1131
Choices (slrpnk.net)
submitted 23 hours ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to c/memes@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 61 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Honestly I'm starting to hate this narrative

For one, by far the most polluting companies are state owned coal companies in China and India. Then other state owned fossil fuel companies and then private fossil fuel companies.

So all those companies are just power generation. So it's not like they can just stop, people need the electricity.

And it's not like nothing is being done either. Like by far the biggest polluter is China's coal industry, making up 25% of global emissions, but China is also THE global leader on clean energy investment. They are currently building more nuclear power plants than the entire rest of the world has, they are making the biggest most powerfull wind turbines in the world, etc.

And if people would stop consuming cheap, disposable shite from China, then they wouldn't use so much electricity, so would burn less coal and also you wouldn't make a bunch of shit that's just going to end up in a landfill.

[-] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 hours ago

Power companies in Georgia, US are building more coal power plants. Consumers in Georgia, US don't have a lot of choice in how the electricity they can buy is produced.

[-] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 hours ago

What kind of politicians are people voting for at the state level in GA? Separately, they're also blowing ass loads of money on nuclear.

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

Why are the people not on the hook for electricity usage but they are for cheap crap? The corporations reselling the cheap crap are far more culpable. The problem is still capitalism.

[-] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 13 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I agree so very much.
People around me fly on holidays by plane like two, three times a year, still eat meat, shower twice a day and buy shit they don't need from Amazon, because they can. This needs to stop! Will it save us? Of course not, but who else is going to stop the global suicide machine? Trump? The fossil destroyers? Do you want to protest another 70 years or go blow up a pipeline?
We are billions, we have the power of "No, thanks, I don't want that" every fucking day but the endless consumption of stuff is too tempting. Instead, we sit at home, comfortably warm, well fed and lonely, in front of our seethrough plexiglas RGB LED computers and point fingers at corporations that are exactly as greedy, selfish and irresponsible as every single one of us.
NO THANKS! This could be the easiest global movement, no violence, no riots, still corporations would be powerless. But you'd need to change, and you don't want that.

Edit: If you downvote, please tell me where I'm wrong and what's your counter-proposal in this actual situation right now.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 12 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Where you are wrong is that the majority of humans don't have access to those luxuries of choice since around 50% of the world is still below the extreme poverty level. Where else you're wrong is people like me that have solar panels, and electric transportation and access to mass transit that I use regularly. We also don't have much of a choice, because we don't make the markets those companies do.

Those companies are the only ones that have a choice because they control so much market share that no one else has enough power to make a change.

I already eliminated my carbon footprint, and it hasn't done shit, because Starbucks has their own private jet that the CEO is using 3 times a week to fly between San Francisco and Seattle, because fuck the plebes.

The only solution I see at this point is mass protest and starting to assassinate CEOs, shareholders, and boards of directors, in self defense.

[-] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 hours ago

The point is that if everyone did what you (and I) do, we'd actually get somewhere. Seems like we're in the minority though, unfortunately. That doesn't make the person you replied to wrong, it just means most people continue to just blindly consume, and when they can't consume as much as they want they blindly vote for asswipes promising them even more. That's the cultural problem at the heart of this all. I'm running out of individual actions I can do too, but that doesn't mean those were not helpful.

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

People aren't blindly consuming though, they're consuming mostly as a necessity, without much choice in the impact of what they consume. Us down here at the bottom of the class hierarchy don't have a lot of wiggle room. In general, the lower and middle classes much more rarely consume for pleasure, but even still, why shouldn't I get to take a plane for vacation once or twice a year, sucking the farts of the 300 other peasants in the economy class seats, while CEOs take single-passenger trips in their private jets every day? Do you see how that's frustrating? My footprint is already incredibly low because on top of just not consuming all that much in the first place (compared to a billionaire), I do try to be as responsible as I reasonably can. Billionaires aren't even trying.

I think the big point is, it would be magnitudes easier to get the 100 richest people to lower their carbon footprint than the 1 billion poorest (do you understand how monstrously difficult it is to convince 1 billion, or even 1 million people to work towards some common goal?), and it would probably have a bigger impact on the environment to boot. I'm getting tired of people continuing to advocate for individual action when actions by billionaires would be so much more impactful, for so much less sacrifice on their part. Work smarter, not harder, you know?

Obviously, the best solution is to do both, to tackle the problem from both sides. But in my personal opinion, I think we should start with the billionaires and see where that gets us first. They owe us at least that much.

[-] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 1 points 2 hours ago

I agree again.

[-] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

9% of the global population is in extreme poverty not 50%

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 4 points 7 hours ago

I hate the narrative too. Just people avoiding responsibility and complaining instead of doing what they can and should.

Obviously our individual actions matter.

[-] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

Obviously they should and do, but pretending the average human creates anything compared to oil and gas companies, coal plants, big tech, etc is boot-lickingly ludicrous

[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 41 points 20 hours ago

It's a multifaceted issue, but don't kid yourself

http://amp.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.

China weighs in at 14.5% for coal. Another 1-point-some-odd for their Petro Chem. The issue is that there are a lot of companies that make up the remainder.

Demand definitely plays a role in all of this, but I don't think pushing green initiatives is a bad thing from the consumers and one of the only ways we can encourage these companies to do their part

[-] TheColonel@reddthat.com 10 points 18 hours ago

It’s possible there’s a very specific tinge of racism and/or jingoism present in the comment previous to yours.

Multinational companies are to blame, not just India and China.

[-] grandel@lemmy.ml 2 points 14 hours ago

So all those companies are just lower generation. So it's not like they can just stop, people need the electricity.

I don't know about you guys but Id rather have a habitable planet with breathable air than electricity.

It sickens me how convenience is valued over everything else.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago

People in hospitals will die without that electricity. You can be all sickened and uppity on your electronic device if you want, but the only realistic solution is replacing infrastructure.

[-] grandel@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

People are already dying from the effects of climate change so I dont understand the point you are trying to make

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

You are asking people to let Gam Gam die so some random person they'll never meet will live. "Just stop" is never. going. to. happen. Even the pockets of humanity left after the bulk of climate change will continue high energy use per capita.

The only realistic solution is greener energy.

[-] grandel@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

Gam Gam's life shouldn't be worth more than "some random person"

this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
1131 points (100.0% liked)

memes

10418 readers
2323 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS