The thing is, you’re blaming the consumer when most EV consumers are just trying to do their part to reduce emissions. I don’t understand why you’re so mad that some people are trying to point out that the cooperations are doing the bad thing. I think it’s wrong, I am sure, as you cite, that the buck doesn’t stop with the Indonesian government (I’m aware of many of the atrocities my government has perpetrated), but acting like the consumer is the one at fault is counterproductive.
Also, your hostility and assumptions don’t make for a very productive conversation. I could have said more before, so that’s on me, but assuming that I have “wiped my hands clean from caring about anything” is a huge leap from my original statement.
Also, your hostility and assumptions don’t make for a very productive conversation.
If you wanted to have a polite response you should not post Fify, that is a smarmy and rude way to talk, so practice what you preach
I am not blaming the consumer, I am specifically pointing out that it is not just on Eramet and the Indonesian government who are responsible and pointing out that places closer to home to you were involved in making the Indonesian government the way it is, not just an isolated company and an isolated country leading to this
Yes, I was being snarky about a title implicating the EV consumers and not the companies are truly responsible, when the article itself tells the real culprits. In fact, I liked the original title “The Global North’s rush for EVs are threatening an entire people with genocide (emphasis:mine)”, which more accurately puts responsibility on both the consumers and the companies.
I trust you that my country probably made the dominos fall, but you mentioned the taxes of my grandparents- do you think they knew where that money was going? I mean, did you see who “we” elected? Many of “us” are controlled by a deceptive media system and secretive government that is actively trying to divide us. But the little people buying the EV (the ones having the “obsession”) are the wrong ones to be pointing the finger at.
I don’t disagree it is primarily the companies faults for accepting minerals mined from places where they shouldn’t be. If the mining company couldn’t sell their minerals they wouldn’t bother mining it there in the first place.
I think the reason the title is called “EV obsession is placing an entire population at risk of genocide” is to one catch the eyes of the reader who might not know much about where the minerals to make electric batteries come from and two to highlight since their is so much more demand because of the proliferation of EVs these mineral companies are looking to mine in much greater quantities everywhere and anywhere which is why there is a push to mine in this territory to begin with.
Many of “us” are controlled by a deceptive media system and secretive government that is actively trying to divide us. But the little people buying the EV (the ones having the “obsession”) are the wrong ones to be pointing the finger at.
This article did not point the finger at “the little people” in any way, including either version of the title
It’s obscene that a nickel rush to fuel supposedly sustainable consumption is in fact on the verge of wiping out the uncontacted Indigenous Hongana Manyawa, who truly live sustainably.
Survival International is calling for the urgent, immediate recognition and demarcation of their territory, an end to mining on their land and the establishment of a ‘no-go zone’ – the only way to ensure the survival of the uncontacted Hongana Manyawa people.
It’s also vital that electric vehicle manufacturers publicly commit to ensuring that their supply chains are entirely free of materials stolen from the territories of uncontacted Indigenous peoples, or from companies operating on (or sourcing from) the territories of uncontacted peoples, including the Hongana Manyawa.
The most it did is call for international recognition of their territory and EV manufacturers “publicly commit to ensuring their supply chains are entirely free of materials stolen from the territories of uncontacted Indigenous peoples or from companies operating on (or sourcing from) the territories of uncontacted peoples”
They are saying that the demand for EVs is causing this, which it is, if the “little people” in great numbers did not want to buy EVs the companies would not be rapidly expanding mineral extraction into places where they haven’t historically done so. They did not pin the blame solely or mostly on the “little people” given their stated demands of accountability from international bodies and companies. Just because you and most of the other people took issue with the phrase “EV Obsession” does not change this.
I think the reason the title is called “EV obsession is placing an entire population at risk of genocide” is
That, as I stated before, is not the title. It is the title YOU gave the post. I read the article, I know what the article said, all I ever took issue with was the title that you picked, which is why I made the “snarky” comment. And yes, it does blame the consumers, because they are the ones with the “EV obsession”, are they not? Maybe you should stick to posting the titles of the articles as-is and you wouldn’t get so much push back.
if the “little people” in great numbers did not want to buy EVs the companies would not be rapidly expanding mineral extraction into places where they haven’t historically done so.
And here you are again putting the emphasis on people who are trying to do something to combat climate change. Be like the article you quoted and talk about the companies sourcing ethically, making their sources known publicly, and government bodies making sure they are. People stopping buying EVs takes care of one problem while ignoring another. If the “little people” in great numbers demanded the EV manufacturers prove their nickel is ethically sourced, maybe the manufacturers would comply. It looks like much of Indonesia’s nickel is going to China, and a French mining company is involved I this one, so those governments and the governments of any manufacturer that buys from these mining companies, should be holding them accountable.
