass-first. There HAS to be a predator to prevent this, and humans are the more humane predator. As a side note, all of those happy grass raised cattle simply disappear without their consumption, because modern cattle cannot survive in the wild.
hunting as the only source of meat cannot sustain food supply, 99% of people would have to stop eating meat if that were the only source. and there is a more humane way to control deer population with contraceptive darts see the vegan blindspot by humane hancock https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjCp6bUp__M
71% of corporations is the new climate denial were at the bargaining stage now: "well the drastic sacrifice were going to have to make doesnt matter because corporations need to do something before I even attempt to start living in line with earths resources"
But these corporations have the power to change what we as consumers buy or use, they have and are still resisting any changes and lie continuesly.
And if these companies don't allow change it will not happen no matter what we do.
They own the media they own the politicians, without them we are doomed.
Some might say we are already doomed and the elite are squeezing the last out of us because they think they will somehow escape the consequences
To what extent are we victims, and to what extent are we part of the system? This isn't a simple thing to answer, and there's not a single answer.
Corporations have too much power, but people fell into consumerism and fanboyism, defending their practices.
People talk about reducing electronic trash, but will buy the next shiny device at launch, before the last one stops working, will say that it's a "needed improvement" when someone criticizes things like phones removing audio jacks, and look at people using older stuff as if they're crazy. People talk about damaging production chains, but won't prioritize local small ones. There are so many examples, but this is enough to get the idea.
Somehow, people love brands and corporations.
Corporations absolutely control the power what are you even talking about? The only time they listen to us is when it benefits them directly. Look at Reddit and Twitter right now, you would think the large user backlash would improve things but it doesn't. We don't live in a market controlled by you and I, the market it controlled by VC funding and what looks good on an earnings sheet.
People hated the headphone jack getting removed but that didn't change anything. I very much did try to keep buying phones with headphone jacks and expandable storage but companies stopped offering them. Sure there are options available but they all have bigger issues for my use case than lacking I/O.
The EU is requiring user replaceable batteries in phones by 2027, lets take a guess as to who apposes it... is it A) the consumers or B) the phone companies? I'll give you a minute.
And oh boy would you look at that, it's the manufacturers who are fighting against it. So if the manufacturers are fighting regulators over this, do you think the free will of the market could achieve it more efficiently?
I understand and partially agree with you. The big players have more power and can pull the strings in so many markets, but their power isn't absolute.
I think it's all part of modern structure of power, to make us think we are powerless and that changes are impossible. It becomes a self proclaimed prophecy, because we stop taking actions because it won't change anything anyway, so everyone does the same, and nothing happens.
We lack organization. Entire revolutions happened in the past. Kings went down and exploited places became independent.
It's not impossible for us to fight back against corporate power, but we need the coordination we lack now. Social network algorithms contribute a lot to keep us fighting over everything, with everyone, preventing our organization.
Perhaps... the fediverse is a first step into some changes. Perhaps, we don't have enough time anymore, perhaps I'm just a naive and foolish dreamer. The future can't be accurately predicted, but onethings is sure: if we don't try to improve things for us, it's much more likely that everyone will get much worse.
Plenty of good used cars sitting around but some people just can't live with a car a few years old. Meanwhile I pride myself on driving things that would likely be in the junkyard if I wasnt
They don't remotely control the public as you might think. Let's imagine at Walmart going full vegan tomorrow. What do you think will happen?
I forecast bankruptcy. You, I guess, imagine half of the dumbfuckistan going vegan?
It is a cyclical thing both consumers and producers are responsible in different ways in most cases the use of plastic in packaging is producers fault for example but eating animal products is a choice for 99% of people on the planet and going vegan is the single biggest way to reduce your carbon footprint (see joseph poore 2018)
At some point in the past 20-30 years I started recycling. My town had just installed these new separate trash bins, I was just tryna "do my part" and be able to say I didn't contribute to the shit environment we will have in the future. Nowadays, I neither recycle, nor feel guilty about it. The illusion that I was doing anything productive with my time fell apart the time I saw the garbage guys pick up all the trash containers and dump them in the same truck. I asked them "hey, does the trash site have some way to sort the garbage?" thinking that maybe I was missing something. They said "nah" and moved on.
Nowadays I still watch the same trucks pick up the same trash cans in the exact same fucking way. In the meantime I've learned the company belongs to someone close to the mayor, so there's not even a chance this kinda shit will be reprimanded, ever.
You can build the best fucking bridge you want, if there's a corporation on the other side of the river, you'll find yourself swimming anyway.
So no, buddy. Blaming corpos for the results of their actions isn't just "the new climate denial". Some of us have been cynical for a while now, and this is just another area where we don't trust some shithead politician's empty slogans.
Also, there's no need to discredit all parties that disagree with you by aligning them with an obviously insane crowd, is there? Especially since that shit goes both ways - your post is also the type of post that a corporate shill would write. Should I label you as a corpo whitewasher, just cause your opinion is different than mine?
At some point in the past 20-30 years I started recycling. My town had just installed these new separate trash bins, I was just tryna "do my part" and be able to say I didn't contribute to the shit environment we will have in the future. Nowadays, I neither recycle, nor feel guilty about it. The illusion that I was doing anything productive with my time fell apart the time I saw the garbage guys pick up all the trash containers and dump them in the same truck. I asked them "hey, does the trash site have some way to sort the garbage?" thinking that maybe I was missing something. They said "nah" and moved on.
Nowadays I still watch the same trucks pick up the same trash cans in the exact same fucking way. In the meantime I've learned the company belongs to someone close to the mayor, so there's not even a chance this kinda shit will be reprimanded, ever.
Not to diminish from your well written post, but there's also an external reason for this, and of course, it has to do with capitalism and profits.
Basically, there was a time when China was taking trash material that's recyclable and doing the recycling. That's when all the recycling craze happened here.
But then, China changed that, and they were no longer accepting recycling material.
But now here in the US we have the full infrastructure for accepting recyclable material, but nowhere to send the material to, to get recycled at a large and cheap quantity.
So no political personal will want to tell you they're not doing it anymore because of costs, because China won't do it cheaply anymore, so you get scenarios like what you described.
that describes this.
Also, do corporations operate in a vacuum, entirely separated from end consumers?
It's both really.
Finger pointing at corporations while doing nothing may not be as bad as corps finger pointing at us while doing nothing. But it's still bad.
Everyone needs to make an effort on this.
Hoping corporations will somehow grow a conscience isn't accomplishing anything.
Imagine if nearly everyone was using public transit instead of voting out politicians because gas prices got a little too high. That might make the corps think there was more money in green energy than drilling up more oil.
Corporations are not going to fix the problem out of the goodness of their hearts no matter how much people whine about it. It's only going to happen when voters (and consumers) demand it.
This is more of a case of our leaders not listening to those they represent
To add to this, corporations are made of people and selling to people, and most of us are either working for them, buying from them, or both. Everyone needs to change and put social pressure on everyone else to change, this is how groups of people will change, including companies and the governments that will only change as the result of the voters' pressure.
It feels criminal, like a gang initiation. You work for an oil and gas company? You've got blood on your hands now, too.
Agree that we all need to change and pressure each other to change.
We SHOULD be telling people to use planes less though.
I'm sorry but telling people not to is a stupid and futile plan. At least here in the US (idk if anywhere else does this) I say we need to regulate the airlines to run those "unprofitable" flights as they do now, but without the subsidy money. The airlines, being unable to change the frequency or cost of those flights, will turn to the obvious solution: make flying more expensive across the board to subsidize those actually unprofitable but regulated routes. I put unprofitable in quotes earlier because that's the excuse the corps will cry with; their cries mean nothing though. Raising the cost of air travel will reduce demand and will also free up lots of tax dollars for better causes, at least one hopes lmao. Same thing for meat; telling people to go vegan/vegetarian won't work. Ceasing subsidization and increasing regulations (e.g. forcing more humane living standards for the animals) will raise prices letting the market do it's thing which is the best we can really do given the current economic structure of our society. This myth of "personal responsibility" in cases like this is harmful because people's actions are defined by systems, institutions and society at large.
I agree with the general prescription, but cultivating a sense of personal responsibility is useful for the moment when harsh regulations are going to be set in place. Voters are far more likely to agree with high carbon taxes if they have already started to try reducing their emissions.
