this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
291 points (94.5% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5229 readers
517 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Those 7 corporations. Would those be companies whose products we keep buying?
They have trained you all your life to blame the victims.
Who is consuming their products? I'm doing my damn best not too while striving for structural change, and I'd bet the other user is too. What about you? People taking your stance are usually the ones trying to make excuses to keep consuming mindlessly.
That's a pretty absurd generalization. I live off grid and get my power from solar, food from my garden and foraging. I compost all of my waste, consume as consciously as I can possibly achieve as an average individual, and I refuse to accept that this is some regular person's fault.
Rugged individualism and shame will not change the world positively, some fucking accountability on the part of the few people causing the damage (corporations etc) might. It is willful ignorance to say that it is just everyone's fault.
Almost everyone is just trying their best, save for a small number of incredibly rich people+the entities they run ruining everything.
Idk here's a quote from The Good Place
I used to yell at Big Noodle 'cause he always showed up late to rehearsal. Then one day, the swamp under my house flooded. I needed a place to crash, so I slept at Big Noodle's house. Turns out that he had to juggle three jobs to take care of four grandparents who all lived in the same bed just like in "Willy Wonka."
I never yelled at Big Noodle for being late after that 'cause I knew how hard it was for him to be there. And he definitely didn't have time to research what tomatoes to buy. Even if he wanted to, possession of a non-fried vegetable is a felony in Jacksonville. The point is, you can't judge humans 'cause you don't know what we go through"
Then why do you do all that? You are contradicting yourself. Clearly you believe the average person has an impact, which is what I and others are saying. That doesn't mean it's all the average person's fault, or that there aren't powerful people leveraging that power to try to keep this system up. But "the system" isn't something magical or a law of the universe; "the system" is people and their choices.
Come on, you know that's not true. Just go outside and talk to the average person, or even go on a more popular and less closed off social network.
I'm not saying life is easy right now, but most people could do a lot more than they do. Most people eat more red meat than is even healthy for them, never mind the environment, and never mind other meats or animal products in general. Most people will buy bottled water (and other beverages) even when they have access to clean tap water (and I'm not saying everybody does have access to it). Most people will make excuses to use a car, no matter how good the public transport is, or even if they could use a bicycle. Most people will still choose to use plastic bags for groceries instead of reusable ones, at least until a store stops supplying plastic bags.
To expand a bit more on this and not have to do much typing, I'll just a leave a couple of comments from else where on this thread; the first one is mine and the second is from another user:
Though experiment:
Tomorrow is election day in your country. The stout environmentalists win control of the government and proceed to make the following changes:
Carbon tax, which increases the price of gas, which itself results in an increase in shipping anything. It also directly raises the price of anything that produces carbon in its manufacture process, such as anything made of plastic.
An end to meat subsidies - maybe even a tax on it - and an increase to subsidizing other types of farming.
A ban on single use plastics.
And anything else you think might be necessary.
Now the questions: How long until they get kicked out? How long until the protests and riots? How long until a new government undoes it all?
I’m assuming you’re not naive and you don’t live in a bubble. You should know the majority of people will not be fans of any of that; and with the way it usually goes and the pendulum swings, the government that follows it will be a far right one.
what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
You seem have an incredibly narrow view of what is "right" and are willing to dole out judgement based on your beliefs. I do truly believe that everyone is doing their best with the tools that they are given, and I cannot discount their efforts. It is not my place to talk shit idk.
I live the way I do because I am uniquely able to, most people are not. I cannot fault others for not being able to live this lifestyle because it takes MONEY and TIME that most people do not have. I don't think your solutions are necessarily the solutions we need, I personally live in a state where taxes on the individual are the answer to every problem and it only makes it even harder for people to survive? Not great.
The world is complicated and very hard, obviously the system is not "magic," but I don't accept that consumer gas, meat, and bottled water is entirely the problem here when most of the Pacific Ocean garbage patch is commercial fishing nets (just one example). We need corporate accountability before anything else.
Igss I'm just here commenting to let you know that I don't think it's these Lemmy users' faults that shit is shitty, and that I am not a "mindless consumer" or whatever.
This will be my last comment because I don't want to keep bothering you, especially because I know I write too much, but feel to reply and I will read it.
But who eats the fish? It's not the companies. The companies are just enablers. I'm now not sure if you read it, so I refer you back to the last part of my comment (last 2 paragraphs).
It seems you don't realize it, but you're agreeing with what I'm saying. Studies/polls have shown the majority of people would be in favour of a carbon tax. But as you said, high prices/taxes don't really help and can make life terrible for the average person. Yet, that would be the result of a carbon tax. But people don't think about that; people just think about how the world is going to shit, and someone should do something and when they hear "carbon tax" they think "great!", because they think it's a way to keep their lifestyle and comforts and don't realize it would necessitate a life change anyway. The question is whether you do the change now by reducing your consumption, or wait until you're forced to do it due to regulation and prices hikes you can't afford.
