Who is consuming their products? I’m doing my damn best not too while striving for structural change, and I’d bet the other user is too. What about you? People taking your stance are usually the ones trying to make excuses to keep consuming mindlessly.
I’m sorry, I can’t stop using electricity or gas to go to work because I need to eat and pay rent to live. Because that’s the world those rich people made for everyone else.
Whether you do or not, other major corporations do, and while the money changes hands between a few dozen rich assholes, the planet burns and they laugh while you blame me.
You mean the products they designed to be as cheap as possible with no care on their impact on the environment, and then brainwashed the population through marketing to make us think we actually needed them?
You don’t even need to brainwash. Just make sure their wage stays at a level where their survival depends on buying the cheapest of cheap, necessity will do the rest.
“We can’t make our own phones, so there’s literally nothing we can do!”
Do you have a plant based diet, or try to reduce meat consumption to the best of your abilities?
Do you walk or take public transport when you could walk?
Do you avoid buying things you do not need?
If you answered “yes” to all that, then congratulations! You are part of a different 1%, and you are also just arguing for the sake of arguing.
If you answered “no”, then you’re part of the problem. You can pretend otherwise all you want, but you are one cog that keeps the system going. The system isn’t magical, other wordly, or some fundamental law of the universe. The system is people and their choices.
Yes, those people are part of the problem. But reality is that those people don’t need to lead the change. There are too many literal individuals involved. Tackling the problem from the head down with regulations is much more efficient.
Blaming individuals for climate change is incredibly naive. Doesn’t help anyone. No vegan will save the world. And no omnivore will destroy it.
what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
Yes. There’s the possibility that people will actually change by acting in unison. But the probability for society to act in unison isn’t really high. Just look at the world now. Some people can’t even agree on weapons not being something you need to carry around 24/7. And you want them to agree on something that’d actually affect their daily life?
However, I wasn’t intending to argue with someone with such a simplistic view of how the system works, anyway. If you think it’s all up to the customer and the corps nor the system have no blame in comparison, it’s just a lost cause, so sort yourself out.
It’s not shifting blame, it’s pointing out they do not exist in isolation. You can put blame on the companies and still recognize that most people make no effort to avoid them, even when they have a choice.
I’ll add on what someone said further above:
what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
And then others will rise to take their place. If the demand is there, someone will try to meet it. All long as the vast majority of people are not willing to make changes in their own life, then everything else is pointless, and it will all fail.
EDIT: Stealing another comment to add to this:
what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
All long as the vast majority of people are not willing to make changes in their own life, then everything else is pointless, and it will all fail.
The “vast majority” can’t make big changes in their life because they cannot afford to. The vast majority live either in poverty or paycheck to paycheck. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you are going to buy the cheapest stuff because that’s all you can buy. And the cheapest stuff is usually that which is produced by the worst companies. “Voting with your wallet” is fine and dandy, but it doesn’t work at all if there are not equal opportunities both for new businesses to flourish as healthy competition (without being squashed or bough by the already stablished corps) and for the customer to choose.
If we want to introduce actual change, it’s faster and more effective to regulate in some manner the behaviours of those companies and the system that enables them, but of course, that is no easy task either.
Then congratulations! You are part of a different kind of 1%, and you perfectly understand what the other user is saying and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
The reality is, most people don’t want to make any changes. You can’t change the system if the people themselves are not opening to change.
Though experiment:
Tomorrow is election day in your country. The stout environmentalists win control of the government and proceed to make the following changes:
Carbon tax, which increases the price of gas, which itself results in an increase in shipping anything. It also directly raises the price of anything that produces carbon in its manufacture process, such as anything made of plastic.
An end to meat subsidies - maybe even a tax on it - and an increase to subsidizing other types of farming.
A ban on single use plastics.
And anything else you think might be necessary.
Now the questions: How long until they get kicked out? How long until the protests and riots? How long until a new government undoes it all?
I’m assuming you’re not naive and you don’t live in a bubble. You should know the majority of people will not be fans of any of that; and with the way it usually goes and the pendulum swings, the government that follows it will be a far right one.
