this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
465 points (98.7% liked)

memes

10407 readers
1721 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 12 points 2 hours ago

If only we had recycled harder

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Honestly I'm starting to hate this narrative

For one, by far the most polluting companies are state owned coal companies in China and India. Then other state owned fossil fuel companies and then private fossil fuel companies.

So all those companies are just lower generation. So it's not like they can just stop, people need the electricity.

And it's not like nothing is being done either. Like by far the biggest polluter is China's coal industry, making up 25% of global emissions, but China is also THE global leader on clean energy investment. They are currently building more nuclear power plants than the entire rest of the world has, they are making the biggest most powerfull wind turbines in the world, etc.

And if people would stop consuming cheap, disposable shite from China, then they wouldn't use so much electricity, so would burn less coal and also you wouldn't make a bunch of shit that's just going to end up in a landfill.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 hour ago

It's a multifaceted issue, but don't kid yourself

http://amp.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.

China weighs in at 14.5% for coal. Another 1-point-some-odd for their Petro Chem. The issue is that there are a lot of companies that make up the remainder.

Demand definitely plays a role in all of this, but I don't think pushing green initiatives is a bad thing from the consumers and one of the only ways we can encourage these companies to do their part

[–] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Humans self describe as intelligent. That always stuck with me.

[–] oo1@lemmings.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Humans are so naturally stupid that they almost make AI seem intelligent.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

This always gets me. They are producing stuff that we the people buy. They aren't out there just for the fun of things. Inb4 Lemmy's famous misreadings, yes it is an issue, yes we need regulation (which we will have to start again from scratch, hopefully in 4 years), yes we need renewables. But this simplistic "it's just 100 companies" is misleading AF.

[–] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 5 points 24 minutes ago

Those 100 companies have made it so it's incredibly difficult not to buy from them.

Groceries? There's like 10 companies that own all of the food supply. Good luck figuring out which one's have child labor, and a horrendous environmental impact. They've very purposely masked that image.

Oh wow, everything is recyclable! No, those companies just slapped that logo on all of their products so we can ignorantly wish-cycle their garbage. Most of it ends up in the landfill.

Don't want a car? Our cities are very deliberately designed to require cars. There is a very strong private agenda against good public transportation.

Then there's the pollution. These companies pollute so much more than we know. Whether that's dumping forever chemicals into our water, or taking private jets everywhere. It's not like the label on your T-shirt tells you that.

Finally find a good company? They'll buy it up, lobby against it, or coerce them out of business. Just look how many companies Luxottica has destroyed.

There's layer after layer of obfuscation to hide what these companies are doing. It's not just a matter of picking Product A over Product B. We rarely have much choice, or the information to make better choices.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 13 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

I'll GLADLY buy the alternative that doesn't do those things. When it exists. One day.

[–] IMALlama@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I think the idea was "reduce consumption". As a society we buy tons of stuff, way more than 50 or 100 years ago.

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

You seem like you have a consumption problem. Outside of a car, heating, and cooling nobody is forcing anything down your throat.

You choose and desire to buy whatever product you're talking about.

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 2 points 33 minutes ago

When I am in a "having the shittiest take possible" competition and my opponent is IsThisAnAI

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

You're unfortunately about to get ratio'ed for the reasonable take.

[–] turbowafflz@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Well clearly it's the fault of everyone noticing the problems because like 100 years ago no one noticed the problems and so clearly they weren't happening because no one noticed and if they were happening someone would have noticed so if people just hadn't noticed they never would have happened and then no one would have noticed them which of course then means they double wouldn't have happened

It's just common sense if you think about it from that perspective

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago

Rugged individualism strikes again.