I really don't want to be rude or mean, but I have no other way to put this: if you really think that, you really are naive and living in a bubble. Which I guess isn't surprising if you do live off grid and have enough room to grow your own food and you can compost all your waste, while also being on the Fediverse and especially from beehaw (very leftist leaning and environmentally aware places); but take it from someone living in a very large city and who frequents very diverse online places: that's not true.
Just from the most environmentally "aware" people I personally know: a lot don't bother recycling, or didn't until very recently; they don't think twice about single use plastics; most of them have meat as the stable of their diet, especially red meat; one of them insists on drinking bottled water despite have clean tap water, and a lot of the others buy quite a bit of plastic soda bottles. Oh, and something about my neighbours: some of them throw plastic take out packages out of their windows and into the street.
And also, finally, if what you say is true, then environmental parties would currently be in government in most places; after all a vote is tool everyone has and it costs nothing. But that's not the case. In my country, the two most environmentally aware parties are currently the 2 smallest parties in the parliament; the second biggest one is a far right party; the third party are somewhere between liberals and right wing libertarians who have said there is no climate emergency; the leading party is a liberal party who talks about the environment, but doesn't actually do shit about it. And that's with a 60 to 70% voter turnout.
Do you really expect me to believe that "everyone is doing their best with the tools that they are given"?
I'm from Portugal btw, you can see here how many tons of CO2 per capita we were responsible for emitting (from production and consumption in 2018 and 2016 respectively). We're not even top 50 in either list; USA is 17th and 7th, for reference.
I'm sorry, I can't stop using electricity or gas to go to work because I need to eat and pay rent to live. Because that's the world those rich people made for everyone else.
Whether you do or not, other major corporations do, and while the money changes hands between a few dozen rich assholes, the planet burns and they laugh while you blame me.
You mean the products they designed to be as cheap as possible with no care on their impact on the environment, and then brainwashed the population through marketing to make us think we actually needed them?
You don't even need to brainwash. Just make sure their wage stays at a level where their survival depends on buying the cheapest of cheap, necessity will do the rest.
Sure. And what’s is the answer? Put in a cycle lane and people apparently go apeshit
Yeah, if people really wanted, they could make their own phones and all they own by hand. These damn socialists!
Do you have a plant based diet, or try to reduce meat consumption to the best of your abilities?
Do you walk or take public transport when you could walk?
Do you avoid buying things you do not need?
If you answered "yes" to all that, then congratulations! You are part of a different 1%, and you are also just arguing for the sake of arguing.
If you answered "no", then you're part of the problem. You can pretend otherwise all you want, but you are one cog that keeps the system going. The system isn't magical, other wordly, or some fundamental law of the universe. The system is people and their choices.
Yeah to those 3.
However, I wasn't intending to argue with someone with such a simplistic view of how the system works, anyway. If you think it's all up to the customer and the corps nor the system have no blame in comparison, it's just a lost cause, so sort yourself out.
When did I or anyone else say companies and the government do not have any blame? Can you link me the comment and quote the relevant bit?
The very first comment I replied to :). Shifting blame from the corps onto the customers. Once again, feel free to sort yourself out.
It's not shifting blame, it's pointing out they do not exist in isolation. You can put blame on the companies and still recognize that most people make no effort to avoid them, even when they have a choice.
I'll add on what someone said further above:
what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
Yes, those people are part of the problem. But reality is that those people don't need to lead the change. There are too many literal individuals involved. Tackling the problem from the head down with regulations is much more efficient.
Blaming individuals for climate change is incredibly naive. Doesn't help anyone. No vegan will save the world. And no omnivore will destroy it.
said 8 billion people in unison
Only a handful of those 8 billions actually impact the climate on an immense scale though.
what would happen if everyone turned around and said 'you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i'm never going to be without my refillable bottle' how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said 'fuck it, I'm not producing plastic bottles anymore they're bad for the planet' but 8 billion people said 'oh ok, well we're still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles' the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
Yes. There's the possibility that people will actually change by acting in unison. But the probability for society to act in unison isn't really high. Just look at the world now. Some people can't even agree on weapons not being something you need to carry around 24/7. And you want them to agree on something that'd actually affect their daily life?
i could say the same thing about regulation, you really think if we can't even restrict guns you'll magic up the political will to ban something that would actually affect their daily life and earns so many companies so much money? coke pulls in 25b a year, they can afford all the lobbyists.
We need as many people as possible to have already moved away from them before we have the slightest chance at legislation.
The difference is that it doesn't need everyone to agree on one thing to make changes. "Boycott coke" requires a substantial mass to boycott one specific company. Demanding change from politics is much more broad and targets whole industries instead of specific things. Like bans on single use plastic, or pushes for EVs.
Apart from that, you most often have to create alternatives before people can abandon bad products. Could everyone stop using cars? Sure. Will it happen? No. But if we start to expand railway through politics, will more people abandon their car then cause they get around by train much more efficiently? Way more likely than without it.
I recommend Kurzgesagts video on the topic whether we can stop climate change. It goes exactly into this.