I'm definitely not defending the stance of liberal media on this: climate change isn't an issue of personal responsibility, but personal responsibility should be promoted on top of systemic change. I'm not telling anyone to live the life of a Tibetan monk, but to put some effort into having virtuous decisions and habits, leading by example, and also use that to claim: "We are doing our part already, but capitalism cannot fix the problem".
Reducing the discussion to "actually, it's corporations only which should change how they work" is going to lead to a pretty large reactionary backslash when people find out that a sustainable economy does also, in fact, require to change our relation with the economy.
another tool is taxation. example: single use plastics are a bad thing and we don't need them in most of the ways they're used. taxing them will make them economically untenable and companies will look for alternatives.
Strange how people can be so oblivious as to the role they play in the consumption of energy and materials...
I've recently started to believe that the only way climate change is going to end is if a very, very large percentage of the human population dies off very quickly... like... 70-80% or more. One billion people still seems like too many.
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)
BUT MAH PROFITS!! WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF MAH CORPORATE PROFITS????
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.
I mean... I'll contribute and do my part because I do care, and that's the type of person I am, but we do need regulation in place for the top contributors to global warming and pollution, which are corporations and celebrities.
Plus, it's bullshit to say that you should take a bus or train or bike or whatever instead of a car when you have disgusting car-centric infrastructure that forces you to drive.
I'd be happy to switch to a smart thermostat if they weren't all so privacy-invading. Nest, the most popular one, is owned by Google, and there's no Google in my home. I'm completely deGoogled and will keep it that way.
Big brain time: Using a bike or my own feet to go everywhere 🧠🚴♂️👣
big brain time: getting run over on a stroad 🚲🚗💀
I'd use my ebike, but that shit will get stolen as soon as I leave it anywhere, and I cannot afford the $3,000 to replace it. So if I am actually going places, I have to drive my vehicle.
So I replaced my car with a train, but now it doesn't fit in my garage. Am I doing this wrong?
You need ultralightrail, and rolling stock from your house to wherever you need to go.
Adam Johnson is way off base here.
Elaborate.
CNN gave a legitimate set of things people can do to make a difference. It was NOT journalistic malpractice to do so. I think CNN is a 'both sides' garbage network, but they are pointing out here correctly that we can ALL pitch in regardless of what shitty corporations do or do not do.
Those are things you can do, sure. But it won't make a difference. That's the whole point.
Wrong. Everyone has to chip in to make a difference.
True but the emissions saved if everyone copied in with the proposed actions dwarf in comparison with the emissions saved if those 100 corporations did the same.
So what is easier to do? Change the lifestyles and circumstances of billions of people in every country in the world within half a decade or so the same with large companies?
Do it all. Every bit counts. Companies suck. Boycott the ones who don't help.
On that we can agree. But most of the activist effort should go into stopping the companies' emissions, not into infighting.
We are well past the "what is easier to do" point and need to grasp for every straw there is though.
That’s a lie that got spread by the same companies that tried to convince us that cigarettes ain’t bad for you and fat is the problem instead of sugar regarding obesity.
Climate change isn’t a linear process, it has so called tipping points and if those are reached shit happens. Consumer behaviour on that level doesn’t matter, it’s literally means we reach the tipping points a week later or something.
This misinformation is made for only one purpose: To spread the blame. So the ones truly responsible can later say that we all failed together instead of being held responsible. The reality is that wether we successful combat climate change or not is up to probably a couple hundred people in leading positions in the world.
If you want to see wether we make progress or not just take a look at the oil and coal production, every drop and rock of that eventually ends up in the atmosphere.
If billions of people who are not owners of corporations each does a little, and forces the greedy billionaire corporations to comply by way of boycott, this CAN be done. Vote against people who explicitly DO NOT want to hold billionaires accountable. The notion that every person cannot make a difference and should give up IS A LIE pushed by the capitalist RW/Kremlin and fossil fuel mafia.
I look up train routes (and sometimes bus)everytime I'm going more than 80 miles or so. Guess how many times I've found one that will get me where I'm going? I'll give you a hint, it's zero.
Okay great, if I live anywhere besides NYC, where's my damn train for transport? Oh right its nonexistent. I'd love to take a train but the people that run this shithole say its too expensive and continue to pave more roads! Wow I love living here where my government continues to listen to big oil and destroy the planet in the process!!
That is a very ignorant comment. The world does not revolve around the US.
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.
They arnt banning coal/wood fired pizza ovens.
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.
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.
They can get fucked.
They can get fucked.
They can... Get. Fucked.
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.
Those companies are emitting to subsidize your lifestyle.
Bitch those companies are emitting to subsidize your fucking lifestyle.
Nah it's the sudden decline of our lovable swashbuckling seafaring pirates
Please remember that the corporations are polluting to provide services to the populace at large. You might as well accuse your pizza delivery driver for polluting after he gives you your order.
I mean, in a city it shows up on a bike or scooter. I think Amazon is a better example. They provide a great service that is nothing but fast delivery and wasteful packing because that's what we want. My answer is that it should be regulated and taxed to show the real cost this convenience has on the world. Another instance is single use utensils. They should not be so cheap to produce that they are being practically thrown away with takeout. Major polluting items need to be artificially made more expensive so that culturally it makes sense to carry our own for or chopsticks with us. That's what regulation is for, creating parameters that companies need to work within, because their motivations are to give us what we want as cheaply as possible to gain market share
Thing is, it's not like consumers choose to use plastic packaging. It's not like we choose to release forever chemicals into the water supply instead of dealing with them responsibly.
Let the person who has never improperly disposed of their batteries throw the first stone.
Nothing is ever anybody's fault and nobody has any agency and if we just get rid of the top 100 polluting companies that wont impact our lives in any way and nobody will get mad about it
They charge me for plastic bags and when I say I need one they chastise me using their boilerplate line supplied by their corporate.
Then a loader truck came to unload things, with huge stack of things covered in styrofoam and wrapped in plastic sheets.
I wish I could repeat the line back. However, I am a known government employee in the area, so I decided to not fuck around and find out.
Can you imagine what would happen if you... stopped buying those products that those companies are selling that are responsible for the emissions? Nah, that's crazy talk.
If we HAD trains and public transit, I would LOVE to take them!
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.
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.
For me, it's both more expensive and takes longer, to take the train.
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?
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.
This reply misunderstands the fundamentals of market economics. If we, the consumers, start making the global climate more of a factor in our purchasing decisions, that will directly affect what gets produced in a capitalist system. Not trying to absolve these corporations of responsibility for the problems they’ve caused, just saying that if enough people start taking the bus/train instead of driving or substituting meats for plant based foods, we can have a significant impact. Of course the best thing we can do is vote to get ignorant climate science deniers out of office.
Choosing what to buy is a luxury most people don’t have. Companies need to be forced into changing because the market proves time and time again that it can’t regulate itself
Chosing to eat chicken instead of beef impacts the whole chain from fertilizer to animal feed to clearing the Amazon for pasture to methane produced by cows.
You have more choice than you think, like which meat to pick or to use more eggs and cheese as replacement instead. This is just one of the obvious everyday choices. Not all fish is equal too, with sustainable aquaculture being the best choice for the world.
If the oil majors, or just one of them switch off the taps tomorrow we will just get Russian gas crisis x10 and make OPEC and friends insanely rich. We need to transition to something else, that's for sure, but blaming them for everything is super naive.
The issue with that logic, voting with your money, which I once used as well, is that richer people get more of a vote than poor people. And as a bunch of the issues with global warming didn't really hit rich people, we shouldn't depend on them to fix it.
In order to make an actual impact on the environment, we'd need to all go back to living without electricity in stone houses. Everyone in the world could take the bus and it would do fuck all. Society needs to change how we produce energy and how we construct things. That's stuff consumers cant do by changing their habits.
Here's a great video by Kurzgesagt
Kurzgesagt is propaganda
That's a 2 hour video from a guy with 35k subscribers and it starts off with Chad memes and an ad break for an alpha male bro podcast...
Do you have any response to the substance or is the style the only thing you want to attack?