What I, an individual, can do. And don’t say: consume less. I need to eat to live. And don’t say: vote for politicians. We’re doing that and it isn’t fast enough. So, what can an individual do to stop this? Go on. We’re all waiting.
The West going to plant based diets would significantly cut emissions.
Nowhere near enough to matter. I mentioned wealth because the vast majority of people are not “rich”. And it’s the rich who own the corporations that make these decisions that affect the climate and how fuels are used.
I.e. you are proposing austerity for the masses that will NOT stop climate change. You are the problem as you are shilling for big business. My point is there ISN’T anything individuals can do to stop climate change. We have to hold the rich and corporate owners accountable.
There’s very little, without systemic change. But blaming the 7 companies is too easy, as well. Imagine, if you will - what happens if the 7 companies tomorrow simply say ‘you convinced us - we will completely cease operations tomorrow’. Lots of dead people.
Hey bud, I’m the guy you asked what in my opinion would happen if companies halved their consumption over night. I just wanted you to know that I replied, but due to the fact that the mod of this place disagreed with something I had to say about cruise liners, I got banned and all my comments erased.
Good luck, and try not to disagree with the power tripper here.
I do not. The gist of my reply was just that cutting production by half doesn’t have to happen over night. Setting a scaling goal of five years, for example, would give ample time for people to adapt and less environmentally strenuous alternatives to arise.
Anyway, I’m not trying to say that change doesn’t have to come from the bottom as well. I’m also not super keen on continuing this conversation in the wake of being wholesale banned for talking about corporate interests. It just kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.
Thank for taking part. I appreciate it - and I would have like to have explored this with you. I do appreciate batting ideas about with pople of differing viewpoint. I think we botgh have the same goal in mind
ok play it through a bit, so we shut down those 7 companies - i’m not sure which seven companies people are talking about but i assume it’s related to this statistic Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions so let’s just shut them all down…
mother nature breaths a sigh of relief as billions of people die because of the collapse of global infrastructure, world governments collapse, desperate conflicts erupt around the world with warlords taking over oil reserves and production facilities… the handful of dictators with working tanks and who only care about wealth and power subjugate the helpless and starving masses promising food and prosperity when victory comes…
Now the planet has been purged of everyone who actually cares about the climate, every available source of food and energy is stripped in a frantic battle for survival - how many people do you know that would let their kids freeze to death and how many people do you know that’d go out and chop down a tree to burn? A couple of months of winter and every tree in every city would be felled.
It absolutely is a fallacy - but then I think the “its just 7 companies” is a fallacy too. It gives the false impression that CO2 emissions can be tackled trivially simply - just sort those companies out, and we are sorted. We aren’t. Setting aside for a moment, the criminal lobbying they have been doing, those companies are meeting current demand. Let’s say they don’t shut down - lets say they halve capacity tomorrow. What happens, in your opinion?
That’s an odd way to spell “what the insatiable greed of like seven corporations has done to us.”
New York times being new York times
Don’t you put that evil on me Ricky Bobby
Those 7 corporations. Would those be companies whose products we keep buying?
They have trained you all your life to blame the victims.
Who is consuming their products? I’m doing my damn best not too while striving for structural change, and I’d bet the other user is too. What about you? People taking your stance are usually the ones trying to make excuses to keep consuming mindlessly.
I’m sorry, I can’t stop using electricity or gas to go to work because I need to eat and pay rent to live. Because that’s the world those rich people made for everyone else.
Whether you do or not, other major corporations do, and while the money changes hands between a few dozen rich assholes, the planet burns and they laugh while you blame me.
You mean the products they designed to be as cheap as possible with no care on their impact on the environment, and then brainwashed the population through marketing to make us think we actually needed them?
You don’t even need to brainwash. Just make sure their wage stays at a level where their survival depends on buying the cheapest of cheap, necessity will do the rest.
Sure. And what’s is the answer? Put in a cycle lane and people apparently go apeshit
Yeah, if people really wanted, they could make their own phones and all they own by hand. These damn socialists!
Do you have a plant based diet, or try to reduce meat consumption to the best of your abilities?
Do you walk or take public transport when you could walk?
Do you avoid buying things you do not need?
