851
fossil fuels (mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] geogle@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

There's a second more obvious component that people neglect in any statement like OPs.

These companies exist because people buy their products. We can blame companies, but fossil fuel use is a collective problem.

[-] 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.

[-] Johanno@feddit.de -1 points 5 months ago

How much do you think it will change, if people really do the minimum consumption within their possibilities?

And how much will it change, including people's habits, if you make laws that force companies to consider their co2 output as a problem?

answer

  1. About maybe at max 20 - 30% probably much less.

  2. Probably about 60 - 90%.

[-] Kratzkopf@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 5 months ago

The key is to do both because they are principally coupled and nothing happens as long as consumers and corporations just point at each other and use it as an excuse to keep on going like before.

Of course you are right that the focus should lie at changing CO2 output at the producer side because the influence is much more focused there. N my opinion it is also dangerous arguing that the companies only supply what the consumers want because that statement is based on the consumption and is biased too much by what the companies offer and at which price. Consumers usually socioeconomically do not have the choice to buy a product at 1.5 times the price, even if they would prefer it for environmental reasons while these companies have immense profits and can and must afford to reduce and finally stop emissions.

[-] Johanno@feddit.de 1 points 5 months ago

I mean of course, but laws will change people's behaviour indirectly. If it is more expensive to consume co2 heavy products, people will buy the co2 less product.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
851 points (96.3% liked)

Science Memes

10348 readers
2462 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS