When I was in elementary school, the cafeteria switched to disposable plastic trays because the paper ones hurt trees. Stupid, I know… but are today’s initiatives any better?

  • Jummit@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There is no sustainable consumption under capitalism. Most have already cut down on their personal emissions, less meat, less flying. Good luck on trying to overcome the system by participating in it.

    What can help is direct action and direct democracy, building resilience in your community. Which is hard.

    • projectd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think enough people have made enough effort to cut down (or preferably stop) meat, and animal products, and still see incredible amounts of waste, SUVs etc. Admitedly it’s old data, but a minority of surveyed Americans were eating less meat in year 2020 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/282779/nearly-one-four-cut-back-eating-meat.aspx. - not sure if the outlook is any better.

      I totally agree with direct action and democracy, though I do maintain that the number one change people can make is to go vegan, as the lead author of the biggest meta study of its type concludes https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmental-cost-food

      Importantly, I still agree that you are spot on that voting, complaining to companies and advocacy is incredibly important, but I just also feel that it is people who can choose not to buy the most damaging products (e.g. animal products) from those companies to accelerate more sustainable markets.

      • Jummit@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are right in that if the majority would change their consumption, the change would be massive. Seeing that as the best solution overlooks that companies put a lot of effort into marketing, advertisement and interfere in pro-consumer lawmaking. So a large-scale change becomes quite hard, especially for low-income households.

        Also, speaking of effectiveness: not having children is one of the best choices an individual can make, followed by going vegan.

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

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

          I do maintain that even if not everybody realises its benefits, is fooled by the terrible marketing etc., going vegan and lowering consumption is still a great solution for those who choose to refuse to be a part of the problem. I think it’s one of those challenges that we have to throw as much as we can at through every angle possible, even while it’s not going to be perfect. Perhaps we can buy some time for other solutions to join the fight.

          Also, yes, definitely not having children is going to be the biggest change I expect (unless the child happens to help be a part of a bigger solution of course), but I’d certainly recommend veganism either as a great addition or for parents without time machines or those who have grown fond of their kids. Also, if nobody had kids, it would create other problems about who would look after the elderly etc., but that’s another debate!