You must log in or # to comment.
While it’s everyone’s fault, there is very little consumers can do to actually help.
For example:
- When every company is using single use plastics for certain products, you don’t have any alternatives.
- When the local government doesn’t offer the ability to recycle, your options are limited.
- Or worse, the local government offers recycling services, but the collected items are literally just dumped into the trash.
So while I again agree everyone is at fault, I’d say the consumer has vastly less overall control than any other entity.
market won’t regulate itself. that’s established. EDIT: no way to “vote” with my wallet
Voters are the problem. People don’t vote for responsible and educated representatives.
responsible and educated representatives.
when they’re all serving capitalism, that won’t change shit
I’m confused. Do you think a responsible and educated representative would serve capitalism?
I don’t think the current capitalist class would allow for such a representative, without large changes to their power.
In the US, Bernie was right there. The average voter just don’t want to change their life. The average person is mentally weak and scientifically illiterate.
A little from column A, a little from column B. Looking at the media coverage over Bernie vs the other candidates, he had the deck stacked against him. Which doesn’t mean that someone like him couldn’t eventually win. It takes longer for the message to get through. in this environment.
I think the more dire the situation gets, the more people will start to get involved themselves, and then they’ll spend more time listening.
Bernie was actively pushed against by the DNC in favor of Hillary. This is just another example of politicians fucking us over.
I mean, I think it would be cool if I could go into a store and buy a flash drive that wasn’t surrounded by a mountain of plastic and other resources. Or replace that with just about everything else. Although we’re at another wealth inequality problem in general (I can go vegan tomorrow, move to a commune where everything was made of hemp, and it will still probably take 100 of my lifetimes to offset the carbon footprint of Elon or Taylor Swift over the next week, or maybe even just hour) I do often think about the very nature of our system now is that goods sold are often going to come with at a bare minimum equal parts waste to product.
So while I again agree everyone is at fault
no, only those in power and making profits are to blame, not the people trapped in their wealth extraction system with no choice but to participate or die.
Or apartments aren’t mandated to have recycling. Or how oil corporations controlled anti-climate change propaganda, as well as Republicans. Or how corporations forced us to use oil to get to our jobs because there really was no public transportation alternative (particularly in America).
That makes this meme stupid, because consumers didn’t have much control over big money buying everything or basically requiring the use of specific materials.
Consumers have the very real ability to vote and protest for changes but the people don’t care and the politicians know it would be unpopular so they wouldn’t do it.
Plastic and recycling have nothing to do with climate change though
Those were examples, but as pointed out they absolutely do have an effect on climate change.
However, I can provide a couple more direct examples if you like:
- No public transit available, and neighborhoods built in such a way that the majority of residents need to travel miles to reach their place of business.
- Products being grown, packaged and sold in completely different countries. Driven by profit, meaning many companies make the same ridiculous decisions. Consumers are often given no alternatives for certain products.
https://www.goingzerowaste.com/blog/which-is-better-for-the-environment-glass-or-plastic/
They do though. Manufacturing in general has a high carbon footprint, and the overwhelming majority of plastics the containers won’t be recycled so the next packaged item will have the exact same carbon footprint as the first one.
All consumers need to do is commit mass suicide /s
Weird how this equates the blame equally across all parties when it’s pretty clear who needs to force who to not pollute
But the politicians that wants to do it don’t get votes… People are weak and it makes democracy look the fool.
People keep bringing up people not voting while ignoring how gerrymandered our fuckin voting maps are
Ask yourself “where is the greatest leverage to solve this problem?”. If you think the fastest way to turn the climate ship around is to convince 7ish billion individuals to go vegan, and ride bikes… Good luck!
deleted by creator
Hmm. I’m not really banking on anything. I’m just surviving. Hoping for the best but expecting something less optimal. I’m not a doomer because believe too much in love. Not that it will save us, but that it’s the only thing that truly makes life worth living. Whatever it is, we’re all in it together.
deleted by creator
I think if you love yourself and others, then it is obvious what is good and what isn’t.
deleted by creator
I mean, sure. But you can’t just convince a critical mass of people to understand love. If we’re gonna turn the ship, we’ll need to find something else to leverage. Regulations seem like the most obvious point to me.
Regulations backed by whom?