That, as I stated before, is not the title. It is the title YOU gave the post.
When you post an article into lemmy, it will grab a title that was specified in a field by the article, this was the title it grabbed, YOU can test this out for youself by creating a post with the same link, I DID NOT create the title, it was automatically fetched by lemmy, which means at some point in time this article had this title.
For reference, the text is coming from the <title> tag in the HTML, which can differ from the displayed title at the opt of the article. It’s likely different for SEO/clickthrough purposes
The thing is, you’re blaming the consumer when most EV consumers are just trying to do their part to reduce emissions. I don’t understand why you’re so mad that some people are trying to point out that the cooperations are doing the bad thing. I think it’s wrong, I am sure, as you cite, that the buck doesn’t stop with the Indonesian government (I’m aware of many of the atrocities my government has perpetrated), but acting like the consumer is the one at fault is counterproductive.
Also, your hostility and assumptions don’t make for a very productive conversation. I could have said more before, so that’s on me, but assuming that I have “wiped my hands clean from caring about anything” is a huge leap from my original statement.
If you wanted to have a polite response you should not post Fify, that is a smarmy and rude way to talk, so practice what you preach
I am not blaming the consumer, I am specifically pointing out that it is not just on Eramet and the Indonesian government who are responsible and pointing out that places closer to home to you were involved in making the Indonesian government the way it is, not just an isolated company and an isolated country leading to this
Yes, I was being snarky about a title implicating the EV consumers and not the companies are truly responsible, when the article itself tells the real culprits. In fact, I liked the original title “The Global North’s rush for EVs are threatening an entire people with genocide (emphasis:mine)”, which more accurately puts responsibility on both the consumers and the companies.
I trust you that my country probably made the dominos fall, but you mentioned the taxes of my grandparents- do you think they knew where that money was going? I mean, did you see who “we” elected? Many of “us” are controlled by a deceptive media system and secretive government that is actively trying to divide us. But the little people buying the EV (the ones having the “obsession”) are the wrong ones to be pointing the finger at.
I don’t disagree it is primarily the companies faults for accepting minerals mined from places where they shouldn’t be. If the mining company couldn’t sell their minerals they wouldn’t bother mining it there in the first place.
I think the reason the title is called “EV obsession is placing an entire population at risk of genocide” is to one catch the eyes of the reader who might not know much about where the minerals to make electric batteries come from and two to highlight since their is so much more demand because of the proliferation of EVs these mineral companies are looking to mine in much greater quantities everywhere and anywhere which is why there is a push to mine in this territory to begin with.
This article did not point the finger at “the little people” in any way, including either version of the title
The most it did is call for international recognition of their territory and EV manufacturers “publicly commit to ensuring their supply chains are entirely free of materials stolen from the territories of uncontacted Indigenous peoples or from companies operating on (or sourcing from) the territories of uncontacted peoples”
They are saying that the demand for EVs is causing this, which it is, if the “little people” in great numbers did not want to buy EVs the companies would not be rapidly expanding mineral extraction into places where they haven’t historically done so. They did not pin the blame solely or mostly on the “little people” given their stated demands of accountability from international bodies and companies. Just because you and most of the other people took issue with the phrase “EV Obsession” does not change this.
That, as I stated before, is not the title. It is the title YOU gave the post. I read the article, I know what the article said, all I ever took issue with was the title that you picked, which is why I made the “snarky” comment. And yes, it does blame the consumers, because they are the ones with the “EV obsession”, are they not? Maybe you should stick to posting the titles of the articles as-is and you wouldn’t get so much push back.
And here you are again putting the emphasis on people who are trying to do something to combat climate change. Be like the article you quoted and talk about the companies sourcing ethically, making their sources known publicly, and government bodies making sure they are. People stopping buying EVs takes care of one problem while ignoring another. If the “little people” in great numbers demanded the EV manufacturers prove their nickel is ethically sourced, maybe the manufacturers would comply. It looks like much of Indonesia’s nickel is going to China, and a French mining company is involved I this one, so those governments and the governments of any manufacturer that buys from these mining companies, should be holding them accountable.
When you post an article into lemmy, it will grab a title that was specified in a field by the article, this was the title it grabbed, YOU can test this out for youself by creating a post with the same link, I DID NOT create the title, it was automatically fetched by lemmy, which means at some point in time this article had this title.
You can see my confusion since the article’s title is different. My mistake, I’ve just never seen lemmy grab an alternate title before.
For reference, the text is coming from the
<title>tag in the HTML, which can differ from the displayed title at the opt of the article. It’s likely different for SEO/clickthrough purposesThanks for the explanation!