If you answered “yes” to all that, then congratulations! You are part of a different 1%, and you are also just arguing for the sake of arguing.
If you answered “no”, then you’re part of the problem. You can pretend otherwise all you want, but you are one cog that keeps the system going. The system isn’t magical, other wordly, or some fundamental law of the universe. The system is people and their choices.
Yes, those people are part of the problem. But reality is that those people don’t need to lead the change. There are too many literal individuals involved. Tackling the problem from the head down with regulations is much more efficient.
Blaming individuals for climate change is incredibly naive. Doesn’t help anyone. No vegan will save the world. And no omnivore will destroy it.
said 8 billion people in unison
Only a handful of those 8 billions actually impact the climate on an immense scale though.
what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
Yes. There’s the possibility that people will actually change by acting in unison. But the probability for society to act in unison isn’t really high. Just look at the world now. Some people can’t even agree on weapons not being something you need to carry around 24/7. And you want them to agree on something that’d actually affect their daily life?
Yeah to those 3.
However, I wasn’t intending to argue with someone with such a simplistic view of how the system works, anyway. If you think it’s all up to the customer and the corps nor the system have no blame in comparison, it’s just a lost cause, so sort yourself out.
When did I or anyone else say companies and the government do not have any blame? Can you link me the comment and quote the relevant bit?
The very first comment I replied to :). Shifting blame from the corps onto the customers. Once again, feel free to sort yourself out.
It’s not shifting blame, it’s pointing out they do not exist in isolation. You can put blame on the companies and still recognize that most people make no effort to avoid them, even when they have a choice.
I’ll add on what someone said further above:
what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
deleted by creator
Billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars of propaganda are just a coincidence.
And a century of research into more powerful and crushing propaganda. Just a coincidence.
deleted by creator
I did make the changes personally. Everything must be perfect now in the whole world! You’re welcome!
How ridiculous. We need to be honest about power.
deleted by creator
It would be easy to sacrifice those rich assholes in a slaughterhouse
And then others will rise to take their place. If the demand is there, someone will try to meet it. All long as the vast majority of people are not willing to make changes in their own life, then everything else is pointless, and it will all fail.
EDIT: Stealing another comment to add to this:
what would happen if everyone turned around and said ‘you know what, fuck companies that sell drinks in bottles i’m never going to be without my refillable bottle’ how long would coca-cola keep producing 100 billion plastic bottles a year? what would they do with them?
But if James Quincey said ‘fuck it, I’m not producing plastic bottles anymore they’re bad for the planet’ but 8 billion people said ‘oh ok, well we’re still going to regularly buy drinks in plastic bottles’ the numbers of plastic bottles being made would dip slightly but only while Ramon Laguarta rushed to spend the flood of money now coming in to scale up production at pepsi co.
The “vast majority” can’t make big changes in their life because they cannot afford to. The vast majority live either in poverty or paycheck to paycheck. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you are going to buy the cheapest stuff because that’s all you can buy. And the cheapest stuff is usually that which is produced by the worst companies. “Voting with your wallet” is fine and dandy, but it doesn’t work at all if there are not equal opportunities both for new businesses to flourish as healthy competition (without being squashed or bough by the already stablished corps) and for the customer to choose.
If we want to introduce actual change, it’s faster and more effective to regulate in some manner the behaviours of those companies and the system that enables them, but of course, that is no easy task either.
We already are making individual sacrifices.
The problem is that the big polluters are not doing so.
deleted by creator
Most reasonable viewpoint, but it requires something of people, so of course it’s downvoted.
deleted by creator
Then congratulations! You are part of a different kind of 1%, and you perfectly understand what the other user is saying and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
The reality is, most people don’t want to make any changes. You can’t change the system if the people themselves are not opening to change.
Though experiment:
Tomorrow is election day in your country. The stout environmentalists win control of the government and proceed to make the following changes:
Carbon tax, which increases the price of gas, which itself results in an increase in shipping anything. It also directly raises the price of anything that produces carbon in its manufacture process, such as anything made of plastic.
An end to meat subsidies - maybe even a tax on it - and an increase to subsidizing other types of farming.
A ban on single use plastics.
And anything else you think might be necessary.
Now the questions: How long until they get kicked out? How long until the protests and riots? How long until a new government undoes it all?
I’m assuming you’re not naive and you don’t live in a bubble. You should know the majority of people will not be fans of any of that; and with the way it usually goes and the pendulum swings, the government that follows it will be a far right one.
Cue that “badass” bird from Kurzgesagt ‘voting with their wallet’.
Neoliberalism put us in this situation, so you know what will save us? More neoliberalism!
Show me how to stop using oil. SHOW ME.
What I, an individual, can do. And don’t say: consume less. I need to eat to live. And don’t say: vote for politicians. We’re doing that and it isn’t fast enough. So, what can an individual do to stop this? Go on. We’re all waiting.
As an individual? Not much. As a small group of co-conspirators? Nothing that can be advocated for on a public forum, but there are a few options.
Wow you’re so edgy
deleted by creator
So your solution is: austerity for the poors. Not for the rich. But we can slightly reduce our carbon footprint by not eating meat.
OK. This doesn’t stop climate change. This just makes life harder and less pleasurable for the majority of people. This is what the rich push.
deleted by creator
Nowhere near enough to matter. I mentioned wealth because the vast majority of people are not “rich”. And it’s the rich who own the corporations that make these decisions that affect the climate and how fuels are used.
I.e. you are proposing austerity for the masses that will NOT stop climate change. You are the problem as you are shilling for big business. My point is there ISN’T anything individuals can do to stop climate change. We have to hold the rich and corporate owners accountable.
There’s very little, without systemic change. But blaming the 7 companies is too easy, as well. Imagine, if you will - what happens if the 7 companies tomorrow simply say ‘you convinced us - we will completely cease operations tomorrow’. Lots of dead people.
Hey bud, I’m the guy you asked what in my opinion would happen if companies halved their consumption over night. I just wanted you to know that I replied, but due to the fact that the mod of this place disagreed with something I had to say about cruise liners, I got banned and all my comments erased.
Good luck, and try not to disagree with the power tripper here.
Annoying. If you still have a copy - could you DM me?
I do not. The gist of my reply was just that cutting production by half doesn’t have to happen over night. Setting a scaling goal of five years, for example, would give ample time for people to adapt and less environmentally strenuous alternatives to arise.
Anyway, I’m not trying to say that change doesn’t have to come from the bottom as well. I’m also not super keen on continuing this conversation in the wake of being wholesale banned for talking about corporate interests. It just kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.
Thanks for listening.
Thank for taking part. I appreciate it - and I would have like to have explored this with you. I do appreciate batting ideas about with pople of differing viewpoint. I think we botgh have the same goal in mind
It’s easy to blame them because it’s true.
At this point, many of them are too stablished to just go away with the power of the wallet.
So, once again. If it’s 7 companies to blame - do you think shutting them down tomorrow is the simple solution?
It may not be simple, but I’m sure nature wouldn’t mind.
ok play it through a bit, so we shut down those 7 companies - i’m not sure which seven companies people are talking about but i assume it’s related to this statistic Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions so let’s just shut them all down…
mother nature breaths a sigh of relief as billions of people die because of the collapse of global infrastructure, world governments collapse, desperate conflicts erupt around the world with warlords taking over oil reserves and production facilities… the handful of dictators with working tanks and who only care about wealth and power subjugate the helpless and starving masses promising food and prosperity when victory comes…
Now the planet has been purged of everyone who actually cares about the climate, every available source of food and energy is stripped in a frantic battle for survival - how many people do you know that would let their kids freeze to death and how many people do you know that’d go out and chop down a tree to burn? A couple of months of winter and every tree in every city would be felled.
Removed by mod
It absolutely is a fallacy - but then I think the “its just 7 companies” is a fallacy too. It gives the false impression that CO2 emissions can be tackled trivially simply - just sort those companies out, and we are sorted. We aren’t. Setting aside for a moment, the criminal lobbying they have been doing, those companies are meeting current demand. Let’s say they don’t shut down - lets say they halve capacity tomorrow. What happens, in your opinion?