We all ought to focus on that whole 7 billion thing…or wait, isn’t it 8 now? Will be 9 soon.
Infinite population growth in a world of finite resources is not, and never will be, possible. Less people = more resources per person and higher quality of life.
You will be missed, and your sacrifice will not be forgotten!
any policy of population control is necessarily eugenecist. you can personally favor it, but kindly keep it away from politics.
It’s not eugenics, by definition, if it doesn’t favor any specific traits. I never suggested anything like that at all.
And sorry, discussion of population controls need to enter politics as that is literally the only meaningful way to fight climate change.
But yeah, I’m not hopeful lol so you don’t have much to worry about. We will probably just continue to not take any meaningful action and continue to destroy our climate and world.
It’s not eugenics, by definition, if it doesn’t favor any specific traits.
what policy can you introduce that doesn’t favor a specific trait?
A randomized lottery system.
who gets enrolled?
Literally everyone in the age range to be a potential parent. Perhaps drawn once a year. The winners can have children this year, while the others cannot. If both people in a couple win they can have two or something. Non-heteronormative couples and artificial insemination is fine. If someone wins and chooses not to have children that year or is unable for whatever that’s completely fine.
Says a guy doing nothing? (based on below comments)
Huh? You don’t know anything about what I’m doing or not.
“I’m not really banking on anything. I’m just surviving.” Sorry if I misunderstood but that sounds like you’re not helping?
I’m not banking on anything, as in “I don’t have strong faith in any proposed solutions”. I’m just surviving in the sense that, like so many of us, I’m doing my best to maintain my physical and mental health during these difficult times. For me, like so many of us, “doing something” me to maintain my physical and mental health.
I don’t blame you for misunderstanding me. I can see how my previous comment could have come off that way. I do also want to say though, that “not helping” is okay too. If you don’t have the capacity right now to do anything but exist, I understand. It’s fuckin tough out there for a lot of people.
deleted by creator
I am sick of the people being blamed for what has been propagandized into them. Companies have spent enormous amounts of money framing and controlling the narrative in public discourse. They have also spent enormous amounts of money bribing politicians and gaining influence in government. There is no sense blaming the people. The people must create change, but let’s not act like it was their fault to begin with.
You are wrong. Yes, companies have spent billions to manipulate the public, but the actions of consumption and the willingness to tolerate even small change is on the people. We don’t get to pretend that just because there are corporate involvement, that we are morally immune for it - especially when we still tolerate little change and take little action and little sacrifice even after we know it.
How were you able to post this comment? Did you use any technology to do so? Any devices or equipment? Did you or someone else buy those devices or equipment? Are you, right now, in the process of consuming this content via your consumption of this technology and these devices?
deleted by creator
The part of the equation that can change, is the consumer variable.
No. I mean yeah, but we can change in so many more ways. that matter more. I think we need a multitude of approaches.
You can get active politically. Call your representative. Help get a better one elected if you can help out (and keep an eye out for a better one next time). You can learn to have those difficult conversations with friends, neighbor and family if you are good at that. Not all of those work for everyone. Some will swear up and down that direct action is better than getting involved in local or provincial/state elections. Then do that which you think will work.
As far as consumption goes, I tend to think withholding your consumption won’t do much (there are plenty of people who don’t care who will keep consuming, and we will look like a rounding error). However, I think support for alternatives matter more (whether they be habits which we spread in the population, or alternate products, like legumes instead of meat. Which I guess is also kind of promoting a habit. By forming communities that live our values, we can cause other people to be exposed to them and see how it can work out in practice. Hence eating more vegan foods bring those out. My hope is that such movements (and sometimes, as for vegan foods, markets) will grow exponentially at some point if it catches on.
deleted by creator
Word salad, my fav, I’m convinced.
I agree, we are all part of this problem. Lets fix it. What each of us can do to affect the change. Average consumer, recycle and keep their phones few years longer. Perhaps not eat bananas. Travel by train. Things like that. Many already do, but more don’t.
Could an average consumer decide that frequently used products come in glass bottles. Say you go and buy Coca-Cola in big 1l glass bottles. Return the old bottle, get a new one. Or for example liquid soap or washing detergent to come in a metal box or glass bottle. Or anything else for that matter. No, everything comes in plastic and if you don’t recycle you are to blame. Can you make the change? No. Because every single manufacturer is doing it. Your only choice is not to buy it, which good luck doing in a modern world. You as a consumer have an option of not buying, buying more expensive alternative which claims to be better but often isn’t and is just charging you premium or just buying whatever is available.