The video does not "debunk" kurzgesagt" but disagrees with who to blame. It's the same conundrum that is happening in this thread. When telling individuals to do what they can to protect the environment you aren't telling them that they alone are responsible. I don't understand how people so regularly make this jump.
This Video is badly researched and the worst you could accuse Kurzgesagt is that they have sloppy research on sponsored Videos. Which in my opinion is also not correct.
Oh boy. If you think that's the worst thing you can accuse Kurzgesagt of you must have entirely missed the whole Coffee Break drama, where not only did Kurzgesagt reveal himself to be a complete dishonest arsehole in his private commications with Coffee Break, he also stood by while a whole heap of his fellow large creators sicced their audiences on a small-time creator who was putting out really interesting stuff.
Plus, unrelated to all of that, his former business partners at Standard/Nebula do not have positive things to say about how he completed himself there. Supposedly he and CGP Grey saw Standard as a way for those of them who got in early to essentially leech off of the newer creators as Standard expanded, and when the other creators wanted to keep expanding it in a way that way mutually beneficial to all, those two creators tried to shut down the whole thing. It only survived because the others agreed to buy them out.
Can't buy what doesn't exist, can't buy a healthier option if one isn't produced, can't buy a more sustainable product if one isn't produced, can't buy a solar powered utility vehicle if one isn't produced, can't buy wind power if it isn't produced, can't buy items without single use packaging unless they're produced.
Needs and wants may drive a market, but nothing is consumed before production.
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.
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.
For many people, there absolutely is an option and they refuse to take the mild inconvenience.
This 100%
They’re not just wrecking the environment for no reason, they make products people consume
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 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.
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.
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
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
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%...?
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.
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
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!
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:
Ok CNN. I'll follow your lead and start using public transportation.
That just involves me leaving my house at 4am and driving 9 minutes to the local bus stop, then take a bus ride for 37 min, transfer from there to another bus for another 19 min ride, transfer to another bus and ride for an hour, then either call an Uber for a 3 min ride or I can walk for 30 minutes to reach my workplace.
Or... I can just drive and reach my workplace in 40min.
I would love to use public transportation, and when I lived in Japan that's all I ever used, which I much preferred to a car.
America first needs to get serious about establishing actual reliable and accessible transportation in order for more people to use it.
To be fair the big three (Ford, GM, Chrysler) made some politicians very rich suppressing light and cross country high speed passenger rail, also public transit all across the nation.
The US (through its deeply corrupted electoral system) totally bought that ticket to ride that train... so to speak.
Please, think of the oil companies and quit being selfish! /s
You're right! How could I forget about the oil companies?
How ever would they make even MORE money now at the expense of Americans having better public transportation?!?
Flying pigs are actually carbon neutral, lets just use them
Kinda hard to do when there's nowhere near enough investment in public transit
It's not actually about the transit; it's about the zoning. Both the reason we "need" transit in the first place and the reason it's too expensive per rider to be viable is that our homes and businesses are spread too far apart.
If you're not within easy walking distance of a grocery store, your town was built wrong.
That too, but it's not like transit investment isn't also lacking
"Just one more road, bro. I swear this time it'll work out, bro. Just one more lane in that 8-lane highway, bro"
Yeah where I live, there's a bus every 2 hours that needs ~30 minutes to get to where I work. If I took that, I'd have to walk an additional 15 minutes to my actual workplace and I'd still be an hour too early.
And after work, I'd have to again walk 15 minutes to the bus stop and wait another 30 minutes for the bus home.
So between leaving my house and coming back home, there'd be ~11.5 hours. When I use my car, that's ~9.5 hours.
My old job was located out of the city and the times I worked there were no busses running (4am til whenever we were done) so I drove ~30 minutes to work, then work between 12 to 14 hours then drive back, which can take between 30 minutes to an hour if there was an accident. Then only being able to sleep like 3 hours a night then repeat the process was torture.
I'm so glad I was able to get a remote job where now I actually have time during my work days to do other things like actually go to gym everyday and be able to see my family more rather than just work and sleep.
I literally cannot do either of these things. Haven’t ever been able to in my life. No town I have ever lived in had public transport available. Closest train station was literally a two hour walk away.
It’s a nice thought, but there isn’t enough infrastructure to play like it’s generally available.
This is such a fucking stupid argument to make.
The reason airlines make x% of CO2 emissions is because people want to fly, they're an airline, and there is no emissions free way to power a plane.
The reason the plastic company makes x billions of plastic sporks every year is because I want a spoon to eat my Taco Bell Nachos in my car. They're not making all the plastic pollution because they just hate the Earth.
They're not cartoon villains like in Captain Planet that pollute just to make pollution.
If it's that bad, then let's make a law that fixes the problem.
You can take this and just welp, plastic spoon is cheaper and all my concurrent are doing it so fuck it.
We want a greener industry? Make the fucking law reflect that otherwise, fuck off.
It's almost as if regulations are needed because humans are incapable of doing the right thing to protect themselves. Fairly common thing I might add but you'd require a slightly larger government to do it and we can't have that either.
Which is how this ends up being a chicken-egg problem.
Are people driving plastic usage or is capitalism driving policies that drive people to use more plastic?
And if so, why is industry writing policy instead of the public, or agents that are supposed to work for the public's interest?
None of this ends until enough "regular people" coordinate to take power back from industry so that we operate like an actual democracy again. If you want to preserve an environment on Earth fit for human habitation, you have to get loud about... Campaign finance reform : P. And then realized that as boring as that sounds, that that will be when things actually would get violent and scary bc real power would be threatened.
I am not optimistic we'll even get that far. Our population probably will take some very severe hits in our lifetime though. I'll cut down on meat where I can, but I am mostly just enjoying the good times we have left.
It doesn't help that a sizable subset of Americans will bitch and moan at any efforts to reduce the reliance on things like disposable plastic forks, plastic straws or plastic shopping bags because it's "woke".
For chrissake, remember when they sold Trump branded plastic straws?
Tbh the best way to avoid that is to use marketing instead of force, make carrying a reusable spork cool, market it differently to people (like for the woke say it's green and one company that makes a certain spork is employee owned by gay people, for the trumpets say it's good for their prepping or because the microplastics are estrogenating the children or some shit and also this other spork brand are god fearin' christians unlike GaySporks, etc), until they become common like nalgene bottles were and then you can either just phase out the disposables or then pass your law with more support, or just let them be as emergency rations for if you lost your spork on the way to taco bell today or whatever and you need another.
Edit: shit, you could even have fast food and fast food+ style places rebrand a spork with their logo and sell them instead of giving away free disposables. Capitalism is the problem and it won't go away? Exploit it against itself and make it work for the enviornment. To some degree it's not only doable but probably easier than force through law.
You get a lot less support with "plastic straws are now illegal, go buy a metal one and some pipe cleaners to carry now" than if you figure out how to make the straws popular with everyone first.
From what I understand, a lot of corporations have power over the options consumers have, the market isnt as free as this argument implies. For example, coal and fossil fuel lobbies do a lot to prevent sustainable alternatives from being adopted.
The US doesnt rely on oil and coal because thats what consumers want, or because its necessarily the cheapest, its because the people that run those corporations have the means to subvert democracy. They are not cartoon villains, but they are absolutely villains.
What you are saying is true for plastic straws and airlines, but I would guess it doesnt really apply to many of these 100 corporations
You can run it on biofuels. This is how Gates excuses his private jet, conveniently ignoring the possibility of combining biofuel AND comercial flights.
Some airlines are trying to, and electric on shorter flights.
Corporations create the heat and cooling, build the cars and airplanes, and raise the meat for... wait for it... consumers. These things go hand in hand. Asking people to make changes to their lifestyles that will help the environment IS demanding the corporations to stop producing so much pollution. No one wants to take the blame.
When the world is on fire, no one will care, but the idea that corporations are somehow a separate entity from the consumers/individuals that line their pockets with profits is equally irresponsible. It does come down to daily choice, because the corporations follow demand. But no one wants to suffer the inconvenience of changing their lifestyle, so we blame the corporations that we then buy gas, electricity, meat, and cars from. It's blindingly dumb from either direction.
Spiderman points at Spiderman.
