Anonymous #2 6d

True, but my point is that it’s foolish to say that lifestyle changes should be the primary focus, at least for now. Companies don’t just produce “a lot” they’re caused a vast amount of the damage we’re seeing.

7

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 6d

Yes we need to focus on companies. But also, it needs to be noted that companies (aside from the ai bullshit which is fairly new) do not produce carbon in a vacuum. They produce it for the consumption of American consumers. We are still driving the demand for that product. So even going after companies will require lifestyle changes by people, as it will change the availability of products.

5

Anonymous #1 6d

Yes, but there’s only emphasis on consumers footprints when in reality our footprints are a direct product of society and technology available to us. The real change and problems are with corporations and the elite. They have the money and resources to actually start real change yet fight any and all attempts. Me changing my car to an electric that gets its power from a coal power plant instead of a combustion engine isn’t real change, corporation changing their power plant dependencies is

7

Anonymous #2 6d

You’re ignoring the sheer amount of lobbying corporations do to stop governments like ours from adopting nuclear energy. You’re arguing that we’re consuming fossil fuel as a society, while the 1% is trying to make it so the 99% has no alternative.

9

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 6d

This, and how is the average consumer supposed to be able to fix the footprint when there are no options available that aren’t crazy expensive? An electric car is just getting its power from fossil fuels, there’s no public transportation, we’re in the middle of one of our worst recessions. The only thing we CAN do is advocate for more support and change from everyone and hope it sticks because we won’t be able to put a buck in the armor just ourselves

4

Anonymous #2 6d

But with the perspective are t American consumers generating carbon for the economy as well? We need cars and electricity to survive in order to work, without cars there’s no way to get to work because there’s no public transportation or other resources provided for such a transition

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 6d

I never said companies weren’t a problem. But this is a broader issue of how our society consumes and is organized. We should switch to rail, that will require cars to become more inconvenient for the average person to incentivize the switch. We need to switch to nuclear energy, but we also need to shift away from disposable plastics, which will impact the consumer. We need to reduce water consumption in arid areas broadly. That impacts data centers but also people’s shitass lawns.

12

Anonymous #2 6d

Not everything can be reduced to being “only companies fault” because the consumption is occurring per-capita across the entire developed world. Yes companies are a huge issue. But switching to a more renewable society *will* inconvenience everyday people, and we need to be prepared for that or we will be unable to do so.

7

Anonymous #2 6d

Ya all of that 100%, and all of that is the responsibility of governments and corporations. Consumers can’t change any of that other than through advocacy

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

I think broad social shift can cause change. Promoting the planting of native vegetation and reducing excessive water usage on lawns is a good example of how everyday people have led to major improvements. Of course then corporations showed up and built data centers in the desert and undid a lot of that work. They are clearly a huge issue.

5

Anonymous #2 6d

And I will also say that everyday people are also responsible for *voting* in governments that aren’t cronies of fossil fuel companies. Half this country continuously votes for the climate change denial party. In the era of corporate lobbying, governments won’t do the right thing unless they are really forced to by the electorate.

10

Anonymous #2 6d

Absolutely, citizens need to hold our government and corporations accountable to their respective economic, carbon, and social footprint. And there are PLENTY of reasons why that isn’t happening as you said, it’s a huge knot that idk if it will ever get untangled at this point. And doing community actions is important too as you’ve pointed out, it’s a form of advocacy with an immediate impact

-1

Anonymous _orangutan 6d

and collective individual action (organization) is how policies are changed, especially when the policies are currently bought and paid for by one particular class of people

7

Anonymous _orangutan 6d

I addressed this in the thread above.

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

the Black Panther Party organized buses an ambulances when the white state provided Black people less than nothing. the entire point is that individuals can build alternative systems, and should. this was not done through advocacy, but through direct organization. advocacy is not the *only* thing that workers can do. it’s just the easiest

9

Anonymous _orangutan 6d

Direct organization only does so much though. It’s absolutely powerful and needs to be employed, but I was speaking more from the perspective of long term and systematic change. The only way to change precedent and policy is to advocate for the change in law, otherwise direct organization just a bandaid

-2

Anonymous #3 6d

You realize corporations pollute because we’re buying stuff from them, right? They’re not just polluting for the fun of it. If we consume less of what they make, they will pollute less.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 6d

Why the dislike? Is it because I don’t wanna repeat myself?