We all know consumption creates demand and demands need to be filled. That’s all great and logical. Then could you buy a TV whose materials have been ethically sourced? Made locally so there’s no pollution for shipping and delivery? No you can not. Your option is not have a TV or have a TV. But you are to blame for wanting a TV.
My point here is, corporations don’t give a fuck about climate. They will happily sacrifice current and future generation’s entire heritage if they can earn 0.1$ on their next sale. That’s all they care about, that next quarter they have more numbers on their account. Want proof of that? Just look at what CocaCola did. Their drinks use to come in glass bottles, switched to plastic. It’s cheaper and if you don’t recycle it’s your fault. What’s that there’s no where to recycle and majority of plastics can’t be recycled. Well that’s governments problem. In fact CocaCola has spend a significant amount of money advertising exactly this. Source. And even when they get pushed for a change, they claim it’s what people wants. It’s never their fault, always yours.
In reality it’s not only CocaCola, but all of them. You could go now, live in wild like an animal wearing nothing but skirt woven from grass and you could not offset for your entire life what they pollute in an hour. If you were born in the 90s, your expected lifetime CO₂ footprint is 150t. That’s it. Flying round-trip London to New York… 986 kg CO₂. More than 2 years of your existence, including breathing, is negated by Elon flying to Paris for a lunch and then got back the same day. You think he recycles 100x more than you?
Want to save the planet, force corporations to use glass instead of plastic. To use paper instead of plastic. To pay for recycling themselves. Prevent the rich for polluting and hold them accountable. Kill coal based everything.
But that’s not happening. Ever. You want clean air, someone is lobbying for “clean coal” even though there’s no such a thing. You want climate change to be stopped but super rich shitheads takes 10 minute flights because traffic was annoying that day.
You can do nothing. It is what it is and it will all go to hell pretty soon. Worrying about it pointless. You claim people are to blame, but people have given up. People need to worry what they will do tomorrow to survive because majority now lives from salary to salary. From an armchair it’s all doable and plans can be made for a better future. But reality is cruel.
For closure. Here’s Doug Stanhope
Plastic packaging has issues but climate change is not one of them. Shipping also isn’t impactful at all. Most shipping emissions happen when the product moves to the store, not when it sails in a container ship.
Based on your post, the main evil of the corporations is manipulating the media, confusing people with things like abolishing plastic straws (which are very efficient at what they do).
Eating beef, owning a car and buying unnecessary stuff (for example those bottled drinks) are huge. They easily make up half of a persons emissions. An accurate measure is hard because of secondary effects like needing less road with fewer cars.
Consumption of everything is the problem. More people means more pollution. Plastic is a side product of oil. Cement is one of the big players and it’s used everywhere.
Eating meat on the other hand is not as bad of a reason as you’d think. People often think that cattle feed comes from same fields as out food, but that’s simply not true. For the most part it’s leftovers from food we consume, plant matter from corn and wheat for example, and from fields that would otherwise be unused due to low fertility. If you remove meat from the diet only thing you are left with is excess plant matter.
deleted by creator
Hypothetically, if everyone decided right now to stop buying as much as possible, it would take years of companies continuing to manufacture and try to push these items on us. that’s also a lot to consider that everyone could drastically change their lifestyle like this. What would an in-between look like? If we are currently buying phones as they come out, and on the other extreme, we could just all use ham radio to talk to one another using a station that we maintained over our lifetime, I imagine an in-between might be buying a phone and using it well past it’s planned lifetime if possible via rooting and trying to install a light-weight OS.
People need to eat and live in shelter to survive. Living off the land requires owned land to live off of. Some of the things we want to buy and use are the things that make life easier or worth living.
deleted by creator
It was my fault for not turning off the water when I brush my teeth. Sorry guys.
Maui would have been just fine if I didn’t put my sandwich in baggie for lunch. So sorry everyone!
The important thing is that everyone has an excuse to carry on with their lives and not have to feel bad or do anything different
If only we had a society where I could actually buy from companies that were green or vote for politicians that gave a fuck about anything but money. We’re fucked. I’m just glad I’ll be dead before the world melts.
