• citron@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • where_am_i@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Piecemakers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. We’re not on Reddit.

        2. 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.

        3. If you’re gonna gargle corpo dick like bulldog on a firehose, at least be honest with yourself, son.

        • where_am_i@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Beliriel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • animelivesmatter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

          • boonhet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ah, you’re doing the bidding of the oil companies I see. Shame the consumers, and nothing will happen. But you will feel good about your changes, at least.

            If you want to stop climate change, it needs to be not 2%, not 5% of people, but more like 90% reducing their consumption to near-zero. But without government intervention, you can’t get much. Matter of fact, shaming consumers alienates a lot of people. There’s a pretty large “Fuck Greta” movement in many countries, because people are idiots.

        • Phat_Albert@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t forget that the biggest greenhouse gas produce is China which last I checked is not capitalist.

          • animelivesmatter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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

            • Phat_Albert@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Around 1/3 of GDP is from state owned businesses. They definitely have a strong market economy there but my point was that capitalism causes greenhouse gas emissions like the guy I replied to stated is not true.

                • Phat_Albert@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No but state owned is the exact definition of communist. China has a communist government which allows a high degree of market/capitalist activity.

                  • Captain Minnette@lemmy.fmhy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    state owned is the exact definition of communist

                    The anarchist communists that have existed for at least 180 years would probably disagree with you.

                • darkseer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The original definition of capitalism used to be an economy where 90% of businesses and property are privately owned. And while I admit that the meaning of words tend to change over time I think that the meaning of capitalism was deliberately changed so that the Soviet Union doesn’t sound as insane as it was to future generations. L

                  • Captain Minnette@lemmy.fmhy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Original definition according to who? Best I can tell from reading the literature, the definition in the public sphere was changed to this definition in the 20th century. Papers wrote of state capitalism in the 1880s. By the 1890s in Germany, the idea had already arisen that perhaps state socialism isn’t possible as it will always become state capitalism.

                  • animelivesmatter@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I think that the meaning of capitalism was deliberately changed so that the Soviet Union doesn’t sound as insane as it was to future generations.

                    That’s certainly a claim. One I’ve never heard before. You should probably provide a source for that, because that sound like bullshit.

                    Besides, I don’t think calling the Soviet Union “state capitalist” downplays how bad they were, especially when that’s coming from a leftist.

          • boonhet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it’s definitely capitalist, even if not by name. And it produces a bunch of goods for a bunch of other capitalist countries, for profit.

        • where_am_i@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          nice mental gymnastics. Capitalism simply enabled free will of the people. Who want to consume no matter the consequences. It doesn’t bother them either if the goods they’re buying were made by starving children. But hey, blame the system.

          • boonhet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s the problem with the system. It comprises of PEOPLE, which is why everything that people arguing for capitalism say about capitalism regulating itself, is bullshit. Not only do masses of people not care about intangible effects of their consumption, capitalism makes it profitable to advertise to people to make them consume more, and a lack of carbon tax makes it more profitable for companies to pollute a lot of the time. The will of the people (aka car company propaganda) is the reason Americans pollute so much. It was advertised to them that driving is the only true freedom, in the 1950s. And now 70 years later there are nearly no walkable cities left, because Americans demanded wider roads.

            It doesn’t bother them either if the goods they’re buying were made by starving children. But hey, blame the system.

            The system is what makes it profitable to abuse straving children. Also, thanks to the system, it is ridiculously hard to save up for things like, idk, housing, because it’s all being bought up as a speculative asset. So if your average person buys a 5$ t-shirt made in Bangladesh instead of a 50$ sustainably sourced one because they can’t afford the latter on their budget, can you really blame them, or has the system failed them?

            Milk is way cheaper than oat drink and if I go to a gas station, they charge me more for the burger to have a meat substitute, which doesn’t feel much like meat.

            Most people will never get past the “okay, this might be bad, but everyone else does it too, and if I don’t, I’ll be at a financial disadvantage” mentality about buying cheaper products, because capitalism is a competition for resources, and we can’t afford to give up the advantage of buying cheaper foods, cheaper (ICE) cars (where public transit isn’t an option), etc.

            Bottom line is, you can get your friends and family to forsake themselves for an intangible goal, maybe you can convince some strangers, but there’s no way to get 8+ billion to stop doing what’s convenient for them with just propaganda. You need regulations. And that’s why any system that depends on the will of the people to achieve intangible goals DOES NOT WORK. It’s super easy to get the majority of 8 billion people to start consuming more with just advertising and propaganda. It’s impossible to get them all consuming less. I said it before too. Oil companies realize this and that’s why they invented the carbon footprint, to keep the people who do care fighting those who don’t - that way nobody has energy left to lobby for real, regulationary change.

            So sure, maybe capitalism isn’t at fault. Maybe the fact that humans exist is. But the goal should be to design a system fit for humans, not to kill all humans or whatever it is that is required to fix capitalism.

      • Wollff@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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

        • Piecemakers@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sadly, your sarcasm is nearly as thick as they are and I’m not sure they grasped your tone. 🤷🏼‍♂️

          • where_am_i@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re so thick in your denial, you probably blame toilet manufacturers for your brain farts.

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

        • where_am_i@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • Mayoman68@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • where_am_i@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Mayoman68@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • where_am_i@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Compared to you I already live in a place where you don’t have to drive. In fact, I never owned a car in my entire life. Yet an obscene amount of people love their cars.

          • citron@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Phat_Albert@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

    • Kerred@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

        • AmberPrince@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • twiked@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            It is less bad, but still pollutes a lot, especially in countries with high-carbon electricity production.

            • AmberPrince@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • twiked@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

        • Electric_leprechaun@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Many cars are charged from solar or from renewable energy. You look at the environmental costs of extracting and refining oil, storing it, the carbon cost of shipping it and then driving it to its final destination via HGV to the fuel station. It then had to be electrically pumped from the ground into your car then you burn it off back into the atmosphere for everyone to breathe back in again. The lithium comes from the same mines used to make the phone battery you are reading this message from. The EV battery will live much longer than your ICE car as it can be almost totally recycled and end of life or used as storage for home battery systems.

      • yousir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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