• TheBlue22@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    How about instead this “personal responsibility” bullshit we focus on the actual causes of global warming, I.e. massive corporations that create the majority of greenhouse gasses

    • ebikefolder@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Why has it to be either, or? We need both. Systemic and behavioural changes on all levels. And we need it now. We no longer have any time left to shift the blame back and forth! I’m getting so sick of this blame game!

      • Anemia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s 100% personal responsibility, it’s just that part of that responsibility is to vote/convince others for more systemic change. All the kids just blaming the “biggest 100 companies” while not voting and making no lifestyle changes are just as bad as the people they critizise.

        • ebikefolder@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          If you put it this way: sure. And those famous “biggest 100 companies”, which are constantly used as a cheap excuse to not do anything on a personal level, are run by maybe 1,000 or so individuals. And employ a few 100,000 individuals.

          All decisions are 100% personal responsibility, because entities like corporations or nations can’t decide anything. It’s always individual people.

          • Anemia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            Yeah I mean I agree with you. Most people who won’t even take basic personal actions like not flying on vacation twice a yeah and not buying a stupid oversized car. If those people were put in the same position as these CEOs you can bet your left buttcheek that they would maximize profits in the exact same way. We need to both take individual action and also hold each other accountable by changing the law and applying social pressure.

          • Anemia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            You didn’t. My point was more that voting isn’t enough. Just because there are worse people, that doesn’t mean that we are free of blame. The entire west is living very unsustainable lifestyles. So we both need to stop the big polluters by voting and we also need to do our own part to strive towards reaching sustainability.

            • TheBlue22@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              If everyone suddenly changed their lifestyle to be more sustainable, world would still go to shit. Because again, individuals combined contribute minimally compared to corporations individually.

              Not to mention, “carbon footprint” is a myth made by british petroleum and spread by big oil. It is made exactly to scare people like you, making them think responsible for problems not caused by individuals.

              Only way to combat climate change is systematic, not individual. You can do you and be more sustainable if you want, but don’t spread lies made by the ones actually responsible.

              • Anemia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 years ago

                If everyone changed their lifestyle the we would solve the climate crisis. It’s not like the big corporations release co2e because it’s fun, they do it because the people want the products (and they want them at a cheap price). Corporations are no angels by any means but they are directly downstream from the people.

                It’s obviously more complicated than that but the idea that big corporations have the sole responsibility is just shifting the blame. You are still responsible for the portion that you put into the atmosphere.

                • johnhowson@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  @Anemia @TheBlue22
                  It’s not quite as simple as that. There are the carbon emissions we actively produce such as fuel in motor vehicles. Then there are passive emissions from transporting items such as foodstuffs which we are not directly responsible for. So changing lifestyle can only achieve so much. Feedback mechanisms such as carbon sequestation through planting trees needs balancing against additional gasses from melting permafrost etc. A global government level effort is what is needed

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          What does voting for Capitalism have to do with helping the environment? They are 100% orthogonal to each other.

          • Anemia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            I didn’t even mention capitalism? Are you responding to the wrong person? My argument is that people ought to vote for the more environmental option.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              The fact that you don’t even realize that capitalism is the problem and then you think voting for one of the two capitalist parties will fix anything, shows you don’t care about the problem enough to think deeply about it at all.

              • Anemia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 years ago

                Even if I agreed with you, voting is still important. We need to do what we can in the current situation even if you don’t think it is the full solution.

                What type of action do you propose instead?

    • bossito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      How do you think those companies pollute? Are they burning fuel at Shell’s headquarters? Or do they have lots of customers who think their personal behavior doesn’t matter?

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    The goalpost for individuals is pushed further to make up for what corporations are doing, which is…(reads notes)…nothing.

    • itchy_lizard@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      That’s not true. Corporations concede nothing until forced. And many countries are foceing corporations to do things.

      For example, it’s illegal in many countries for corporations to have short-distance flights where a train route is available.

      We need more laws like this and corporations will do better.

    • kilgore@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Came here to essentially say this. Our individual contributions are meaningless in the face of the abuses by corporations and wealthy individuals.

      • lightstream@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Do you vote? Because it’s the same principle - how one person votes might be irrelevant, but millions of people voting is powerful. This is true even though corporations have outsized influence on the political process.

        Likewise, a single person deciding to not eat meat one day a week or replace one car journey with cycling is nothing in the global scheme of things, but a billion people all doing it will have more impact on the environment than any corporation ever could.

        • kilgore@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          I see your point, though I think the comparison isn’t quite accurate. My one vote doesn’t get canceled out many times over by the vote of a billionaire (though I suppose you could argue that lobbying by that billionaire could indeed cancel it out.

          I guess I’m just growing pessimistic. For as much as I personally do, I feel its a drop in the water that is negated 1000 times over by corporations and wealthy individuals. I’m also tired of the narrative being focused on individual effort instead of pressuring corporations etc. to take more responsibility. But both individual and corporate/government action are needed, I suppose, if we’re going to save ourselves…

          • TheBurlapBandit@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            That billionaire doing the right thing is going to force the same lifestyle changes anyway. Meat tycoon shuts down operations. Now no meat is available for purchase- vegan is the only option. Coal plants shut down. Blackout hours are enforced while battery infrastructure catches up. Auto makers shut down operations. Public transit is clogged until capacity increases, more people start biking. Airlines drastically cut available flights. No long distance travel for you until high speed rail can be built. Shipping magnates vessels are decommissioned. Many goods are either more expensive or entirely unavailable.

            • kilgore@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              I agree! And I think that’s the only way we’ll actually get a critical mass of people to change their ways.

    • catarina@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, but all the people taking multiple flights a year for weekend getaways aren’t solely the responsibility of the “corporations”, are they?

    • uwe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I keep reading that. But it’s not that simple. Corporations provide what individuals want. Their exploitation of the world’s resources and the damage to the climate is a side product of that. They aren’t a completely separate entity that do what they do just to be evil.

      Governments need to heavily restrict corps and how they operate. Which will come with increased prices and limitations to the people. Which is unpopular and will mean that those politicians won’t get back into office…

      Which is why nothing will happen and we are all fucked

  • half_built_pyramids@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Flying easy. Flying fucking sucks. Yeah I’d love to get a leg clot for $300 and 6 hours in your packed fart tube. As long as every private jet gets grounded too.

  • BurriedCondor@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Could I give up meat for year if I plan on going on vacation that year and eat meat on non travel years?

  • RealAccountNameHere@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    If forced to choose, I’d give up flying. As I’m scared of it anyway, that makes the most sense. :)

    That said, I think that if we all just did less of those things, it would be good too. Take more vacations near home. Eat meat only a few times a week. That sort of thing.

  • buwho@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Definitely meat. I’m omnivorous now, but have been vegan for years and vegetarian years before that. Its actually ideal if you can afford it/ find the right dumpsters.

    I have not found an efficient and fast way to travel across the ocean as i am not an experienced large vessel sailor and/or do not have access to a deep ocean worthy vessel.

  • Herr Woland@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    If you want people to give up flying you need to give them alternatives. I always choose train if it’s available. And for meat we don’t have to collectively give up meat, eating less meat (once or twice a week) would be totally efficient in limiting the CO2 emissions

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      eating less meat (once or twice a week)

      I’ve been doing this a few years now. Trying to slowly introduce more and more new vegetarian/vegan recipes into my life. Worth it, in my opinion.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s really not hard. I think the extreme emphasis on going veg/vegan is actually harmful. Just eat less, find good veg recipes, then eat a little less, etc. You can get 90% of the way there and not even miss it much if you do it gradually.

  • Vaggumon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Flying, I haven’t been on a plane in 25 years, and I have no plans to ever get on one again. But I love a good steak.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I don’t know how long it has been, but I haven’t had a compelling reason to fly since before 9/11/2001. I guess that’s about 25 years.

      • WimpyWoodchuck@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        For me, both price and time are very compelling reasons to fly, unfortunately.

        The state of the environment is an even more compelling reason for me not to. But for many people it’s not. That’s why the price of flying must be raised enough, and alternatives like traveling by train must be made more attractive. So that there is enough reason not to fly for everyone.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          High speed trains exist, just not in places like the USA. We could have more environmentally friendly coupled with similar time convenience. It’s truly unfortunate that it’s never been invested in, because its a viable and much less damaging alternative.

          • WimpyWoodchuck@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            I live in Germany, where high speed trains are the norm and traveling by train is pretty common. It’s still much more expensive than flying. But at least it’s getting faster and faster, to a point where it beats traveling by car or even plane. Munich to Berlin (600 km) in less than four hours, nothing can beat that.

  • PurliWhite@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    i’ve been trying to have less meals with meat. we had delicious butternut squash curry that was flavorful and filling over rice, and i was super proud of it.

    then my husband made chicken to put in all the leftovers… 🤦🏻‍♀️

    can’t people just fly less private jets please?

  • P1r4nha@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Haven’t eaten meat for over 10 years. Other than having to manage my feelings of superiority nothing much has changed.

    Change needs to be a lot more radical than reducing global CO2 by… maybe 20%?

    If we live plant-based we’ll need a lot of less land. We’d need some serious land to free up this land for the wild and rebuild eco systems. And it would still not be enough, because the rising heat will just destroy it anyway.

    So expensive sequestering technology at source needs to be made mandatory globally and everybody will feel the hit of that. Producing (and sequestering) CO2 will be so expensive that the market will find viable, cheaper alternatives.

  • GiddyGap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I know it’s not your question, but we probably don’t have to give up either one. Just do a lot less of it. It’s a lot easier to convince people to do less or seek viable alternatives than to give it up.

    There’s also a good chance that both will become greener with better, greener tech.

    • doinghumanthings
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’ve taken one trip in the last 15 years where I flew, so it’s pretty rare for me anyway, but hopefully, improvements to train infrastructure in the US will lead to more people taking that route. Idk if battery tech will get to the point where jets can be run off them, but I could see them moving over to renewably-generated hydrogen. Use solar/wind to generate hydrogen and use that hydrogen in jets, large construction equipment, farming machinery, etc.

      And while I still eat meat, I’ve been moving towards more plant-based foods whenever I can.