I think the most practical thing to do about it is to find a way to warn the societies after us of the danger, and then ride out what’s left of modern society. It’s proven it won’t change.
"Would you be upset if I told you we were dying? And every cure they gave us was a lie? Oh! They mean it when they say we’re dead and doomed, and every single symptom brings us closer to the tomb, and who will take the credit for our swift impending fall? Because it’s not my fault!
Would you be impressed if I said that the dead would help us counting every single moment that we waste our time? All the time we’re spending vaccinating this disease, I just get dizzy when I think of all the ways we try to hide our maladies. We wine, we dine, and everything is fine, because it’s not my fault"
“Would You Be Impressed?” by Streetlight Manifesto
Maybe, just maybe, having the population go from 2.5 billion to 8 billion in like 70 years has something to do with it…
Oh look another westerner blaming population while the top 1% are responsible for double the emissions of the bottom 50%.
A growing population is what allowed the top 1% to get so absurdly rich and wasteful. Capitalism is dependent on growth.
I’m not blaming the poor for the population growth, I’m actually blaming the rich who encourage it for their benefit. All the talk in the west of ‘we need to grow the population otherwise the system will collapse!! We need to get our people pumping out more kids or, if not, we need more immigration!’ demonstrates this quite well. It’s all about maintaining growth by any means necessary.
And no I’m not anti immigration even slightly, so please don’t miss my entire point here by misunderstanding my position focusing on that.
You’re not blaming the poor, but you’re still pointing to population growth as the cause, which raginghummus convincingly argued against.
Population growth is the cause, and their assessment that I was blaming the poor does not change that. There was no convincing (or even unconvincing) argument made that the population isn’t to blame.
Massive wealth inequality existed in human society thousands of years ago too. But climate change on a global scale did not exist until the population exploded since the industrial revolution.
Pretty sure that he pointed out that a small fraction of the population is responsible for an absolutely disproportionate amount of emissions. Is really decreasing the population necessary, or would it be more effective to decrease the emissions of the current population, since we see that a lot of emissions come from so few people?
Also, industrial revolution changed more than just population, I’m sure you know better than simply implying that such a correlation as you describe implies a causation.
Yes, a small fraction consumes more than others currently. Not at all claiming otherwise. I am anticapitalist and definitely don’t support it. What I would like is for this to no longer to be the case and that all people consume an equal amount of resources.
But yes, what I’m saying is in order to meaningfully fight climate change we will also need to limit population growth too, even if we manage to completely end resource inequality.
A population can’t expand indefinitely without it inevitably leading to less resources per person. And I truly believe even if we take all 8 billion people and have them all live in a way that consumes comparable resources to a, say, a lower-middle class Westerner… we will still have a climate emergency on our hands. And if I’m wrong and the world could support 8 billion like that, how about 10 billion? Or 100 billion? There obviously exists an upper limit. But no one wants to acknowledge it.
Yeah I (and probably everyone else) agree that indefinite growth is not sustainable, but no-one argues for such growth and as far as I know there are no reasons to suspect the world population will grow indefinitely.
I don’t know of the top of my head how sustainable a lower-middle class Westerner is, but my guess is not overly sustainable, as it feels that modern society is made so you naturally emit quite a lot. My guess is that we could sustain 10 billion or a bit more, I haven’t really heard any convincing arguments we couldn’t. I agree there must be an upper limit, but I think it much be much further than you think.
deleted by creator
that’s how you create a messy debate, it needs to be provocative…
deleted by creator
Image Transcription:
Above a set of three images is the title “CLIMATE CHANGE?” A photo of Broderick Stephen “Steve” Harvey Sr. with his hands raised, palms out and text above and below. The text above reads “Consumers:” and the text below reads ‘"Not my fault’". The second photo is a Capuchin monkey with its paws raised as if shrugging, and text above and below. The text above reads “Companies:” and the text below reads ‘“Not my fault”’. The last image is that of an otter half underwater with its fore-paws in the air as if at gunpoint, and text above and below. The text above reads “Politicians:” and the text below reads ‘“Not my fault”’
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
the sun: it was me lol
Solar power: Don’t ever talk to me or my sun, again.
Humans in general!
