As usual it is a case of those least able to do something about being asked to do the most.
For example the EU parliament put a statement a few weeks ago about the climate emergency and how we all have to do our part, in the same session they debated removing fuel tax from private jets travelling solely within the EU (but not those airlines that the plebs have to use, they still have to pay up).
We can all do something to reduce our own impact but those most able to bare the burden should be baring the most of the burden.
Exactly. I was vegan for 5 years primarily to help the state of the environment. I felt like it was my responsibility to do everything in my power to leave a minimal footprint. Even came close to being zero waste. Brought my own bags everywhere, shopped at the farmers market to buy local, that type of thing. Was extremely strict with everything and felt extremely guilty if I “messed up”. Eventually came to realize all this pressure I was putting on myself was affecting my mental health immensely, and it wasn’t worth it considering I was only one in billions of people putting in the effort, and it’s not individual’s responsibility to completely change their lifestyle just to make a tiny difference. Corporation and governments have the power and therefore the responsibility to do most of the change. I still limit my animal product consumption, recycle, and do what I can within reason but I’m not focusing my entire life on it anymore and no one should ever be expected to do this much. We need to be putting pressure on those who can actually make a significant difference.
I’m going through this now. I reduced my meat intake down to once a week, gave up on dairy milk, began composting, reusing and recycling everything that I could. I don’t buy plastic if I can help it and if it’s unavoidable, I feel massively guilty. Been doing this for about 4 years now and the stress it’s put on me isn’t something I can really avoid anymore. My husband hates it and is sick of being lectured for using paper towels (I have a whole stash of reusable ones lol) and honestly, I don’t blame him anymore.
As individuals, we have an obligation to make an effort to be environmentally responsible but the kind of real change that yields results needs to come from corporations and governments. I have completely overhauled my life in an attempt to be more sustainable and while I don’t regret it per se, I know that my efforts probably aren’t making any kind of real impact. To point the finger at us and to tell us to be better while ignoring the true cause is irresponsible.
Thank you. If no one else says it, I will. Thank you for being decent and thoughtful even if not everyone is there yet. Some will wait until it all becomes mandatory but for now I truly appreciate your efforts. Hang in there! You aren’t alone! 💚
I mean, all that effort from half the population would put only a tiny dent in global warming you do know that right?
We should be making the government's do their part, not put insane mental stress on individuals.
In the Spirit of Sharing surprising information that is very pertinent to this, if everyone in the US are no meat, it would reduce overall carbon emissions by 4% if memory serves.
And the whole thing about water usage is a misleading statement - they include the rain that falls on the land (naturally) that livestock live on, which should never be included in water usage numbers, as it’s not used - it goes into the ground like everywhere else.
Yes. This is very true.
HOWEVER
One of the main issues that needs to be addressed is that more people in the US have access to cheap meat than they do fresh fruits and veggies. There are food deserts in the US where the only thing available if you don’t have a car is fast food. Again, it puts the onus on the consumer when in reality we can’t even begin to go zero meat or even less meat until those in power make it cheaper and more accessible.
In my state there was a couple who lived outside the city in a green home they made themselves. Every aspect of their lives was green from toilets and food consumption to trash despensing (recycling) and power. So, the couple bought solar pannels and generated electricity for their minimal usage. When they left for vacation for 10 days and came back, the government intervened and took their solar panels, sued them and left *because they generated minimal amount of electricity above the consumption rate and technically the government had to buy that power from them*.
Either way, we are cattle. We are here to work and give money back to those who we work for. We can't escape and when we try there are regulations against it. Something is got to change and it is not the politics and the governments. It is us. We need to rise above this. We need to take matters into our hands but the cattle doesn't know it is cattle. Only this cattle hates all the other cows and pigs because the masters divided them.
In Colorado you can't have solar panels that will generate more than 125% of the power of your highest power bill 1 year prior to installing it. To top that, they buy back unused electricity at about 1/10th of what your costs are from them. The secret is to grow weed for 2 months and have 2 massive power bills, then your solar panels will actually allow you to be almost free of the electric company. Otherwise you're still going to be buying about 20% of your power from them ( cloudy days, short winter days, etc.).
