Also think about how many of those products you personally buy that produce those greenhouse emissions. I mean, it's not like the responsibility ends with making the stuff.
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
1102 points (97.1% liked)
solarpunk memes
3772 readers
90 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'd love to be able to walk to work. Right now, it's 1h bus ride there, roughly 30km. Biking is not an option either, a good 10km are highways, no alternatives
Your government needs to provide this infrastructure. It pays off.
So, funny thing, the local govt has been focusing on those fucking highways for the past 8 years! All-in on car-centric works. Fuck that asshole (Ibaneis)
Of course by keeping your lights on you're contributing to these companies emissions because they're fossil fuel and power companies lol
Edit: To clarify, I'm not trying to absolve fossil fuel companies, or their lobbying departments, of any of the blame here. The simple fact is that we don't get much choice in our energy sources. However, the whole "x companies produce 80% of the CO2 in the world" narrative draws a dangerous parallel to the personal responsibility/carbon footprint narrative. One tells you that individuals are at fault (so get angry at your neighbours for not recycling, rather than getting angry at the government for not doing anything about it) whereas the other tells you to stop trying to even do anything about it personally, because it's all huge megacorporations at fault and there's nothing we can do to affect them. The simple truth is, if everyone in the west stopped buying cheap plastic shit from China, MANY of these companies would take a nose dive in their revenues and pollution. China Coal is usually listed as THE top polluter. Well look at China's energy statistics. 58% of it is industry. In comparison for the US on the website, it's 21% industrial usage. Why is China's (total) annual CO2 output going up at the same time as their % of electricity coming from renewables is going up? Maybe because they're the factory of the world. They make everything we consume and renewables just can't keep up with the demand we all put out there. So buy less, buy more local, educate your friends and family, and don't forget that political action is still THE key. Ironically, if the Trump tariffs on China really go through, this MIGHT have some effect on Chinese pollution - at the unfortunate cost of increasing American pollution.
Don’t forget the O&G lobbyists bribing the government to not fund public transit, build roads over rail infrastructure, push for the creation of suburbia and the American dream which are known as the single biggest wastes of resources in modern civilization, dismantle or repeal any green initiatives, destroy any environmental legislature, force pro O&G curriculums in schools, pay for pro O&G advertising and marketing targeting children, fund pro pollution disinformation campaigns, bribe pro pollution scientists to hide or discredit real science, etc etc etc
Look, it might not be the consumer's fault that these companies pollute and yeah, most of us barely get a choice in where our energy comes from, but I really find that it's a bit disingenious to just say these companies do all the pollution so the rest of us don't matter, we're innocent in all this. These fossil fuel companies are actually happy if you go "oh well nothing I can do about it", because then you keep indirectly buying their products. Literally the opposite of the carbon footprint campaign, but similarly positive effect for them.
Really, we need a carbon tax, but guess what, that makes things expensive for end users when produced with a lot of pollution. So that's unpopular too. Turns out we're really addicted to cheap and dense energy sources. In any case, the only way for this to change is for as many people as possible to 1) reduce their own consumption as much as reasonably possible, 2) educate friends and family and 3) do whatever possible to shift winds in any government levels they can affect.
Stop blaming ignorant consumers for the actions of irresponsible suppliers.
Look, it might not be the consumer's fault that these companies pollute and yeah, most of us barely get a choice in where our energy comes from, but I really find that it's a bit disingenious to just say these companies do all the pollution so the rest of us don't matter, we're innocent in all this. These fossil fuel companies are actually happy if you go "oh well nothing I can do about it", because then you keep indirectly buying their products. Literally the opposite of the carbon footprint campaign, but similarly positive effect for them.
Really, we need a carbon tax, but guess what, that makes things expensive for end users when produced with a lot of pollution. So that's unpopular too. Turns out we're really addicted to cheap and dense energy sources. In any case, the only way for this to change is for as many people as possible to 1) reduce their own consumption as much as reasonably possible, 2) educate friends and family and 3) do whatever possible to shift winds in any government levels they can affect.
This is about as insightful as "you say you don't want to support capitalism, yet you're alive, curious".
Yeah, I turned on the light. No I didn't select the power source or the million regulations, payoffs, bribes, and research that determine where it comes from.
Look, it might not be the consumer's fault that these companies pollute and yeah, most of us barely get a choice in where our energy comes from, but I really find that it's a bit disingenious to just say these companies do all the pollution so the rest of us don't matter, we're innocent in all this. These fossil fuel companies are actually happy if you go "oh well nothing I can do about it", because then you keep indirectly buying their products. Literally the opposite of the carbon footprint campaign, but similarly positive effect for them.
Really, we need a carbon tax, but guess what, that makes things expensive for end users when produced with a lot of pollution. So that's unpopular too. Turns out we're really addicted to cheap and dense energy sources. In any case, the only way for this to change is for as many people as possible to 1) reduce their own consumption as much as reasonably possible, 2) educate friends and family and 3) do whatever possible to shift winds in any government levels they can affect.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Daily reminder that evil corporations polute for fun and because of evil, and not because of people's insatiable desire for more junk.
Well that desire is partially artificially created.
Yes humans are stupid and buy shit, but many things are made intended to be bought amd break or not needed at all but advertised differently.
For example you don't need an AI. But companies shove it down your throat so that you have to use the power hungry monstrosity of a shitty software.
Visiting Paris rn coming from a Car dependent city in Canada.
We shouldn't need cars. We should build our cities to encourage walking and reliable public transport to go farther.
Literally all the major structure in Paris are within short walk + bus ride away from each other. If you got good legs you could probably walk to most of these places. The Louvre, the Eiffel tower, the River, Alexander III bridge, etc.
All with little shops, cafés, and bakeries everywhere if you need a bite to eat.
Oh, you should stop by Amsterdam.
Oh Amsterdam looks incredible. There's a number of European cities I want to visit including Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen, London etc.
Unfortunately, our plan just includes Paris, then a train ride to Zürich where we'll stay a couple more days before heading home from there. We were planning to have a day trip in Brussels but sadly that didn't go through.
I'd argue that the desire is almost entirely artificially created.
I'd like to see governments try to do something about the constant affronts to our psychology that is the marketing industry.
Daily reminder that these same corporations pump obscene amounts of money into funding what is essentially highly sophisticated, precisely targeted and near constant psychological warfare to deliberately induce feelings of insecurity, fear, addiction, isolation, inadequacy and emptiness in billions of people and then convince them that buying their product is what will relieve these feelings. Simultaneously, they set wages so low that junk that breaks easily and can’t be repaired is all that many people can afford. They create the junk, the desire for it and ultimately the necessity for purchasing it. There are entire industries built around sparking and maximising that desire and necessity.
You aren’t wrong, but it also isn’t the whole picture.
The hyper consumerist marketing driven rat race has been getting worse over time and it feels like governments have been helpless to stop it. I honestly don't know what is to be done about it.
Hey, this moustache isn't going to twirl itself
load more comments
(1 replies)
I somewhat dislike using stats like this. Like sure climate change isn't a problem solvable by individual actions such as those but those companies aren't just evil nonsense either. You look them up and a lot of them are mega companies that produce much of the things people use daily so climate change isn't solvable without restructuring our world order and relationship to consumption and nature. Just people sometimes seem to use this stat as a talking point on how daily life and current world order doesn't need to be changed drastically just get rid of these handful of mega polluters and emitters when its not that simple.
They would not sell (nor profit) something that people refuse to buy.
We are the ones doing this.
They would not sell (nor profit) something that people refuse to buy.
So they are wasting money on hiring advertising and marketing companies?
Then there's also planned obsolescence and licensing deals that make it impossible to continue using and repairing things (even mechanical things like tractors, and living organisms like crop seeds).
Sure, people can try their best, but there is only so far we can go before it gets so inconvenient to not fall into the consumerism trap.
Their marketing strategy isn't just blaming the consumer, it is to sell that their product is "sustainable and green", and people instead of not buying, they buy their "sustainable and green" product that shouldn't even exist in the first place. So no, they are not wasting money on marketing, they just changed the strategy.
