687
submitted 2 years ago by outhold@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] tasty4skin@lemmy.world 135 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The narrative that the average joe is to blame for this shit is so infuriating to me. Myself and 50,000 other people could start walking everywhere and it very likely wouldn’t come close to offsetting the emissions of Amazon’s fleet of trucks.

Yes individual consumption matters, but there’s a very small group of individuals called billionaires that contribute 1000x more than you or I ever could. BP invented the idea of the individual carbon footprint.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 59 points 2 years ago

The average person is the reason Amazon exists, so... That's still on the average person.

This is what people miss in this false dichotomy. Businesses only exist because demand exists. Countries need to start passing unpopular things like Carbon Taxes to seal the deal against climate change by hitting consumer demand and raising prices

[-] steltek@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago

Oddly enough, without changing buying habits or consumer demand, I think the Amazon truck is a superior option.

  • Instead of thousands of individual trips to the store for small things, a single vehicle delivers everything
  • Instead of many hyper-local stores packed with things that may or may not eventually be sold, only things that have been purchased are shipped and transported

The trick, as you said, is to change consumer behavior and people balk at doing that, especially when it will cost more and income inequality hits harder than ever. Tax the rich, level the playing field, and the rest gets much easier.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Be real mate. Thats not how it works.

Suppliers create the demand.

People werent demanding smartphones before smartphones got invented.

Most new things are shunned by most people until they slowly gain popularity and then the demand starts to exist.

You are stating the hypothesis of capitalism whilst ignoring the conclusion.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] wandermind@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 years ago

I'm not demanding products which harm the environment made using methods which harm the environment. Businesses make the choice to produce those things instead of carbon-neutral environmentally friendly products, so they are more at fault than the individual who buys the thing. It's extremely difficult for an individual to be able to uncover the environmental implications of everything you buy and do. The only real solution is to pass laws which properly account for the harmful externalities in the production cost, such as carbon tax. That will steer both businesses and consumers towards more sustainable decisions.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I also am demanding similar products, which is why capital has already shifted (and continues to shift) toward green/sustainables.

We don't need laws to provide for externalities of consumption in most markets. Most markets are being changed by consumer demand.

What would be most effective is carbon pricing. Unfortunately, that is a non-starter with most voters as it essentially means price increases across the board (which would actually be more helpful during inflation, but people never see it that way)

[-] Slikkie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Yeah, I wonder how big that capital shift actually is. Most companies are greenwashing, saying products are sustainable and carbon neutral when surprise, surprise, they are not. As a consumer you can't even trust those products. As a small example you got H&M recently pulling back they Conscious line and lying about recyling clothes that actually ended up in landfills.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago

If you want to kill BP, stop buying oil. The Amazon fleet is about 70,000 vehicles and they're transitioning to electric right now.

Consumers drive markets. Mega corporations aren't polluting for the fun of it. They do it because it's a byproduct of them taking our money. Stop giving them money and they stop polluting. Why else would they stop?

[-] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

"Voting with your dollar" is bullshit. Just stop buying oil? Ok, let me go to the no oil store and buy a new car that doesn't run on gas and isn't made with any plastic. Let me spend my entire 5 dollars worth of disposable income to buy a new vehicle. And then take that vehicle to the store that has 0 petroleum products. No cans lined with PFAS, no plastic bags, no plastic packaging, no products made entirely of plastic. Never fly again in your life, or take the bus. Don't you even think about eating out again. Live life as a hermit, make your own goods, provide your own services and maintinence to yourself to ensure an oil free existence. Better start soon too, the planets only getting hotter. Rinse and repeat x8,000,000,000.

Markets are driven by capital. Those with the most capital have the greatest influence. Your pittance of a wage isn't going to change a damn thing. 10% of the global population has 52% of the purchasing power. Even if the other 90% of us all united together at once, about a single thing, we still wouldn't have the purchasing power to overwhelm them. You can't reform a system that's made to perpetuate consumption and pollution. It's cheaper to pollute by design. Do you think it's a coincidence that bills meant to make polluting more expensive either don't get passed or are so rife with loopholes they're effectively useless? Pull your head out of your ass. If there was ever a time this shit show could be reformed, it's long gone.

[-] DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Just stop buying oil? Ok, let me go to the no oil store and buy a new car that doesn't run on gas

You mean an electric car?