Note that the IPCC acknowledges that no one is paying the true cost of energy or food. You could decapitate all corporate executives, and, if we truly wanted to pay the environmental costs of heating, cooling, and food, all prices would go up. If you think things are hard now, give it a decade. Prices for everyone for everything will go up. You could kill all the rich people on the planet, and it wouldn't change that fact, and it wouldn't suddenly make the environment sound. It truly does come down to fundamental lifestyle changes that none of us want to enact.
You cannot eat money.
This is classic dog wags the tail and vice-versa. Is it the demand causing these corporations to make the product or are they creating the demand through plentiful supply and marketing?
If these entities were to make something with lower emissions and marketed that as a better alternative will nobody buy that something? I highly doubt it...
I remember when the things we bought were extremely durable and could last for decades if taken care of, I'm talking about anything, from tools, to cars, to clothes.
Now, from the 2000s to present day, everything is made to be consumed extremely fast, products are made with cheaper materials and most likely designed to fall apart sooner, this increases consumption by A LOT on a shorter span of time meaning more money in less time, something corporations just drool at.
With things being replaced on a shorter span means more energy required for the factories, more materials, more waste, and yes, way more pollution.
A lot of the times the "consumers" were created artificially with this tactics. Many things that lead to the current state of nsumption by the common folk is engineered.
I'm glad someone else understands this. Everytime I see the statistic about corporate emissions, I can't help but think about how it's so misleading. Exxon et al keep polluting because we keep collectively buying their product.
That doesn't absolve them from their efforts to discredit climate change research, but to suggest they are just some evil entity polluting at will is just ridiculous.
You can't expect someone not ride a car if they need one for survival.
The same is true for the fast-food industry: a lot of people dont cook anymore and just go to McDonald's. Hell, a lot of people don't even make their coffee in the morning anymore.
If we want to get back on track, make a law that reflect this otherwise, fuck off.
Admittedly part of the issue is that huge parts of many cities, especially in the anglosphere, are designed in such a way that living there without a car is impossible, because they've been built too spread-out and too far away from anywhere people want to go
And remedying this would basically require densifying everywhere close to urban centres, up to 5 stories in most places, then fucking razing the suburbs to the ground and making it abundantly clear to anyone who wants to live at that old suburban density or lower that the price will be having a septic tank and dirt roads
Electric cars won't change this, btw. Mass adoption of them is not practical due to their weight, strain on the grid, tendency to catch fire in a way that takes 1 entire tender per car, and use of finite lithium, and should be reserved for those with a very specific set of disabilities that make walking difficult while not impairing driving abilities, or those who actually want to live out in the country and put up with aforementioned septic tank and dirt roads
I think it's hard to estimate how much effort corporations put into getting us to do what they want. If you've ever looked at why the public transportation in the US is shit you'd know there's something suspicious going on with it.
US used to have cities that are great for public transportation, the grid design of the 1920s is excellent or public transportation. Some cities like NY still have that but cities like Detroit spent decades destroying that to build a highway going straight through the city. Suburbs in America are being built in a way that only suits car travel. And not just that, people have been conditioned to think that only poor people would use public transportation. Not only have been people made to believe they don't want public transportation, they couldn't have it even if they wanted to because it would be horribly inefficient.
Who benefits from those decisions? Definitely not the people who are now dependent on owning cars. But I'm pretty sure car manufacturers and oil companies are pretty happy because they get to sell more cars and oil. Now I can't point the finger at that those companies because there's no evidence they influenced this, at least none that I know of. But it's awfully convenient for them that when the car boom happened in the 50s the US government was happy to spend money literally rebuilding cities to make them more car dependent and keep at it, while the same thing was stopped in Europe pretty quickly.
I don't mind giving off some conspiracy theorist vibe, but I don't think it's far fetched that corporations are entities that put money above everything else and if needless polluting let's them make more money they will do it without hesitation. I wouldn't put it past them to deliberately build the narrative that somehow the people are to blame for this polluting. After all EXXON started the "is it even real?" and "is it even man made?" arguments that regular people used for decades to derail the climate change discussions, all with the purpose of shifting attention away from them. It's literally their MO.
I agree with this entirely. Of course there are corporations responsible for way more than myself. But using it as a means to justify myself doing nothing to reduce my own consumption is just backwards and stupid. It's comparing a bad thing to another really bad thing but they're both still bad things. Should they stop doing what they're doing to contribute to this, yes. Should I also? Also yes lol. Plus like your comment said. These companies are driven by our own demand. It's our fault for supporting and relying on the way things are for sure.
Thanks for your reply. I think the hard truth that we all need to look at is, regardless of who is to blame, we all need to make daily choices that work towards a common goal of salvaging this planet. And I think often those choices are annoying, inconvenient, or expensive. Some of us can shoulder the expense portion easier than others, but until we start acting every day like the world is worse than it was 100 years ago, we're only going to make it worse in the future. Things are not going to be easier going forward. The more of us that make things harder now, the less hard things will be in the future for the young. It truly is a daily choice.
TL;DR:
Consumer choices can influence industries, but it is impractical to solely rely on this to drive ecological change due to factors such as lack of awareness, inconvenience, habits, price and limited to no alternatives. Government subsidies for ecologically detrimental industries and the lack of subsidies for ecologically beneficial industries worsen the effect. Improved legislation is necessary to address these issues by enforcing ecologically beneficial industry practises and guide consumers.
Verbose:
I agree with you partly. Yes, consumer choices do affect which companies get money and which don't. But I would say that consumers are not completely responsible for the practises of a company. If a company chooses to power their production based on fossil energy carriers there's not much a consumer can do about it. Sure, they can stop buying from them. But for that a lot of things must happen. First of all they must know about it. And if it's not printed fat on the packaging or news are screaming about it, there is a high probability that they will never know about it. They could ask the companies themselves. And even if companies would be transparent and honest about their response, there's only a small fraction of people who would do this. That's because it's inconvenient. As ugly as it sounds, people hate inconveniences. A lot of people don't want to spend their precious free time with writing or calling the hundreds of companies, whose products they use, to ask about their production practises. Finally, if consumers eventually learn about the ecological impact of their products, they still need to collect a significant amount of mental energy in order to make the conscious decision of not buying them and possibly looking out for alternatives. That's difficult, because people easily get used to stuff and it's psychologically hard to change habits. And they'd need to do this for every single product they use. Even worse, in a critical amount of cases there aren't even alternatives available to consumers. If you continue buying the wrong products (in an eco sense), because you don't have access to an (affordable) alternative, that will send the wrong signals. The market won't see an increased demand for ecologically friendly products in these (significant amount of) cases, but quite the contrary. I don't say that it's impossible, clearly humans seem to have the capacity of intelligence and can be educated to do better, but I claim it's impractical for the everyday life of the masses. Especially, we don't have the time to wait until the majority of people is able to change their consumption behaviour. That's why we need laws, such that law makers do the hard work of paving the way for ecologically beneficial industry practises, so the Jon or Jane Doe going to the grocery store after a long day of work doesn't have to worry about which products to buy.
Besides, in a lot of countries fossil based energy carriers are still cheaper than environmemtally friendy alternatives, sadly. If companies start to completely switch to green energy, this would increase the price. Increasing the price can lead to less consumers buying the products. Either because they can't afford it or because they want or need to save money. This again would turn the circle of environmental destruction once more, since the cheaper alternatives, which consumers are looking out for, are usually less beneficial or even detrimental to the environment.
Also let's not forget that also a lot of countries subsidise industries which are major contributors to greenhouse gases, e.g., the meat industry. Meanwhile there is a lack of sufficient subsidies for ecologically better industry segments. I live in a world where an organically grown cucumber is much more expensive than a pack of meat. That can't be right.
We need good laws and can't rely on the behaviour of consumers alone. There's no way around it.
People demand goods and services. They very often do not care how those get to them. If they did, most corporations would go out of existence for using child and slave labor.
Your average person is not the one fighting against climate change regulation. It is the corporations throwing billions at government officials to not regulate them.
Shortest answer to the problem. Corps would LOVE if they could charge some people more for environmentally friendly shit while shoving more plastic in the ocean and carbon in the atmosphere for everyone who doesn't and will never give a shit.
Not would, do. Energy providers, for instance, will often charge extra if you want to only use clean energy despite renewables being cheaper for energy production. That extra money subsidizes their failing coal contracts and investments.