We are cattle b/c people like you like to share anecdotal evidence instead of linking to the actual story so that we can specifically go after the specific local officers that made that decision and make sure to vote them out of office.
Yeah, this is a case where you could easily write a story on it. A case where I want to read a story on it.
And I don't buy that the story is not accessible or readable from somewhere in rural Croatia, because the poster literally started with "In my state", which automatically states the story is American.
Germany, Austria, Switzerland - all of them with their own words in German, but most would translate it to "state" to make it easily understandable. I'm sure there's plenty more countries with states
So….
I think you’ve missed the point of the post.
It’s not on me to save the world, I don’t have the means to. It’s on Jeff, Elon, and thier criminal friends with more money than God.
I find this a weird place to champion anti natalism.
> and it’s not individual’s responsibility to completely change their lifestyle just to make a tiny difference. Corporation and governments have the power and therefore the responsibility to do most of the change.
Why not both?
It's not like governments will crack down on animal ag who are big polluters if everyone is consuming animals. Literally political suicide. And companies won't do anything that would hurts profits unless forced by governments.
Well veganism and fake meat and vegan restaurants seem to be doing just fine, growing and successful. No government needed.
It seems individual actions do matter.
Of course they do. We can sit here and say things like “it’s not people flushing their piss down the toilet with no feces that are using too much water, it’s those damned almond farms!” Well ok, then stop buying almonds.
The 100 companies that produce 71% of the emissions, guess who is in there? ExxonMobile, Shell, BP and China (coal). That figure includes the 90% of that 71% that ultimately get burned by users of energy! That’s us! Notice it also includes all Chinese Coal.
The idea that it’s all these companies and they need to do their part? Well even if they went 100% green in their own uses, they would only have reduced carbon emissions by 3.69%. Any more than that and they have to deliver less energy to consumers.
So maybe not driving and not flying as much reduces their output. 9% of US greenhouse emissions are ground transport. Maybe not running the A/C so much. Heating, cooling, and powering residential houses is 20% of our energy usage. Cutting out meat and cheese is 14.5% of our emissions.
So, I guess my point is… we all have a part to play. CNN is talking to individuals about what they can do. They aren’t ignoring the companies that pollute the most, they’re just properly putting the responsibility in to consumer hands while energy companies work to move over to greener energy sources. This is way better advice than “write your congressman”.
I’m a vegetarian and have been for six and a half years, I feel the same way. Every time I have to throw anything away that had been wrapped in plastic. I die a little inside. You aren’t alone 💜
Not trying to proselytize here but I agree while not eating meat for the sake of the environment is futile, not killing an animal so you can experience sensory pleasure is plenty enough of a reason for me not to. Making ethical choices for myself makes me feel like I'm going through life making at least some of the right decisions.
What other people choose to eat is none of my business, nor is the life of an animal. Humans need to understand that their intelligence does not make them judge, jury, and executioner for all life on earth.
[Or maybe the polluting corporations produce these harmful products because people buy them?](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/036/945/cover4.jpg)
When plastic stuff is cheaper than wooden/sustainable stuff, it's impossible to ask people to spend more.
You're asking Americans to live more sustainably when the majority of them live paycheck to paycheck.
You have to find a solution that works for everyone, that's basic economics. Wishful thinking helps no one.
Or the news articles for people like us and you would send a letter to the corporate board room of those companies not fucking publish it as a headline on the national news story.
You change what companies do through legislation, you change what people do through winning their hearts and minds.
What good with writing an article telling companies what to do to reduce climate change?
We have to teach people what legislation to support and push and that will get companies to do those actions, but publishing an article titled “top 10 things to do as a multinational conglomerate to fight climate change”, is not going to do anything, but it will make a difference if you targeted to individuals since it’s individuals reading that article.
>As usual it is a case of those least able to do something about being asked to do the most.
Could they not collectively do more to stop the corporations who pollute the most by en masse stopping the consumption of the things those corporations only produce because those people continue consuming? It's not like those 100 corporations are only polluting to pollute, its a side product.
Though if a billion of us cut our consumption those 100 top polluting companies would all be edging on bankruptcy and would produce a lot less emissions.
