Where do you think these 57 companies get their money from to continue doing their shit? By individuals buying their shit.
What do you think these 57 companies consist of? They employ hundreds of thousands of individuals. Each of which could theoretically decide not to continue with that.
Of course I realize it’s not that easy, individual situations may be complex, and that there’s different amounts of blame to go around. You’re correct, these companies have concentrated blame to them and it’d be more impactful to regulate them specifically.
But my statement is simply also true. Multiple things can be true at the same time. Multiple courses of action can be reasonable.
People need to stop buying animal products and demand our politicians invest in renewables and public transit.
Too many people have protested against bike lanes and apartment buildings when those are much better for the environment. So yeah let’s not the individuals off the hook completely.
There is no “hook” though. We shouldn’t be fighting against each other.
Every person has a different level of personal sacrifice for the greater good that they are ok with. It is completely fine to be selfish. If that means that we’re fucked as a species, then that’s what that means.
If we militantly blame people for still eating animal products for example, it’ll just create hostilities that are further entrenching the sides. Instead we need to push to compromises, everywhere. Make animal products more expensive, using the tax or whatever to offset their carbon impact. People that still want to buy it can buy it. Or say it’d be best to not eat animal products, but if that’s too hard, how about just a little less, however much is acceptable.
It’s not optimal, absolutely true, but it has a much higher chance of working.
Oh I’m a failure there, which doesn’t mean I should be shot, but it’s not completely fine I’m failing to protect the single inhabitable rock I want young family to be able to thrive on
Multiple things can be true at the same time. Multiple courses of action can be reasonable.
Of course. And your original statement was only placing blame on individuals, which is the type of attitude that helps these companies get away with the all the environmental damage they cause. 80% of the cause should also be 80% of the focus.
Right, so the focus should be on the big 6 and how they finance the fossil fuel industry to raise awareness and encourage people to switch.
Putting the blame on the individual (you need to reduce your carbon footprint) and expecting them to research every business and product they interact with on a regular basis means
the research won’t happen because nobody has that kind of time, and
if they do try to do research on their own who knows if they’ll actually research their bank.
“One vote never changed anything,” said ten million people.
“me reducing my carbon emissions won’t change anything” said ten million people.
80 Percent of Global CO2 Emissions Come From Just 57 Companies, Report Shows
Let’s stop blaming individuals for this.
But who else is to blame? Seriously…
Where do you think these 57 companies get their money from to continue doing their shit? By individuals buying their shit.
What do you think these 57 companies consist of? They employ hundreds of thousands of individuals. Each of which could theoretically decide not to continue with that.
Of course I realize it’s not that easy, individual situations may be complex, and that there’s different amounts of blame to go around. You’re correct, these companies have concentrated blame to them and it’d be more impactful to regulate them specifically.
But my statement is simply also true. Multiple things can be true at the same time. Multiple courses of action can be reasonable.
People need to stop buying animal products and demand our politicians invest in renewables and public transit.
Too many people have protested against bike lanes and apartment buildings when those are much better for the environment. So yeah let’s not the individuals off the hook completely.
There is no “hook” though. We shouldn’t be fighting against each other.
Every person has a different level of personal sacrifice for the greater good that they are ok with. It is completely fine to be selfish. If that means that we’re fucked as a species, then that’s what that means.
If we militantly blame people for still eating animal products for example, it’ll just create hostilities that are further entrenching the sides. Instead we need to push to compromises, everywhere. Make animal products more expensive, using the tax or whatever to offset their carbon impact. People that still want to buy it can buy it. Or say it’d be best to not eat animal products, but if that’s too hard, how about just a little less, however much is acceptable.
It’s not optimal, absolutely true, but it has a much higher chance of working.
It’s completely legal usually…
Absconding from moral duties, completely fine?
Suppose “fine“ has to be clarified
Can you honestly say that you sacrifice everything for the environment? Have as little/positive carbon footprint as in any way possible?
I’m saying that eventually stopping to sacrifice personal benefits for the common good is fine. I.e. being selfish.
Oh I’m a failure there, which doesn’t mean I should be shot, but it’s not completely fine I’m failing to protect the single inhabitable rock I want young family to be able to thrive on
Of course. And your original statement was only placing blame on individuals, which is the type of attitude that helps these companies get away with the all the environmental damage they cause. 80% of the cause should also be 80% of the focus.
People continue to use the big 6 banks that finance the fossil fuel industry when they could switch to credit unions instead.
https://bank.green/
Right, so the focus should be on the big 6 and how they finance the fossil fuel industry to raise awareness and encourage people to switch.
Putting the blame on the individual (you need to reduce your carbon footprint) and expecting them to research every business and product they interact with on a regular basis means
No, it was not only placing blame on individuals. That is your interpretation of it.
Me: let’s stop blaming individuals.
You’re immediate reply: “But who else is to blame? Seriously…”
Hard to interpret that any other way. But okay, where in your original post do you blame anyone other than individuals?