this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
3355 points (99.9% liked)

196

16743 readers
1846 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Honestly curious, why did you call this place Reddit?

It's kind of ironic, considering your username.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good catch. Report the account as bot. 🤌🏼

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are a lot of bots getting through and they make these kinds of terrible bad faith arguments. Just report them and don't engage imo

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I am a robot. Bip boop yo momma! Report me to the robot authorities, you beep bop.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

because the comment section felt exactly like reddit. Your usual whining about the world with a zero willingness to take any responsibility or do anything. I always said reddit revolution will never happen. Recent events have proven it perfectly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, considering the irony of your username and the dumb mistake you made, I do appreciate your self-deprecating entertainment value.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Right back atcha.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

State owned doesn't mean not capitalist. This is silly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

state owned is the exact definition of communist

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I have no idea what an anarchist communist is but I think this conversation got way off track. A communist country’s defining feature is that the public has (ostensibly) ownership of property which is typically through the state.

If you live on a literal commune somewhere of course the reality will be different.

The original conversation was regarding who produces pollution, a capitalist or communist nation, with my point being that it doesn’t matter what the form of government is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Man. The bar was already so low, and you still brought a shovel? Oof.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Who is this Reddit you speak of? I thought this was Lemmy

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Where's the electricty from your car coming from? Where does the lithium for the battery come from?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's what I'm asking 🙂

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)