There are options for consumers. Some of them cost more right now, others are an investment that pay off later. Buy those and not the polluting option and low and behold the markets change. Why do you think oil companies are starting to diversify more

[-] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What's the trim in the electric car made of? How about the insulation around the wires? The clear coat on the paint? The lamination layer in the glass? What about the headlights and tail lights? The bumper covers? The logo and model letters? How was it delivered to the dealership for you to buy? You think there wasn't any oil consumed in the mining and refining of the non petroleum materials that constitute the rest of the vehicle? You said stop buying oil. Not stop using gasoline.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The oil in your plastics for your car aren't being burned, so they don't contribute nearly as much as gasoline and diesel fuels do towards climate change.

Today is completely impossible to eliminate plastics from the global economy, so ranting about plastic use making it impossible to stop climate change is a red herring.

Only about 10% of oil goes into plastic. We can also make bioplastics out of corn and other agricultural products.

[-] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

The oil to make that plastic still needs to be pumped out of the ground, refined, and manufactured into an end product. Leaving a trail of carbon emissions and other pollution along the way. It doesn't just come out of the ground shaped into whatever you want it to be. Bioplastics made from corn are also very resource intensive to produce. While a better option, they're not perfect either. It's really not a red herring. Just because it isn't polluting as an end product doesn't mean they're clean. And with things like toxic fumes from off gassing and the products from plastic degradation having long term consequences, it's not like they just stop being bad as finished products either.

[-] DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Ok, stop buying gasoline then. Because the vast majority of oil is used for fuels. Only a small percentage is used for plastics, like less than 1%. 50% is used for gasoline alone.

Simpler? Imagine if we could reduce oil GHGs by 50%. Just by changing the way consumers drive.

[-] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Global production of oil per day is about 90 million barrls. If we use your 50% for gasoline production that's 45 million barrels. Or 16.425 billion per year. 3.2 billion barrels.) are used annually in the US. Or 19.45% of the global supply of gasoline. About 76% of that is used by individuals. And that's a generous estimate. The average mpg of a car on the road in the US is 36. The average American drives 13.5k miles per year. Leading to an roughly average annual consumption of 365 gallons per driver per year. 83% of Americans drive frequently. Leaving an annual consumption of about 2.46 billion barrels per year for private citizens gasoline consumption. Or 14.9% of global gas consumption. And again that's being generous on the average consumption per citizen. I couldn't find any real numbers on the actual amount of gas consumed by individuals for individual needs in the US.

Also, globally, 45% of oil is used for gasoline. 29% for diesel and the remaining 26% are used for plastic and other products. So my percentage of the us' consumption per year, and in return the average citizen is exaggerated by a decent margin. That's not to mention the fact that the majority of the US' industry runs on diesel. So if we're going by petroleum fuels, the impact of the average US citizens gas consumption is even lower. You're trying to eliminate 75% of 19% of 45%, or 6.4% of the total problem by switching to electric. And, again, that's being generous.

Institutional problems CANNOT be changed by individual action. We need a lot more than 6.4% of pollution to stop if we even have a shot at unfucking ourselves. The answer to overconsumption isn't more consumption

E: let's also consider the fact that the majority of people with a car can't afford to buy an electric car. What are they supposed to do? Stop going to work? Stop buying groceries? Walk miles for every errand? We can't electric car our way out of catastrophe

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] raltoid@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

While true that they're not polluting for fun, many corporations will try to avoid any anti-pollution measure that will lose them money. To the point where they spend billions of dollars every year to lobby governements, enviromental protection organizations, and drag out regulations with lawsuits. Because in the long run it's usually worth it for them to pollute, as long as the investors see enough profits in the short term.

[-] DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Of course they will. Corporations do not care. They will only do things that make them money. Either because governments threaten to take away their money. Or because markets change and they're no longer making money so they have to change.

We have seen this with so so so many industries over the centuries. Consumers change behaviours and businesses move to fit their needs. If everyone here started eating less meat there would be more investment in plant based ideas. Because they don't care about what the impacts of their company are. They care what you and I are buying.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Not to support Amazon, but those trucks on optimized delivery routes are likely better for the environment than individials each driving their own cars to box stores...

[-] tasty4skin@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

If only we had some nationalized way to deliver parcels on an optimized route…

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] abessman@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Myself and 50,000 other people could start walking everywhere and it very likely wouldn’t come close to offsetting the emissions of Amazon’s fleet of trucks.

Not if you keep ordering shit from amazon it won't. It will prevent 50,000 people's worth of transportation emissions, though.