Yeah you're right, didn't mean to say that doesn't already happen. Even Amazon has made it an option to have your delivery be delayed to be more "green" while they pocket the cost savings themselves.
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.
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.
We're not on Reddit.
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.
If you're gonna gargle corpo dick like bulldog on a firehose, at least be honest with yourself, son.
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.
Honestly curious, why did you call this place Reddit?
It's kind of ironic, considering your username.
Good catch. Report the account as bot. 🤌🏼
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
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.
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.
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.
Don’t forget that the biggest greenhouse gas produce is China which last I checked is not capitalist.
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
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
Sadly, your sarcasm is nearly as thick as they are and I'm not sure they grasped your tone. 🤷🏼♂️
You're so thick in your denial, you probably blame toilet manufacturers for your brain farts.
Man. The bar was already so low, and you still brought a shovel? Oof.
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.
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.
Who is this Reddit you speak of? I thought this was Lemmy
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?
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.
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.
Are you dumb on purpose?
Why are you insulting me?
What a low-effort bot you are. 🤦🏼♂️
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.
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.
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?
Where's the electricty from your car coming from? Where does the lithium for the battery come from?
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.
It is less bad, but still pollutes a lot, especially in countries with high-carbon electricity production.
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.
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.
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
And my favorite tidbit not included here is how much pollution the US military causes. We know it's off the charts BUT they're allowed to operate with zero oversight and accountability regarding the bugfuck amount of pollution and wrecked ecosystems that military exercises have caused. We don't even know for sure how bad they are but you just look at how much fuel an single idling M1 tank uses and it's insane
It's pretty accepted that the US military is the worst polluter on earth, but this never gets brought up
And on the other side of the coin military training areas in Germany are studied as potential nature reserves because just some limited amount of sane oversight goes a long way...
"The Baumholder military training area is therefore of special importance for nature conservation and landscape management. 722 ferns and flowering plants have been identified so far. Of these, 27 species are on the Red List of the Federal Republic of Germany and 34 species are on the Red List of Rhineland-Palatinate. In the animal kingdom, the abundance of insects and amphibians is striking. For bird life, the open and semi-open cultivated landscapes are particularly important, as can be seen, for example, in the occurrence of red-backed shrikes and Great Grey Shrikes. The larger animals such as the lynx, wildcat or black stork, which have found a retreat here, are of public interest."
Yeah, I think I read something about how the DMZ in Korea is flourishing with wildlife because the animals there aren't heavy enough to trip the mine that both sides have laid. Thus no people are encroaching on them and they can just let themselves happen.
It is true: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/130820-wildlife-korea-dmz-war-culture-biology-science
The US spends millions of dollars buying up land around military facilities and permanently conserving it. There are Federal grant programs that work in partnership with nonprofit land trusts to accomplish the very thing. Every conserved property has a conservation values inventory completed as part of the protection process that documents natural communities (including rare and endangered species). This inventory serves as the baseline for enforcement of the conservation restrictions. I’m a reformed real estate attorney that works for a conservation land trust.
That statistic is flawed it counts downstream combustion of coal oil and gas for energy purposes (this is 90% of the total company emissions in the metric) which means you can buy a fossil fuel car fill it with petrol and burn it and that will be counted as corporate emissions
The statement is flawed because it takes the personal responsibility out of those corporate profits. Oil production burns a lot of fuel but it's profitable because I keep buying it. Cargo ships make a lot of emissions but it's profitable because I keep buying foreign goods. Cow farms produce tons of methane but they're so huge because I keep eating beef.
Corporations do not exist without the customer. Massive buyout conglomerations greatly misrepresent true pollution per industry production units. If I said ExxonMobil is the dirtiest company in the world, does that mean they're polluting worse than BP? No, not by itself. You have to look at tons of oil produced between the two and figure out a pollution per ton figure. Would it make sense to say Amazon is a very clean business because part of their business uses unconditioned warehouses? Not really, you'd probably want to separate out their trucking and delivery divisions from their storage and then compare it to UPS and FedEx via gallons per ton delivered. I've even seen people argue their single-item order from Amazon isn't wasteful because "the truck is coming by anyway". No! The truck is not an autonomous sushi conveyor belt swinging by. It's a business asset being routed to customers.
I'm not saying these corporations are good or clean. I'm not saying they don't cheat, lie, hide, and bribe governments to ignore their hazards. I'm just saying you can't take a 100% hands off view of the issue, either. I drive a cleaner car and drive less so Exxon makes less. I wait for my ordering needs to build up a little to improve efficiency of the delivery. I buy more local and national so I don't demand a cargo ship to carry my trinkets. Obviously it's not perfect and I have a very, very minor impact, but that's the whole point of being in a society. A community works together for the common good.
Is that methodology also how the CDP works? I am looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_contributors_to_climate_change#All_cause_1+3_cumulative_emissions_[8] in particular, and the figures aren't looking ridiculously better still.
Or is that the difference between the Scope 1+3 tables and the All cause table in this page?
edit: Snopes has in fact written a fact check that corroborates the methodology used by CDP is potentially flawed for this exact reason. So it will not be accurate - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corporations-greenhouse-gas/.
I'll defer to the following point by the original Twitter OP though, which I still think is valid: "The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting," Johnson told us. "Individuals' choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn't be the focus of climate coverage."
tl;dr: Yes, personal responsibility and reducing one's carbon footprint is also very important, but there is chronic under-reporting on the other end of the equation.
still better than the opposite, where you're just trying to buy food but everything comes in some shitty packaging made of hydrocarbons and it will be counted as your individual contribution to the waste problem. regulation works (that's why they oppose it so hard) and it works a lot better than "voting with your wallet" which is what we would be supposed to do if it was up to us -- where certain people have a hell of a lot more votes than we do
That's interesting I wasn't aware of this. Would you by chance have a source for this data? I'd be interested to see the true numbers.
yeah its in like page 1 or 2 of the primary source the stat comes from one sec ill get it
https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1501833772
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
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.
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.
Every time you suggest to meat eaters to eat less meat, they become violent.
Even if you suggest them cutting their 14 meat meals per week down to maybe 12 meat meals (skip one day), they flip their shit.
So ya, good luck suggesting to anyone to eat 30% less.
It's meat wiring. I don't know what it is actually called, but that's what I call it.
I used to be a meat eater- nary a meal was made that didn't have meat as a main and the rest of the meal built around that.I would say that I didn't understand vegetarians- we need meat, we evolved to eat it. Then meat started getting expensive. Then meat started losing its quality. Then meat (especially chicken) started having a rubber texture to it and was like $15 a pound and I had enough and went pescatarian/vegetarian. It was hard at first, but we really couldn't afford meat anymore so we made it work.
After a while I noticed that the smell of meat is absolutely nauseating. The idea of meat is sickening and I am dropping eating fish now in favour of full on vegetarianism.
As I went through a meat "detox" phase ( I know it's not a detox but I don't know how else to put it) my brain changed how it felt about meat while I wasn't even paying attention. I was focusing on finding new, enjoyable veggie meals and my brain was working away purging all the want for meats.
Either they've convinced themselves they can't eat less/no meat, or they simply do not care to.
That's interesting!
I am allergic to most meat, and the few types I can still eat I don't like to cook myself, because meat is something you need to make sure is cooked properly to be safe. So I end up rarely having it, and honestly, my life is no different. The rare times I do have it, it's great, I enjoy ribs, bacon, etc, but it's nothing I would get angry and defensive over.
I buy the beyond meat sometimes, and it's delicious as hell. I go to vegan restaurants, as I can guarantee my deathly allergy is not going to pop up there, and it's bomb ass food (usually. I find that some vegan places are -3/10, but others are 11/10 and their "meat" tastes 100% authentic and real, it's something you need to discover.).
I had good friends to ply me with cheese and avocado. I still like meat but can eat it less frequently and with smaller portions.
But one of my dark secrets is patience. In the 70s, mom tried to quit red meat cold-turkey and didn't last one menstrual cycle, and I learned it's consistent among most women, that they are one period away from running down an elk in the woods in bloodlust.