Coming back to people, have you tried convince someone to change their preferred message app even knowing that belongs to an evil company and making the change being a literal 5 minute task?
In my experience people aren't even trying. Just blaming the same way companies and politicians do. If we really tried our best many things would have changed already. I believe that everything we have now is just a mirror of our collective greed, and we are doomed if we expect the other (companies and politicians) to change anything.
Everyone wants change, no one wants to change. It’s a tale as old as time.
So they are wasting money on hiring advertising and marketing companies?
Perfect place to link the ol' Bill Hicks take on marketing.
Much easier to control and regulate the actions of 57 than 7billion - that’s the point
carbon footprint is a psyop by gas companies to make people feel like individuals are responsible for climate change not them
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
They are polluting on our behalf. Saying it's entirely their fault is like blaming China for plastic pollution. They are producing that plastic for the world.
on our behalf
Show me where they give us OUR part of the profits, if not I'm going with greed.
If you don't personally benefit from pollution, then junk your ICE, never eat meat again, and stop buying plastic crap.
(You should do all those things anyway, but I'm making a point here)
"and yet you participate in society, hm, curious". You're doing the meme, my man. You're doing the entire meme that is also making a point.
load more comments
(15 replies)
The companies spend money to make consumers believe that the consumers are the problem. That propaganda works to suppress as many environmental standards as is cost-efficient for their stockholders. Regulations need to address the cause/solutions to the damage being done to life.
Corporations benefit if people think climate change can be solved with individual action, because they won't organise.
Corporations benefit if people think climate change can be solved without individual impact, because they won't change society.
We all need to work together and we're all gonna make sacrifices. It has to be both. One or the other are both corpo propaganda.
they didn't ask me
My city just sent out a notice telling people to turn off their lights, meanwhile the city does nothing about the hundreds of office and corporate buildings with all the lights on all night. All the notices do is piss me and reminds me that we have two sets of rules
Glass building with giant A/C units, like cooling a greenhouse
"Turn off the light when you leave a room." has always struck me as very misguided. You probably should still do that to save on your electricity bill. But I am a night owl and I like going outside to bike or walk. The number of businesses I walk or bike past that leave their lights on all night is just ridiculous.
Where I live they usually have little hook things outside to turn on/off these lights that you're supposed to reach with some perch you keep inside. When I was younger, jumping and climbing to reach these and turn off all the useless business lights in an entire street was great fun when walking back from the bar with friends
load more comments
(1 replies)
That stat is using the lifetime emissions of products of the companies. So if you buy gas from shell and drive it counts towards shells emissions.
Yeah and Shell has been instrumental in making sure that we continue to buy gas and need it for driving, without their meddling in international and local politics for half a century we'd be using a fraction of that gas now
At the very least they should be backpaying a carbon tax
Lot of people in this thread with "There's no point in trying to do something about the companies selling DDT because consumers want their gardens pest-free so we should just talk more about personal responsibility instead" energy.
Sure, companies are providing things that people want, but the way and quantity in which they produce those things is atrocious, and ultimately those companies are the source of the vast amount of the pollution.
We can and should tell people to eat less meat, but telling people to exercise that level of self-control while at the same time leaving systems in place that make the meat economy otherwise the same isn't going to do a damn thing. Conversely, you could tell end consumers virtually nothing while at the same time passing and enforcing actual environmental regulations that slightly increased the cost of a hamburger, and you'd see a real decline in demand.
You've got to focus your efforts on where they can do the most good, and focusing on forcing a handful of companies to change is more likely to show results than politely asking billions of people to change their lifestyles.
Source for those numbers?
The data comes from here I believe:
https://carbonmajors.org/briefing/The-Carbon-Majors-Database-26913
You can download the data after free registration.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Why can't we make laws requiring noffices to turn off their lights after office hours? Can't be that hard
Individual responsibility for the environment is a myth invented by lobbyists.
Not a myth, but a distraction. Personal responsibility is good for the environment, but stopping companies from employing environmentally unsafe practices comes first.
view more: next ›