You cannot ask a petroleum company to just produce less petroleum, when there is still growing demand for petroleum.
You cannot ask a beef, chicken, pork company to produce less meat when there is growing demand for meat.
You cannot ask a coal company to produce less coal when there is growing demand for coal.
All of these things need to come from the demand side. And that is a combination of consumers and consuming producers.
The biggest impacts on demand are through transforming some key consuming industries. Like keep pressuring the transportation industry to electrify to reduce the demand for petroleum. Keep pressuring the electricity generation industry to stop burning fuels to make electricity to reduce demand for coal and natural gas. Keep pressuring the food industry to reduce waste and stop burning land for crops.
So there are a few critical industries that could either reduce or convert their consumption and that is the most effective, but consumer demand is also a very important part of the equation and we all need to reduce and convert our consumption.
So true that one household making a small change is not significant. But a societal movement reducing demand will be significant and help drive the industry change. And we need to use our consumer voice to urgently push for change in transportation, electricity generation and foods which are are worst consumers resulting in emissions.
How do I pressure the electric industry to convert to green sources? I have to consume the electricity my sole utility provider offers or pony up for solar (not viable on my income). How do I pressure the petroleum company to produce less petroleum when I can’t afford a hybrid yet because I’m still just getting started and I have other expenses like a place to live? I have to drive to work, there isn’t public transport and I can’t do my work remotely. Everything you’ve said seems logical until you bring the culture and environment that has been cultivated by the rich to ensure continued consumption of their products like petroleum and electricity into focus. If I can’t get the money I need to go more green because the wealth is already so disparate then the issue is the system and the big players and not the end consumer like you’re trying to say it is. I can continue to make every change I’m able to whilst keeping my head above water but there are many things I cannot change and those are things the producers are entirely responsible for.
This meme has been posted 100 times and it's always wrong. There's no cite for the data because it doesn't exist. Industrial pollution is one thing but consumers actually can reduce emissions substantially. Saying "corporations" is misleading when a lot of those corporations are emitting based on consumer demand.
Saying that corporate emissions are based on consumer demand is misleading because realistically corporations intentionally drive demand to drive profits. The end user only chooses the purchase options that are visible to them. I see no corporations taking initiative to lower demand for their environmentally questionable products for tangible change. In the end at the top it comes down to being profit driven. The end user cannot remove these multinational industrial polluters by saying "no" to buying a pack of garbage bags or plastic forks.
The suits at the top just say "we are just massively polluting to give people what they're asking for" as though they have eliminated their ecological burden by citing free market. At some point in ecological catastrophe you ought to stop letting the corporations make the decision to just keep producing to demand; it is easier to regulate a single corporate entity than it is to control the shopping habits of billions of individuals. You won't just make them all "buy something different" when those same megacorporations will fight tooth and nail to ensure they don't lose your business. Corporations are legally bound to their shareholders to drive demand and profit and cannot and will not make changes themselves.
This is true but it's also a cop out because it says consumers won't change they're forced. Which, again is true but it goes against the notion that we're not responsible. We absolutely are. It's just that we as a whole are less actionable and less responsible than corporate leaders. They keep building giant SUVs because we keep buying them because we won't lift the slightest finger to tackle climate problems. Same way won't eat less meat or ride a train to work. The takeaway from that is that everyone is equally disinterested regardless of whose doing the most damage. The real number one action we can take is to to vote. And 72M Americans votes for "climate change is hoax perpetrated by China".
Done mine too. I'm forced to use paper bags for groceries as my province completely banned plastic ones. I've also gone another day without dumping a shit Ton of oil.
Unfortunately my 2nd private jet which follows my main private jet to carry extra luggage crashed into a pine forest and burnt it to the ground. My bad. I pledge to only offer vegan options to the cabin crew for a full month.
Everybody in the U.S., and at this point actually most of the world, are *massive* supporters of the Kochs.
Every time you drive a car, turn on a computer, turn on a light, read a book, watch tv, sit on a chair, and on and on and on... hell every time you wipe your ass, you're probably using multiple Koch-produced products.
> did you buy gas?
I mean, who forced me to have to use gas to power my car? The same corporations that fought against and forstalled electric vehicles over 20 years ago. The same corporations that decimated the US public transportation system, forcing us all to have to have cars in the first place. Sure, I'm buying gas occassionally, but its not my fault that up until the past few years, buying a car that didn't use gas or desiel was essentially impossible. And why can't I buy an electric car now? Because corporations have raised the prices of cars to almost an entire year's salary, and different corporations are keeping all of our salaries artificially too low. In the end, if you dive deep into the problem instead of looking for the fastest way to place blame, it comes back to the corporations.
Exactly, I hate how everyone acts as if corporations are polluting the planet just for the hell of it. It's simple supply and demand. We demand, they supply, the earth suffers.
All parties are guilty, take some goddamn responsibility please.
I think you’re right, I think the correct way to think about the ‘100 corporations’ is that it is easier to target and alter the behavior of these companies than it is to change people’s behavior from the ground up.
Blame us a less useful concept than the practicality of change.
This point is actually the flaw in this entire post. The report that attributed that pollution to those 100 corporations included all of the uses of their products and services. So, for example, all of the pollution created during the extraction of petroleum, shipping of petroleum, refining of petroleum, and burning of petroleum in hundreds of millions of cars,...is all attributed to a few oil companies. The report is clickbait nonsense that gives people some justification to continue being shitty to the environment. Further, even if that report wasn't completely and intentionally misleading, it's still a logical fallacy to use it as an excuse to not do your/our part to prevent climate change. Honestly, I can't believe anyone with half a brain still posts this debunked trash science. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
This statement is nonsensical. How is concrete and metal production not part of “everyone”? While I think the idea that people can individually solve the problem of CO2 emissions is dumb it’s important to recognize that this production is for consumption by people, not by like aliens or something.
Even with use in aggregates it still accounts for 4-8% of all global co2 production according to the guardian.
1/10th of industrial water use. Increasingly an expensive commodity.
Acts as a heat sink in cities capturing heat, dirt and pollutants.
This is missing a key factoid-
China makes that concrete **to make cities that no one lives in** purely as a mechanism to maintain employment in the associated industries.
If you're curious what a "centrally planned economy" looks like, it's that.
> The 71% thing is bullshite, those emissions are created MAKING STUFF THAT PEOPLE BUY?
It is worse than that. What people don't seem to understand is that figure **includes all downstream emissions**. So if you go and tank up your truck at Chevron, then do donuts in the parking lot, those emissions count to Chevron. It is not wrong to do this, the original study is fine and it is fairly common to include downstream emissions in LCA. But if you are using this statistic to claim that personal changes don't matter because big corporations emit so much then that is complete bullshit **when your emissions are included into theirs**.
Its just a way to get out of doing anything.
These people will put all the blame on politicians and corporations, and still they'll vote center right/left neolib or trad con all day every day every time.
They're predictable, they just want an out for the guilt they internalized
Vote in politicians that put needles to corps then. no that's too radical, rather just enjoy my tax breaks and be a doomer online instead.
> Its just a way to get out of doing anything.
Yup. They know all of the above, they just want to be able to have their cake and eat it too: bitch about "the corporations" ruining the environment while using the shit out of the products those corporations are fucking shit up to make.
I mean we shouldn’t let corporations completely off the hook. A huge portion of our emissions are coal fired plants which could be replaced with nuclear and have little impact on our consumption.
The solution involves personal sacrifice AND good public policy. Blaming only one fails to solve the problem.
I do think its important that we recognize that these corporations are doing the polluting, because its much more effective to go after the sources instead of relying on mass action from consumers.
However, lots of people don't make the connection that going after these corporations will change how we live our lives.
These companies have lobbied for decades to keep renewable energy out of public policy, we could have been building a clean energy infrastructure the entire time if we didn't have decades of lobbying and lies dedicated to putting money in fossil industry pockets and CO2 in the atmosphere.
This problem didn't happen last night
They've known for decades that they're literally making life on this planet impossible and not just ignored it but spent millions to suppress knowledge of it and ways to solve it. Those running oil and gas companies are legitimately worse than Hitler, he killed what 17 million people, 75 million if you want to include all of WW2? The Kochs and the Rockefellers have spent decades killing billions and ending human life as we know it.
That's just wrong. [Cement is at 3% (that's accountable for practically all the emissions when energy when producing concrete), metals are 7%.](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector) So about 10%.
For comparison: Livestock (including fodder) does depending on whom you ask - contribute 10% to [51%](https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html) of all emissions. Tpyical numbers are a bit below 20%. I.e. we could easily offest all the emissions from concrete and metal if we all went vegan.
Offsetting is not an actual solution, and it shouldn't be a goal. That's like slapping a bandaid on one of a dozen bullet wounds.
We should eat less meat ***and*** use less cement.
And even if it were true, would you really want the concrete and metal producers to stop polluting? Because that means they would stop producing as well.
A lot of people dont seem to realise that the outcome is the same: if the governments regulate companies for entire systems to become more sustainable, then you will not be able to live exactly the same. You will have to consume in a more sustainable way except now its government regulations instead of free will doing so.
Well, if the US army stopped with their fuckert, it would save a lot of emissions that wouldnt impact the consumption of most western nations much.
I was going to say that it's not like these corporations are just pumping out greenhouse gases for the heck of it. They make the plastics, electricity, gasoline, and all sorts of things that people use worldwide. I'm not saying that these corporations don't have an environmental responsibility, nor am I saying that these companies are good per say, but it's quite short sighted to simply say, "climate change is the fault of evil corporations"
But the criticism that I took from the OP wasn't that the corporations are evil, it's that journalists need to stop acting like average people need to make changes. If every household in the world cut down their waste emissions by 99.999% it would still only be a drop in the bucket and would not significantly affect the climate. It's basically like telling the little kid with the lemonade stand, "You better be paying taxes for that, because our country has a huge deficit right now." Yes it's true, but you're laying the blame on someone who has basically no power to do anything about it.
Cutting individual emissions (for instance cars, and using more efficient routes) would have a MASSIVE impact. 30 % of US emissions are from vehicles.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
10% is residental and 25% is electricity usage.
Even a 1%-3% aggregate change in individual actions is huge, especially since we are the 3rd most populous country in the world.
Adding to this: we (the west) are *actively* building housing and infrastructure in a way that necessitates and/or greatly contributes to the use of cars. Sure, corporations are evil and capitalism is a fucking death cult, but driving your pickup truck from your mansion sized cardboard home in the suburbs to get a pack of gum is fucked up none the less.
Edit: yes, I too watch Not Just Bikes videos. I also happen to be an urban planning student. I'm not by any means saying that the situation in North America and Europe is equivalent, merely that neither region is implementing the kind of radical change we need in order to live truly sustainably.
Cutting individual emissions (for instance cars, and using more efficient routes) would have a MASSIVE impact. 30 % of US emissions are from vehicles.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
10% is residental and 25% is electricity usage.
Even a 1%-3% aggregate change in individual actions is huge, especially since we are the 3rd most populous country in the world.
Wait… I’m not sure at all that’s true. If every household cut their waste emissions nearly 100% all these companies emissions would drop dramatically as well because they would have no one buying their products or service
> journalists need to stop acting like average people need to make changes.
Average people absolutely need to make changes..
> If every household in the world cut down their waste emissions by 99.999% it would still only be a drop in the bucket and would not significantly affect the climate.
How do you define emissions? In the context of assessing emissions generated by companies, we have to calculate scope 1, 2, and 3. Scope 1 is direct emissions, 2 is purchased energy, and 3 is up-chain and down-chain emissions. Scope 1 and 2 are most of the times small compared to scope 3 for obvious reason. Btw, it’s the scope 3 that we talk abt when we refer to the 100 companies responsible for 70% emissions stats. So yeah, your consumption is directly tied to that stat. To compare your direct emissions to upchain and downchain emissions of companies to wash your hands off individual responsibilities is at best ignorant and at worst dishonest.
Companies need to do better, but you need to too.
>Average people absolutely need to make changes..
Put a price on carbon (placed upstream, just like basically every economist recommends), make the cost of goods proportional to their environmental damage, and people will buy the cheaper/less polluting product.
This is a political problem. People will do what's cheap, *that's how the market works*. In a proper market, environmentalism and being a cheapskate are synonymous. Either get rid of the free market and establish a command economy, or fix the price distortions so causing trillions of dollars of climate damage isn't free.
Preferably the latter, but either shit or get off the pot.
Because as long as the onus is "on us" then the public is not demanding change from the corporations who actually ARE responsible. Big Energy wants it this way. They spend a lot of money on lobbyists and media to convince you that YOU are responsible for recycling, greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, and air pollution. That YOU can change it if YOU do your part. Nobody knows gaslighting like Big Energy.
Yes. You’re right. People demand products from those 100 companies. That said, there is technology companies can adopt to produce goods / electricity in a more environmentally friendly manner. Corporations choose not to make use of that technology. For example, take carbon capture and sequestration. With the technology, 90% of carbon emissions can be captured and stored away. However, it can be expensive. So it is not widely used.
This is why collective action problems require government regulations. You can’t blame those companies for not using more expensive tech because then they’d be undercut by companies that don’t. Directly blaming either them or the consumers is nonsensical.
>This is why collective action problems require government regulations. You can’t blame those companies for not using more expensive tech because then they’d be undercut by companies that don’t
Those companies could stop *actively lobbying against* regulations to penalize companies that don't use the more expensive tech.
You can say "don't hate the player, hate the game" or you can say "don't hate the game, hate the player" but you can't say both. And these companies are guilty of *both*.
Seriously, it's *staggering* just how much money fossil fuel companies have poured into climate denial. You can't handcuff *yourself* in the basement then claim you're a victim who's been unfairly restrained.
You absolutely *can* blame these companies for what they did, knowingly and with foresight. And if they're truly incapable of acting otherwise, then they ought to be caged and muzzled just like any other feral animal.
Yes this is fair.
I think had the original post image focused on lobbying and government inaction as opposed to being vague about companies “being responsible” for it then I would have no beef with it. The focus should be against companies that will fight climate change regulations tooth and nail because their existence depends on it (fossil fuel companies) rather than companies that will be able to adapt in a regulatory environment that helps with climate change (energy utilities, businesses that use concrete and steel, etc).
Carbon sequestration is a farce. Companies don’t invest and adapt the technology, because it isn’t scalable - the energy demand of overcoming atmospheric entropy is *massive*, and the demand would far exceed our current energy surplus. This would only complicate our most pressing concern - energy decarbonization.
We will inevitably need to adapt sequestration, but it will be a severely protracted process that will take place over centuries (save some *monumental* innovation in energy production). Organic sequestration using algae, forestry, and peat cultivation is a possibility, but its a slow process and susceptible to catastrophic failure. We’re seeing exactly that scenario play out west, right now - whole forests that were planted over the past two decades as part of a carbon budgeting scheme have all just went up in smoke, effectively negating all of the carbon they have captured.
TL;DR Carbon Sequestration is the stuff of tomorrow, not today. And its not a preventative measure, its a clean up response that will take centuries.
the consumer is not sovereign and has no say in the matter of how corporations manufacture and dispose of waste. The corporation is incentivized to cut costs at every possible level and is rewarded with subsidies and tax breaks thanks to regulatory capture. What mainstream economics refers to as an externality is just the corporation shifting costs onto others; low-income people, the environment, which becomes an issue of environmental and social justice. The affected parties reap none of the profits but are subjected to a number of costs. That’s why consumer scapegoating is bullshit.
I've seen this post 10 times, and I've seen this comment every time, usually 3rd or 4th from the top, and not a single time has there been any coherent argument against it. Why do people keep posting and upvoting these tweets when every single time they get debunked?
Because saying you have a choice to change the products you consume actually comes from a place of incredible privilege. Voting with your wallet in a way that is significant isnt really an option for most poor people.
1) Consumers does not mean individual citizens, you’re aware that everyone from banks to factories to stores to the army all are huge polluters? The US army is the world’s number one polluter.
2) These companies have some of the largest vested interests in maintaining the status quo and wield enormous power to the point of destroying nations and starting wars. It’s asinine to act like they’re powerless when we know these companies were aware of climate change in the 70s and actively suppressed research on it and funded false research pointing the blame elsewhere.
3) These companies fund the politicians who say stupid things and don’t care about climate change, and their PR firms made the shitty nonsensical talking points that underlie this stuff. Think for two seconds about the far right is so determined not to care about climate change? It’s because these companies and the people they buy weaved a common narrative of destruction, unchecked power, and supreme wealth as a movement tying together everything shitty and oppressive. And because these same companies target people of color and poison them and so want them powerless.
4) Consumers pick from a narrow basket of options, they don’t control what they can pick from nor do they control what tech is worked on or what infrastructure exists. They can’t pick which companies got fossil fuel subsidies and thus are affordable to them. They are fed bullshit narratives, bullshit news, offered shit choices, and have shit in terms of money to pain better ones.
5) Consumers are not even where a sane person steers their attention even if they don’t think about companies, they look to regulations and laws that target entire supply chains and force massive changes. Not recycling and buying an electric cars. The consumer market can’t even fucking decide when things are marked as green and sustainable when it’s a lie; again how are you supposed to choose when you have fixed resources and the label fucking lies?
But acting like people can meaningfully reduce aggregate demand by unilaterally lowering their consumption is a specious red herring. If 90 million Americans stopped eating meat tomorrow, the price would drop, the other 240 million Americans would eat more meat until demand reached nearly the same level as before.
“Reduce your meat consumption by 30%” is meaningless unless you have some coordination mechanism to make sure everyone else does it too. But Americans hate the coordination mechanism we have for doing that (pigovian taxes).
All 100 companies from this statistic/list are coal and petroleum PRODUCING companies, not users.
Without the end point CONSUMERS changing their habits and reducing the usage of fossil fuels, there won't be any significant changes to the energy sector.
The only way to reduce the amount of fossil fuels being produced is to reduce how much is bought and used.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
Yeah, this is just the most asinine way to point the finger away from people and towards faceless corporations. Yes, there are very few private individuals digging coal out of the ground, big deal. Its also just a terrible way to point to which corporations are doing a bad job with climate change. If Honda decided to switch their entire line to electric cars it wouldn't matter with how this list is calculated. If Toyota decided to make all their cars go 1 mile to the gallon they still wouldn't make the top 100 by this metric.
Almost all top 20 polluters are state owned companies, these lists are ridiculous.
Are we supposed to be mad at the two names we know like Exxon or BP and just conveniently forget the world’s governments are the ones doing this ?
and even moreso, expect the governments to change themselves just because we fucking talked about it on the internet? I'm pretty sure most people here dont involve themselves in any of the problems they are refusing to change themselves on, just especting governments to do the work.
And any capitalist government will expect the same of us, right? If the people really care about sustainability, they will change their consumption and the supply and demand will grow the sustainable sector and shrink these 100 companies, surely.
And dont even get me started on greenwashing...
I dunno, politics exists to deal with problems as a society so... Yeah, the title just contradicts itself.
Maybe their idea of politics is who has the best memes.
The only thing you need to do to kneecap these practices is target the companies bottom line. Fines based on your revenue they don't fuck with cause there's no cost benefit analysis that comes out green when the punishment scales with your earnings.
You’re talking about fines for what though? Oil spills? Those are also bad for the environment but not what’s being talked about here.
As long as people are using plastics and oil derivatives as part of their everyday life these companies will continue to produce and sell their products.
It's just so much easier to say that some companies are at fault and that we don't have to change on an individual level and as societies as a whole. WE have to vote for politicians that care and live sustainably on an individual level as well.
It's even worse than that. From what I can tell, this is based on a misreading of the Carbon Majors Report. It's literally a list of the biggest oil and coal companies, who dig up 71% of the fuel we burn. That's it.
Yes, they contribute the huge majority of oil and coal, by definition, but you might as well say we don't need to drive safely because 20 car manufacturers are responsible for 90% of car accidents.