So I'm only ever a week at most before someone nearby goes STEAK! TODAY! and we're feasting once again on the fresh, sautéd flesh of dead animals.
I have high hopes for cultured meat (lab-grown chicken is on the verge of hitting the restaurant supply market) which will serve the cruelty factor. Nutrition balancing is a whole 'nother matter.
This is a weird comment.
I get that a lot.
Nah, I am a woman and stopped eating meat when I was 9 years old. I still got my periods in puberty and still have them regularly so that sadly did not work out for me.
Do all that and a single cruise ship will undo it in about 3 second
Ban them. Private jets too.
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.
Also disgusting that people think that paying for an innocent animal to die is somehow capitalisms fault
You telling me I should be butchering my own meat? Cuz I’d do it if I was allowed and had access to the tools and space to do it.
no. meat is murder https://watchdominion.org
I disagree.
how is it not wrong to needlessly kill someone innocent? refer here first before replying your answer is probably already addressed https://www.godfist.com/vegansidekick/guide.php
Survival isn't needless. Your choline deficiency is showing.
"To up your intake, consider eating more choline-rich foods, such as salmon, eggs, broccoli and cauliflower." https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/what-is-choline#bottom-line thanks I'll eat more brocolli and cauliflower
Someone or something?
Do you kill mosquitos that try to feed on you? Flys that contaminate your food? Mice that destroy your home?
I agree killing someone is wrong, even when they have committed a crime. The only time I think it’s acceptable is when it’s a life or death situation. But you’ll never convince me that it’s wrong to kill for food when that’s what the majority of animals do every single day.
Edit: I also disagree with many of the “facts” presented by your “article.” Describing the harvesting of honey as theft, completely disregarding home/hand raised chickens and the fact that infertile eggs will literally rot under the chicken.
Animals do kill each other a lot, does that mean that we are justified in copying this behaviour? The animals that kill eachother either have no means to survive otherwise or have no rational capabliity to deduce that its wrong, I cannot reason with a lion but I hope I can reason with you. As it happens lions also eat their young and forced intercourse is the norm in the animal kingdom, are we justified in copying these acts because it's "natural" to do so? Furthermore even if we were to conclude that carnivores/omnivores are morally culpable for their killings how does that justify us killing cows, pigs and chickens that did nothing to harm us The actions of non-humans in the circumstances of non-humans have no bearing on the actions of humans in the circumstances of a modern human
Ugh I deleted that comment by mistake while editing it.
Let me ask you: Does the world currently have the ability to live 100% vegan? I’m not asking “will it ever be 100%” I am asking “can the entire populace live vegan?”
There are also major issues with your linked arguments. It seems to like to skirt around things with half truths. “Eggs are immoral because we kill the chickens” ignores the fact that many people have egg chickens, intending to just let them live and produce. There is no rule that says once a chicken stops producing it needs to be killed.
I’m not doing a deep dive. But when you are the one asking the questions, of course you’re going to have all the answers.
no not everyone can eat a plant based diet, but they can still avoid other animal products and testing
Plants are also living creatures, aren't you just drawing the line a bit further, and acting like its the only true way?
Why is it ok to harvest, kill, eat plants and not animals?
I spent years fighting against veganism, and there was literally no valid argument against it beyond "I don't care, I'll eat animals anyway".
There's just nothing. Eating meat is bad for the planet, bad for the animals, and more often than not in western cultures bad for the human.
First of all I think that violence in self defense or survival is justified, plants have tropisms which means they have small hard coded responses to certain stimuli like leaning toward light, they do not have any form of sense processing thus no awareness no preference theyre an object
Even if you wanted to minimise the harm caused to plants, it takes far more plants to feed livestock to sustain an omnivorous diet
Debunking a myth: plant consciousness. Protoplasma 258, 459–476 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-020-01579-w
There is no scientific reason to assume that plants have the capability to suffer. And different scientists try again and again to look into that. But the cold hard truth is, to feel something you need a somewhat complex nervous centrum that plants simply don't have. The same is true for microorganisms and many other simple lifeforms, btw.
Pigs, cows, chickens, even fish experience pain, stress, fear, etc. very similar to how we experience it. And we people know that, that's why many countries have laws against animal cruelty.
If you're concerned about plants, that's a good reason for going vegan.
to "buy" a laying hen you are almost certainly going to be buying from a breeder that kills the male chicks
Tasty, tasty murder.
That reminds me, I should take out a moose roast for dinner.
"it gives me pleasure" is the logic of a rapist
https://imgur.com/svLUsrQ.png
Most meat eaters are too chicken shit and lazy to slaughter their own food. I certainly don't have the stomach to, which is why my meat eating is rapidly approaching zero
I have shot, gutted, skinned, butchered and processed more animals that most people have laid eyes on in their lifetimes. I've either raised or hunted nearly every bit of meat I've eaten in the last 15 years, and given way more of it away to food banks and needy neighbors than I've eaten myself.
But I agree, people should be prepared to kill their own meat, it makes them appreciate it more.
Please stop killing innocent animals
you might like this video a meat eaters case for veganism abt 20m long https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1vW9iSpLLk
Nope, I'm mainly mocking you and your virtue signalling imperative.
so you dont like being called out got it snowflake
"It gives me pleasure" is the logic for donating to charity as well
Ok yeah in full: "the suffering caused is justified by the pleasure I received" is the argument theyre using and it justifies a whole bunch of shitty things like rape
Got it. Eating meat is the exact same thing as rape. No difference at all.
That is not what they said. The argument is that we normally all agree that "but I like it" is not a valid argument to cause harm to others. Why should it suddenly be a valid argument to cause harm to animals?
ahhh, youth. To have the sanctimonious, patronizing zeal of a recent convert again...
I deserve to read this garbage for being one of you for more than a decade. Then my fucking system gave out and stopped being able to digest soy and gluten so I had to get back on the meat wagon. At least I dropped a bunch of weight and got my libido back, so I guess there's that
You can eat a vegan diet without soy and gluten.
Oh, isn't it annoying to be reminded of your own misplaced zealotry? I used to be like this about atheism, like 20 years ago. What a smug cunt I was. Not that I stopped being an atheist, just that at one point the smugness hit a singularity and I came out the other side going "what was I thinking? I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and in the process, being a twat to anyone I disagree with and getting my blood pressure up isn't doing me any favours."
And hell yah, eating mostly meat and fat is an amazingly effective way to lose weight and fix a lot of stomach issues. Carbs are evil to the body.
I mean, if you wanted to get the largest number of people to stop eating animals, the #1 thing would be donating money to lab-grown meat research, or at least getting other people to, rather than engaging in online arguments in a way that immediately causes people to get defensive and emotional. Sure, it's not doing anything yet, but the second it becomes less expensive than traditional meat (and that can't be hard, since you're only growing the flesh you want, rather than an entire fucking animal, it will be much more efficient given time), that's almost immediately going to sway a lot of people who do not give a shit about the ethics or morality of it, but do care about their budgets or bottom lines.
But hey at least you're not rounding up those ticks whose bite makes you allergic to red meat in order to do an eco-terrorism (8chan's /leftypol/ has just as much brainrot as the rest of that site), since a) that would cause an immense backlash and b) the difference would just be made up in chicken and fish anyway.
"Youre going about it all wrong: this method is how you convince people to stop slitting innocent animals throats. I know this method works because it didnt work on me." fyi if I could snap my fingers and somehow force everyone to leave animals alone I'd do it in a heartbeat, wouldnt you do the same to end all murder?
I mean, it's been scientifically shown that antagonistically trying to change someone's mind only serves to harden their existing views and make them less open to thinking about it. e.g. at this point I'm deliberately avoiding reading your response again, because all it provokes is my anger issues, all that achieves is putting me in a state where you are The Enemy and neither morality or ethics are considerations, and I try to avoid that with people I largely agree with but have one major sticking point against these days.
I've been in a similar position with urbanist/FuckCars stuff, where no matter how many arguments you make about how the suburbs are a blight upon the cities they parasitise and we need to densify now, how cars have no right being the #1 method of transportation within cities, or how SUVs should be banned within city limits, the carbrained suburbanite will ignore them all and continue going about their lifestyle without a thought about it. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
But you can always tap into the fear that comes with "this will economically ruin you if you keep doing this" and as such, high petrol prices are one hell of a gift for getting people to start catching public transport and/or biking, at least the ones who live in places where such a thing is physically possible. We're in the middle of a cost of living crisis, where the average person is getting evermore squeezed for what little they have, and you still can't shift your angle of attack from "you're a terrible person and you should feel bad" to "meat is the most expensive part of your diet and here are alternative ways to get that flavour/texture that cost far less (and incidentally are 100% plant)" and then work on them from there?
Just saying, the average(/mode) person using any English-language space on the internet a) is used to dishes where the meat, or at least some kind of fancy, dairy-based sauce, is the focal point and b) has no idea what the state of fake meat/meat alternatives is like right now.
"Meat" describes wild venison and grass raised cattle as well as factory farmed meat. Factory farmed meat is akin to an animal holocaust, sure, but what happens to deer if we stop eating them is worse than that. First the population explodes, and with increased proximity to each other, diseases such as CWD also explode amongst the deer population. Good grazing land dwindles as deer slowly starve to death while a growing portion of them live as literal zombies due to CWD. The best case scenario is that the wild predators return and torture them all to death by eating them ass-first. There HAS to be a predator to prevent this, and humans are the more humane predator. As a side note, all of those happy grass raised cattle simply disappear without their consumption, because modern cattle cannot survive in the wild.
hunting as the only source of meat cannot sustain food supply, 99% of people would have to stop eating meat if that were the only source. and there is a more humane way to control deer population with contraceptive darts see the vegan blindspot by humane hancock https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjCp6bUp__M
"Methane leaks from Turkmenistan’s two main fossil fuel fields caused more global heating in 2022 than the entire carbon emissions of the UK, satellite data has revealed"
71% of corporations is the new climate denial were at the bargaining stage now: "well the drastic sacrifice were going to have to make doesnt matter because corporations need to do something before I even attempt to start living in line with earths resources"
But these corporations have the power to change what we as consumers buy or use, they have and are still resisting any changes and lie continuesly.
And if these companies don't allow change it will not happen no matter what we do.
They own the media they own the politicians, without them we are doomed.
Some might say we are already doomed and the elite are squeezing the last out of us because they think they will somehow escape the consequences
To what extent are we victims, and to what extent are we part of the system? This isn't a simple thing to answer, and there's not a single answer.
Corporations have too much power, but people fell into consumerism and fanboyism, defending their practices.
People talk about reducing electronic trash, but will buy the next shiny device at launch, before the last one stops working, will say that it's a "needed improvement" when someone criticizes things like phones removing audio jacks, and look at people using older stuff as if they're crazy. People talk about damaging production chains, but won't prioritize local small ones. There are so many examples, but this is enough to get the idea.
Somehow, people love brands and corporations.
Corporations absolutely control the power what are you even talking about? The only time they listen to us is when it benefits them directly. Look at Reddit and Twitter right now, you would think the large user backlash would improve things but it doesn't. We don't live in a market controlled by you and I, the market it controlled by VC funding and what looks good on an earnings sheet.
People hated the headphone jack getting removed but that didn't change anything. I very much did try to keep buying phones with headphone jacks and expandable storage but companies stopped offering them. Sure there are options available but they all have bigger issues for my use case than lacking I/O.
The EU is requiring user replaceable batteries in phones by 2027, lets take a guess as to who apposes it... is it A) the consumers or B) the phone companies? I'll give you a minute.
And oh boy would you look at that, it's the manufacturers who are fighting against it. So if the manufacturers are fighting regulators over this, do you think the free will of the market could achieve it more efficiently?
I understand and partially agree with you. The big players have more power and can pull the strings in so many markets, but their power isn't absolute.
I think it's all part of modern structure of power, to make us think we are powerless and that changes are impossible. It becomes a self proclaimed prophecy, because we stop taking actions because it won't change anything anyway, so everyone does the same, and nothing happens.
We lack organization. Entire revolutions happened in the past. Kings went down and exploited places became independent.
It's not impossible for us to fight back against corporate power, but we need the coordination we lack now. Social network algorithms contribute a lot to keep us fighting over everything, with everyone, preventing our organization.
Perhaps... the fediverse is a first step into some changes. Perhaps, we don't have enough time anymore, perhaps I'm just a naive and foolish dreamer. The future can't be accurately predicted, but onethings is sure: if we don't try to improve things for us, it's much more likely that everyone will get much worse.
Plenty of good used cars sitting around but some people just can't live with a car a few years old. Meanwhile I pride myself on driving things that would likely be in the junkyard if I wasnt
They don't remotely control the public as you might think. Let's imagine at Walmart going full vegan tomorrow. What do you think will happen?
I forecast bankruptcy. You, I guess, imagine half of the dumbfuckistan going vegan?
It is a cyclical thing both consumers and producers are responsible in different ways in most cases the use of plastic in packaging is producers fault for example but eating animal products is a choice for 99% of people on the planet and going vegan is the single biggest way to reduce your carbon footprint (see joseph poore 2018)
At some point in the past 20-30 years I started recycling. My town had just installed these new separate trash bins, I was just tryna "do my part" and be able to say I didn't contribute to the shit environment we will have in the future. Nowadays, I neither recycle, nor feel guilty about it. The illusion that I was doing anything productive with my time fell apart the time I saw the garbage guys pick up all the trash containers and dump them in the same truck. I asked them "hey, does the trash site have some way to sort the garbage?" thinking that maybe I was missing something. They said "nah" and moved on.
Nowadays I still watch the same trucks pick up the same trash cans in the exact same fucking way. In the meantime I've learned the company belongs to someone close to the mayor, so there's not even a chance this kinda shit will be reprimanded, ever.
You can build the best fucking bridge you want, if there's a corporation on the other side of the river, you'll find yourself swimming anyway.
So no, buddy. Blaming corpos for the results of their actions isn't just "the new climate denial". Some of us have been cynical for a while now, and this is just another area where we don't trust some shithead politician's empty slogans.
Also, there's no need to discredit all parties that disagree with you by aligning them with an obviously insane crowd, is there? Especially since that shit goes both ways - your post is also the type of post that a corporate shill would write. Should I label you as a corpo whitewasher, just cause your opinion is different than mine?
Not to diminish from your well written post, but there's also an external reason for this, and of course, it has to do with capitalism and profits.
Basically, there was a time when China was taking trash material that's recyclable and doing the recycling. That's when all the recycling craze happened here.
But then, China changed that, and they were no longer accepting recycling material.
But now here in the US we have the full infrastructure for accepting recyclable material, but nowhere to send the material to, to get recycled at a large and cheap quantity.
So no political personal will want to tell you they're not doing it anymore because of costs, because China won't do it cheaply anymore, so you get scenarios like what you described.
Also, do corporations operate in a vacuum, entirely separated from end consumers?
It's both really.
Finger pointing at corporations while doing nothing may not be as bad as corps finger pointing at us while doing nothing. But it's still bad.
Everyone needs to make an effort on this.
Hoping corporations will somehow grow a conscience isn't accomplishing anything.
Imagine if nearly everyone was using public transit instead of voting out politicians because gas prices got a little too high. That might make the corps think there was more money in green energy than drilling up more oil.
Corporations are not going to fix the problem out of the goodness of their hearts no matter how much people whine about it. It's only going to happen when voters (and consumers) demand it.
Most voters support climate change policy. The problem is the select few that block everything (mainly due to corporate lobbying).
Corporations, NIMBYs, and redtape are actively blocking common sense climate change related initiatives like public transit and high speed rail networks.
This is more of a case of our leaders not listening to those they represent
To add to this, corporations are made of people and selling to people, and most of us are either working for them, buying from them, or both. Everyone needs to change and put social pressure on everyone else to change, this is how groups of people will change, including companies and the governments that will only change as the result of the voters' pressure.
It feels criminal, like a gang initiation. You work for an oil and gas company? You've got blood on your hands now, too.
Agree that we all need to change and pressure each other to change.
What an absolutely tonedeaf argument from CNN.
Those things still help though, and we have no control over what big ass corporations do
You have a bit of control. Vote for people who will curb those emissions.
I do, and then 10 people in line behind me outvote me. What then? 🤷♂️
Vote for people that will prevent those other 10 from voting. 😀
So you're not voting at all?