Don't sell yourself short. You're more responsible for the situation than you want to admit.

there’s a very small group of individuals called billionaires that contribute 1000x more than you or I ever could.

Wrong. The top 0.1% pollute 10x as much (per capita) as the top 10% (excluding the top 0.1%). Source

BP invented the idea of the individual carbon footprint.

If the strongest argument against an idea is "the wrong people came up with it", the idea is probably pretty good.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] kromem@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

You existing is why those companies use that energy.

I agree that it's BS to put the blame on the average person's behavior.

But the blame is on us collectively.

We use a lot of energy.

[-] tasty4skin@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Those companies are the reason that energy isn’t produced with cleaner alternatives like nuclear, wind, or solar

[-] golamas1999@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

Billionaires and corporations lobby governments and donate to superPACs(legal bribery) to have them promote their business interests and protect their capital.

Infinite growth is not sustainable on a finite planet. The billionaires aren’t going to save us. Buying stuff is not going to save us. Neoliberalism and Capitalism is not going to save us.

[-] norawibb@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 years ago

either way the average joe is gonna need to do something cuz the billionaires wont. lets just kill them

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Try shipping vessels. I think I read that 7 of them are responsible for an incredible high percentage of all emissions or something

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] sshff@lemmy.sdf.org 55 points 2 years ago

I’m sure this will spur society to prioritise the future viability of our species survival and the state of the environment over short term quarterly profits right? … right?

[-] explodIng_lIme@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago

This and other jokes you can tell yourself

[-] donut4ever@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

People won't care until it's in their backyard. A couple of ads from BP and they'll blame themselves a bit then start "recycling" their water bottles not knowing that recycling is bullshit.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] donut4ever@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

Nope, they'll just crank the AC even higher and get back to watching some "neckflis".

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sik0fewl@kbin.social 50 points 2 years ago

This month is the planet's hottest on record so far.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

This feels like people opining about mass shootings.

Yes it's a problem. No one cares enough to vote differently in order to change it, so there's nothing we can do but fend for ourselves.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Spzi@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

I feel I've seen this title-comment combination before.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheFrirish@jlai.lu 20 points 2 years ago

See you next year guys for a new record!

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] CynAq@kbin.social 20 points 2 years ago

I, too, agree with the scientists that we're all well and truly fucked.

[-] Diarrhea_Eruptions@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

How do they estimate temps so long ago? What data do they use?

[-] outhold@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They have various methods. One of the common ones is analyzing ice core samples. The ice sheets are accumulated over the years so each layer on ice sheets is from a certain historical period (much like tree trunks.) By analyzing the chemical status of the ice core on each layer, they can extract data, such as temperature, about a certain period.

[-] outhold@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

120k years ago was about the end of the Eemian interglacial period, which was a significantly warm period.

[-] aeternum@kbin.social 16 points 2 years ago

the best things as an individual you can do to fight climate change:

  1. walk everywhere or catch public transport. Don't drive.

  2. Go vegan

  3. Don't have kids

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Actually the best things you can do are

1: join a climate lobbying group (I joined this non-partisan group : https://citizensclimatelobby.org/)

2: contact your congressperson and tell them you support carbon tax and dividend

3: contact your congressperson and tell them you support raising taxes to subsidize green investment and end fossil fuel subsidies

4: vote. Locally and federally and often. Here's why local matters: https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/i-team/it-reminds-me-of-the-hunger-games-rural-residents-complain-about-solar-farm-where-cincinnati-buys-power

Any "you stuff" is way after the above in terms of efficacy.

[-] Captain_Buddha@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago

Your first suggestion is not possible for a significant percentage of people, from a US perspective. The infrastructure is not there for public transport. Walking to your job everyday is a foolish suggestion, for anyone not within a reasonable mileage of their home.

[-] Moonguide@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago
  1. Remember that no matter what you do, as long as you don't try to stop corporate polluting, you might as well just be doing it for morality, not for the planet's biodiversity.
[-] jaanus20@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago

I'm 18 and will never want kids for moral reasons, it's cruel to bring children into a world that is doomed. If I were to want kids I'd adopt.

[-] aeternum@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

Yup. Adoption is the only way I'd have a kid, but I can barely look after myself, so it wouldn't be fair to a kid to put that on them.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] shalva97@lemmy.sdfeu.org 12 points 2 years ago

I wonder what next year will be like

[-] 99nights@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

"The hottest on record"

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
687 points (100.0% liked)

World News

48318 readers
1722 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS