851

submitted 5 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

87 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago

Exactly. If you eat bananas that arrive in a port on a ship, that ship spewed out a lot of CO2. If everybody changed their habits and ate something locally grown instead, those emissions would not happen (but other emissions might happen instead). Every CO2 emission by a profit-driven company is going to be the result of a person buying one of their products.

We live in a society, and the amount of difference one person can make is pretty small. Often all of the options available to us are bad. But, this meme is worse.

The ridiculous aspect of this meme is that it shifts the blame onto companies, and allows people to pretend that their lifestyles and choices deserve none of the blame, and instead it's just some evil companies that are ruining the world. The unfortunate fact is that in this modern society, if you're living like a typical European or North American, even if you think of yourself as an environmentalist, your lifestyle probably results in a ton of CO2 emissions.

[-] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

I'm sorry, but this is just foolish and very naive.

Let me just buy some locally grown bananas, in the north... Or locally produced computer monitor...

It is totally up to the governments to regulate emissions, with regulations.

Now, WHAT governments are elected IS down to people, but unfortunately, caring about the environment is stil not a priority to prople (in part due to said governments being in the pockets of the biggest emission producers).

If I want a banana, I'll get a banana. I will have no idea or information whether it's shipped with the shittiest fuel burning ship, or an electric locomotive.

Now if the government regulated what fuel burning ships can enter the port, etc, etc, we'd have change. Fewer, more expensive bananas, of course (people will be unhappy about that), but at least the emissions would be reduced, with little to no change of the individuals' habits.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago

Let me just buy some locally grown bananas, in the north…

That's my point. You can't. If you want to not be responsible for those CO2 emissions you have to eat something else.

It is totally up to the governments to regulate emissions, with regulations.

Sure, but you also have personal agency. You can choose to eat beets instead of bananas. You can choose to pay to have an old monitor fixed by a local repair shop instead of buying a new one. Instead, people use the lack of government rules as an excuse to continue to live the way they want to live. They choose to blame corporations for polluting instead of their own choices as consumers.

If I want a banana, I’ll get a banana. I will have no idea or information whether it’s shipped with the shittiest fuel burning ship, or an electric locomotive.

Yes, because you don't want to know. You will never do that research. Admittedly, the research is hard to do. It's hard to do a complete calculation of all the CO2 costs of the entire chain of events that results in a banana on sale at a local supermarket vs. a locally grown beet.

People could choose to try to do that research, but they don't. It's hard, and it's depressing. Instead they'll feel good about recycling an aluminum can, and never think about the environmental impact of driving around the city in a car.

And will people vote for stricter emissions laws and/or carbon taxes? Some people will, many people will vote against it. Many of the supporters will also not make it a priority. And, if the party that promised carbon taxes and/or stricter emissions wins but then gets lobbied and doesn't enact those new laws, very few people are going to go out and protest.

The government's lack of action and the idea that corporations are really to blame for CO2 emissions is a convenient way for people to continue to live their massive energy footprint lives, while shifting the blame to someone else.

[-] Kratzkopf@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 months ago

To add to your last two paragraphs: even if the elected parties enact the more environmentally friendly policies, many voters will be unsatisfied with that because they imagined a solution would pop up where they themselves would not be required to make sacrifices. I imagine memes like this could be a reason for that as they imply that corporations emit greenhouse gases totally decoupled from the people's consumption. I fully demand that corporations take more actions to reduce emissions although it will lower their profits, but I also ask (mainly) the privileged people who live in the global north to accept necessary reductions in lifestyle and consumption as a necessary consequence.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

they imagined a solution would pop up where they themselves would not be required to make sacrifices

Exactly what's happening in Canada with the carbon tax. If you emit more CO2 than the average you pay a tax. If you emit less you get a rebate. But, now people who emit more than the average think that their case is special and they shouldn't have to make a sacrifice because they're not the real problem.

they imply that corporations emit greenhouse gases totally decoupled from the people’s consumption

Yes! Or, they think that corporations are maliciously burning fossil fuels for the hell of it. While corporations might not care about the environment, they do care about profits. They will burn oil to make profits, but if they can find a way to burn less oil and use that to make more profits, they'll do that too. Now, sure they'll also burn more oil if they can make a business case to do it. But, unless you're talking entertainment companies like Las Vegas casinos, corporations are generally not burning oil just for the hell of it.