Yeah, then you're part of the problem.
You can divest.
https://www.divest.org.uk/ways-to-divest/
We SHOULD be telling people to use planes less though.
I'm sorry but telling people not to is a stupid and futile plan. At least here in the US (idk if anywhere else does this) I say we need to regulate the airlines to run those "unprofitable" flights as they do now, but without the subsidy money. The airlines, being unable to change the frequency or cost of those flights, will turn to the obvious solution: make flying more expensive across the board to subsidize those actually unprofitable but regulated routes. I put unprofitable in quotes earlier because that's the excuse the corps will cry with; their cries mean nothing though. Raising the cost of air travel will reduce demand and will also free up lots of tax dollars for better causes, at least one hopes lmao. Same thing for meat; telling people to go vegan/vegetarian won't work. Ceasing subsidization and increasing regulations (e.g. forcing more humane living standards for the animals) will raise prices letting the market do it's thing which is the best we can really do given the current economic structure of our society. This myth of "personal responsibility" in cases like this is harmful because people's actions are defined by systems, institutions and society at large.
I agree with the general prescription, but cultivating a sense of personal responsibility is useful for the moment when harsh regulations are going to be set in place. Voters are far more likely to agree with high carbon taxes if they have already started to try reducing their emissions.
I'm definitely not defending the stance of liberal media on this: climate change isn't an issue of personal responsibility, but personal responsibility should be promoted on top of systemic change. I'm not telling anyone to live the life of a Tibetan monk, but to put some effort into having virtuous decisions and habits, leading by example, and also use that to claim: "We are doing our part already, but capitalism cannot fix the problem".
Reducing the discussion to "actually, it's corporations only which should change how they work" is going to lead to a pretty large reactionary backslash when people find out that a sustainable economy does also, in fact, require to change our relation with the economy.
another tool is taxation. example: single use plastics are a bad thing and we don't need them in most of the ways they're used. taxing them will make them economically untenable and companies will look for alternatives.
Strange how people can be so oblivious as to the role they play in the consumption of energy and materials...
I've recently started to believe that the only way climate change is going to end is if a very, very large percentage of the human population dies off very quickly... like... 70-80% or more. One billion people still seems like too many.
India could produce 8x more CO2 and still have less per capita than the US
The number of humans is not the main factor in pollution, it's what those humans are consuming that is important.
Damn TIL.
How come?
Well, the average indian household probably doesn't own 2 or 3 cars, doesn't eat meat everyday and doesn't have a huge house
That was the plot to the first kingsmen movie
Have we tried to kill all the poor?
I'm not saying do it. I'm saying run it through the computer, see if it would work.
Too late. That idea is already in progress
“I didn’t realise it was only cold hearted pragmatism that prevents you from pumping gas into Lidl!”
also don't forget to pee in the shower guys
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)
BUT MAH PROFITS!! WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF MAH CORPORATE PROFITS????
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.
I mean... I'll contribute and do my part because I do care, and that's the type of person I am, but we do need regulation in place for the top contributors to global warming and pollution, which are corporations and celebrities.
Plus, it's bullshit to say that you should take a bus or train or bike or whatever instead of a car when you have disgusting car-centric infrastructure that forces you to drive.
I'd be happy to switch to a smart thermostat if they weren't all so privacy-invading. Nest, the most popular one, is owned by Google, and there's no Google in my home. I'm completely deGoogled and will keep it that way.
Big brain time: Using a bike or my own feet to go everywhere 🧠🚴♂️👣
big brain time: getting run over on a stroad 🚲🚗💀
I'd use my ebike, but that shit will get stolen as soon as I leave it anywhere, and I cannot afford the $3,000 to replace it. So if I am actually going places, I have to drive my vehicle.
Thanks, thieves!
Why would you use an E-bike? 🤨
To get places? I don't understand the question.
So I replaced my car with a train, but now it doesn't fit in my garage. Am I doing this wrong?
You need ultralightrail, and rolling stock from your house to wherever you need to go.
Adam Johnson is way off base here.
Elaborate.
CNN gave a legitimate set of things people can do to make a difference. It was NOT journalistic malpractice to do so. I think CNN is a 'both sides' garbage network, but they are pointing out here correctly that we can ALL pitch in regardless of what shitty corporations do or do not do.
Those are things you can do, sure. But it won't make a difference. That's the whole point.
Wrong. Everyone has to chip in to make a difference.
True but the emissions saved if everyone copied in with the proposed actions dwarf in comparison with the emissions saved if those 100 corporations did the same.
So what is easier to do? Change the lifestyles and circumstances of billions of people in every country in the world within half a decade or so the same with large companies?
Do it all. Every bit counts. Companies suck. Boycott the ones who don't help.
On that we can agree. But most of the activist effort should go into stopping the companies' emissions, not into infighting.
We are well past the "what is easier to do" point and need to grasp for every straw there is though.
That’s a lie that got spread by the same companies that tried to convince us that cigarettes ain’t bad for you and fat is the problem instead of sugar regarding obesity.
Climate change isn’t a linear process, it has so called tipping points and if those are reached shit happens. Consumer behaviour on that level doesn’t matter, it’s literally means we reach the tipping points a week later or something.
This misinformation is made for only one purpose: To spread the blame. So the ones truly responsible can later say that we all failed together instead of being held responsible. The reality is that wether we successful combat climate change or not is up to probably a couple hundred people in leading positions in the world.
If you want to see wether we make progress or not just take a look at the oil and coal production, every drop and rock of that eventually ends up in the atmosphere.
If billions of people who are not owners of corporations each does a little, and forces the greedy billionaire corporations to comply by way of boycott, this CAN be done. Vote against people who explicitly DO NOT want to hold billionaires accountable. The notion that every person cannot make a difference and should give up IS A LIE pushed by the capitalist RW/Kremlin and fossil fuel mafia.
I look up train routes (and sometimes bus)everytime I'm going more than 80 miles or so. Guess how many times I've found one that will get me where I'm going? I'll give you a hint, it's zero.
Okay great, if I live anywhere besides NYC, where's my damn train for transport? Oh right its nonexistent. I'd love to take a train but the people that run this shithole say its too expensive and continue to pave more roads! Wow I love living here where my government continues to listen to big oil and destroy the planet in the process!!
That is a very ignorant comment. The world does not revolve around the US.
the oceans are rising, and so are we!
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.
They arnt banning coal/wood fired pizza ovens.
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.
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.
They can get fucked.
They can get fucked.
They can... Get. Fucked.
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.
Those companies are emitting to subsidize your lifestyle.
Bitch those companies are emitting to subsidize your fucking lifestyle.
Nah it's the sudden decline of our lovable swashbuckling seafaring pirates
Please remember that the corporations are polluting to provide services to the populace at large. You might as well accuse your pizza delivery driver for polluting after he gives you your order.
I mean, in a city it shows up on a bike or scooter. I think Amazon is a better example. They provide a great service that is nothing but fast delivery and wasteful packing because that's what we want. My answer is that it should be regulated and taxed to show the real cost this convenience has on the world. Another instance is single use utensils. They should not be so cheap to produce that they are being practically thrown away with takeout. Major polluting items need to be artificially made more expensive so that culturally it makes sense to carry our own for or chopsticks with us. That's what regulation is for, creating parameters that companies need to work within, because their motivations are to give us what we want as cheaply as possible to gain market share
Thing is, it's not like consumers choose to use plastic packaging. It's not like we choose to release forever chemicals into the water supply instead of dealing with them responsibly.
Let the person who has never improperly disposed of their batteries throw the first stone.
It's CNN. Need I say more?
Nothing is ever anybody's fault and nobody has any agency and if we just get rid of the top 100 polluting companies that wont impact our lives in any way and nobody will get mad about it
They charge me for plastic bags and when I say I need one they chastise me using their boilerplate line supplied by their corporate.
Then a loader truck came to unload things, with huge stack of things covered in styrofoam and wrapped in plastic sheets.
I wish I could repeat the line back. However, I am a known government employee in the area, so I decided to not fuck around and find out.
Can you imagine what would happen if you... stopped buying those products that those companies are selling that are responsible for the emissions? Nah, that's crazy talk.