0

Anonymous #1 6d

That works until the companies are our power or basic resource companies. Product strikes only work when the companies that are needing it aren’t supplying life critical resources. And they *are* polluting for the “fun of it”, that is it’s the cheapest option they can get away with. They are incentivized to make money, so they cut costs and often times cause environmental or consumer harm either knowingly or not. Yes part of the blame and burden is on the consumer to be informed on the best-

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

-options, but it is for everyone’s best interest to pressure and correct companies that are abusing these consumer responsibilities nonetheless. They can’t be allowed to prioritize making a profit over safely conducting production or whatever else they do

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

The only reason they’re incentivized to choose the more pollution options is because we’re willing to pay for it. If people were willing to pay more for better alternatives, this wouldn’t be an issue.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

A lot of times it’s also cheaper production prices as well. But you can’t say that it all comes down to consumers not being willing to buy different products with potentially different aspects to them. There’s significantly more to the situation than you are making it out to be, just take the paper straw campaign. It had disputed actual environmental effect itself even though the entire premise was for that. It actually succeeded past its expectations in public education and general concern-

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

-instead. Sure there was a short term benefit but once consumers stop pressuring the companies, it fell flat. It’s expensive to consumers also to “just buy the more expensive product”, the economy isn’t built for a consumer base like that as much as I wish it was

0

Anonymous #3 6d

That’s my point, the better options are usually more expensive. As long as we (society as a whole) are unwilling to pay more for them, we are all responsible. Companies don’t create societal pressures and trends, they react to them.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Ya but there isn’t such a thing as “more willing to pay more”, a significant portion of the economy can’t afford that 😭 it’d be nice if the economy could compensate but like that just doesn’t exist rn, people buy what they can afford and it isn’t necessarily their fault that the they can’t afford the better options. You DO know estimates say it’s at least a 10% budget increase when trying to make active choices? That’s the difference between meals for a lot of people

-1

Anonymous #1 6d

Like are you advocating for a federally controlled means of production? Or more a federally controlled market over a free production? I’m just confused because what you are wanting simply isn’t possible in a free market capitalist economy

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

If most people can’t afford better options, how will forcing companies to only offer those help anyone?

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Because it allows for a little bit of flexibility lol, I mean how do you expect to force people to only buy a certain option yourself? You’re advocating for forcing people to buy certain products so other products fail while I’m advocating for forcing corporations to adhere to regulations from the get go. I don’t understand what your thought process is for insisting that corporations can’t be controlled or limited

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

wtf are you talking about? You’re the one advocating for removing consumer choice. If you want the only option to be the best environmental-friendly option, many people will not be able to afford it and will suffer as a result. What you’re advocating for isn’t flexibility, it’s control.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

What in the mind games are you thinking you’re pulling 🤣 dude it took you this long to come up with this little charade? Just scroll up and reread what you said I’m not quoting entire paragraphs, you’ve been complaining about citizens buying the cheap stuff this entire conversation. All I’ve said in this entire post is advocate for better options. Not sure how that’s “control” but you do you

-2

Anonymous #3 6d

Not sure why I’m getting downvoted when it’s objectively true that direct action doesn’t hold a candle in scope or length of impact compared to policy change lmao. You guys are seriously downvoting me to defend the idea that planting trees (while is absolutely a great idea to help a local community) is more important and impactful than changing policy and law to make corporation cut down less or some other change. Yall are nuts

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

We currently have better options, and most people choose not to pay extra for them. Blaming companies for consumer choices is like blaming the weatherman when it rains.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Hence the purpose of carbon footprint framing: convince more people to choose the more sustainable options.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

So you want people to spend more money even though we’re in a recession, surely that will work and you’re the first to try to impose that idea 🤣

0

Anonymous #3 6d

No, I want them to care about the environment to choose the better option. You’re the one trying to take that choice away from them.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Ummm idk how advocating for more corporate regulations of practices is “taking away consumer choices” 😅

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

You don’t know how limiting what companies can sell takes away consumer choices?

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Bro wth are you going on about, do you even know what advocate means? So let me get this straight, first you think it’s the blame of the consumers for not making more informed or wealthy purchases, then you insist wealth should have no factor in purchasing decisions, and then you’re insisting that advocating for more strict environmental and human health guidelines is taking away freedoms for consumers 😂 I’m half convinced you’re just a bot based on how hard it is for you to stick to story lol

0

Anonymous #3 6d

how do you achieve policy change without direct action? voting for the representative bought by the fossil fuel industry?

4

Anonymous _orangutan 6d

By advocating for policy and representative change. How do YOU achieve policy change through direct action alone? It helps individual cases but doesn’t actually change any laws. By all means direct action has its place in not arguing against that 😭 I’m just saying that changing the laws themselves is the only actual way to cause assured long term and wide spread change. It’s being proactive over reactive

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

I’m absolutely baffled that so many people seem to be downvoting me over saying such a simple thing. I’m not shit talking direct action lmao I’m just pointing out that the most proactive and assured course of action for change is through legislation and legal action. Both are the ideal in all honesty, because they target different aspects of the same issues. You’ll just have to keep doing direct action until policy is changed lmao

-1

Anonymous #3 5d

I never said any of those things, you have the reading comprehension of a 12 year old

1

Anonymous #3 5d

Let me put it simply so you stand a chance at understanding my point: currently, consumers have both sustainable and unsustainable options. Most people choose the unsustainable options, because they’re cheaper. Banning the unsustainable options would raise prices for all, pricing many people out of the things they need (you said this yourself, “a significant portion of the economy can’t afford that”). As a result, companies continue to offer the unsustainable options…

6

Anonymous #1 5d

…BECAUSE THERE’S CONSUMER DEMAND FOR THEM!! Framing individual choices using carbon footprint reduces that demand, which is good for everyone.

1

Anonymous #1 5d

And I’m not denying that 😭😂 I’m just saying that advocating for legal change changes it from an incentivization on the consumer to a safety requirement on the producers

1

Anonymous #3 5d

In other words, you want to force companies to only offer the more sustainable options, raising prices for everybody (which you claim to be against)

1

Anonymous #1 5d

So in other words you have a problem with federal regulations of emissions 🤣 dude you can’t vilify enforcing corporations to not commit dangerous or harmful practices. You’re straight up arguing that things like workers rights shouldn’t exist at this point because those limit corporations rights to cheaper practices. Get real

-1

Anonymous #3 5d

Fossil fuels have an indisputable impact on respiratory and environmental health. Be honest, it’s only a matter of time until they are much more heavily restricted for what is undeniably better long term alternatives

1

Anonymous #3 5d

When did I ever say that? Limiting emissions is good! Ignoring the impacts we all have on GHG emissions while blaming companies for making things we want is bad.

6

Anonymous #1 5d

And yet you’re harping on me for wanting to hold them accountable for continuing to use said bad practices. You’re so quick to blame the average Joe who can’t afford the better options and even quicker to defend the wealthy corporations that know better than to force the unhealthy options but get away with doing so

0

Anonymous #3 5d

Your argument makes no sense. “The average person can’t afford more sustainable options, therefore we should only let companies sell those more sustainable options.” Do you not see the contradiction there? EITHER you’re concerned about affordability OR you want to require companies to sell expensive, more sustainable products, but you can’t have both at the same time.

5

Anonymous #3 5d

the average joe has been brainwashed into thinking that they cannot live their life without a car, meat in their diet, or mountains of waste, simply because corporations profit from it. curb consumption at the point of production. both the consumer and the corporation will have to make sacrifices. you’ll find that the sacrifice of some consumer comforts will be well worth it if we plan to continue living on this planet

1

Anonymous #3 5d

i don’t think a soul here has defended corporations, they just aren’t the sole cause of the climate catastrophe. the entire capitalist economic system is. producers used to consume the things they produce. now producers produce commodities (more than they can ever consume) for capitalists to sell for profit. that is the origin of overshoot, a wasted surplus

4

Anonymous _orangutan 5d

And I’ve never disagreed with this that’s what I’ve been saying this entire time. All I’ve been saying is that advocating for legislative change brings a much more significant, wide spread, and absolute change. Is that what everyone is disagreeing with me about? Also #1 absolutely was defending the rights of corporations over environmental health, they literally countered my arguement for pro environment with “but that’s limiting what can be produced and that’s a red line” as if we haven’t-

0

Anonymous #3 5d

-outlawed countless process or productions for the simple reason as they are harmful in use or production. I think we’re getting into an argument for the sake of arguing when in reality we’re in agreement

1

Anonymous #3 5d

I’ve never argued against environmental legislation, dude. My point is that shifting the blame away from individuals entirely will never be effective because our collective individual choices got us into this mess.

4

Anonymous #1 4d

And I’ve said that’s true 😭 hence why I said we’re just arguing for the sake of arguing. I’ve never said it’s only corporations fault and I’ve only ever said direct action is a necessary part of improving our situation, read what I type lmao. Just because I keep pointing out that legislative change is a more long term solution doesn’t mean I disagree with direct action, especially when I explicitly agree that it works. It’s just objectively true that it influences more people over more time

-1

Anonymous #3 4d

Literally reread what I’ve said and tell me when I said that direct action isn’t bad or shouldn’t be tried, I’ll wait lol. They’re both extremely effective, just on different scales. Literally getting downvoted for saying changing laws can help 😭

-1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4d

This. Some people think that consumers are more to blame for our situation than the elite. You don’t blame the peasants for the state of Europe during the dark ages 🤣 a significant portion of our much better off general population still can’t pick and chose what they *want*, people get what they need to live and it isn’t their fault the cheapest options are shit, it’s capitalisms and just universal base logic

-1