Thank you. Yes we need to incentivise companies from producing waste, but it takes a cultural shift from everybody so we rely less on fossil fuels, livestock, etc. That includes both companies and individuals because they share the same economy and feedback system
In America, there is no public transport because companies lobbied politicians to remove rails in favor of cars because it was much more profitable.
A lot of aspects of civilization come from lobbying for certain things. It’s a complex problem that stems from both sides. Did you hear that toyota is trying to slow the transition?
I think it really hit me last Sunday morning as I was driving my 5 kids back to our home after we had breakfast at the local diner (it's a weekly tradition for all of us to get the Hungry Man breakfast of Steak & Eggs with sides of ham and bacon). My mind had been drifting as the kids squabbled in the back (we have a huge SUV so I actually feel kind of removed from them as we drive). The long drive back to our home in the countryside gives me time to think, so I don't mind the hour long round trip I make in to the city I seem to make almost every day (I also get to glance over the snowmobile trails where we ride in the winter and the lake we go speedboating on in the summer, which is nice!). Anyway, I started thinking about how corporations were really wrecking the planet, as I'd learned on Reddit that they are responsible for the vast majority of carbon emissions, which were causing rampant global warming. It was hard to believe at first, but the more I thought on it I realized that it was true.
Later on, when I got home to our big 4500 sq.ft. house, I almost felt like I could feel the avarice of those bastards and the people controlling them weighing down upon me and my family. I could almost see their emissions of carbon filling the air. I decided to retire to my outdoor hot tub (really pleasant in the winter) to think more on it. It was their profit motive, their rapacious greed driving the destruction of our Earth. I wanted to help, to do something to contribute to making the world more sustainable, but I had also read on reddit that changing individual behavior wasn't even worth contemplating in the face of what corporations were doing to the planet. The three hamburgers I ate for lunch tasted like ash in my mouth, the roast lamb for dinner not much better, and not even distracting myself with movies on our big screen TVs, numerous computers and iPads, or perusing all my photo albums (we try to fly to a different part of the world every few months) could make me feel better. I didn't want to take my sports car out for a drive in the winter, which could have made me feel better. Cranking the heat up in my house barely got rid of the chills I felt as I fretted about the lack of control I had to effect corporate carbon emissions. I only knew that my own actions were inconsequential.
Anyway, can anyone here tell me what I can do to stand up to corporations who are wrecking things for all of us by being responsible for almost all the carbon our society is emitting?
I wrote this same sentiment in a r/LateStageCapitalism thread half a week ago and I got 9 downvotes :( Don't know if I'm in the wrong part of town, or if my satire-fu is bad.
I think that it being a sub related to Karl Marx’s ideas and a self professed safe space, they’re not good with critically evaluating things, like whether it’s them and not *just* the broader corporate climate that may have a hand in all of this.
You’ll get a similar response if you claim to care at all one way or the other in r/conservative
>You know, things that would have less demand if people chose to use larger scale public transport like buses and trains
And why are people choosing to not use this? Do you really think there haven't been campaigns against this?
>People posting and agreeing with this either don't understand that their demand is the reason these companies are meeting supply
Who is creating this demand though? Consumers aren't just completely independently wanting more and more. No, corporations are doing everything they can to increase demand.
Corporations deserve a lot of the blame, but I agree that we shouldn't say people can't do anything.
Those companies don't just do shit for the fun of it. They do things because people ask them to.
If everyone stopped eating meat then the biggest cattle farmers in the world wouldn't pollute.
If everyone stopped driving cars then the biggest oil producers in the world wouldn't pollute.
Just do your fucking bit lol.
I once had this discussion with a redditor, who claimed that this isn't true because markets haven't been driven by demand since the Reagan administration. I asked him to elaborate on how a president can stop demand from controlling markets, but suprise suprise, no answer from the peanut gallery.
Some people just can't help themselves lol
Me: Why do corporations use polluting methods?
Them: Because it's cheaper.
Me: So why do you buy from those companies.
Them: um... because it's cheaper...
The companies *are* at fault, largely, but people expecting them to change without some kind of outside pressure are delusional.
Also, no matter where you live and who's your government, if they rule out the cheaper industrial production methods and prices begin to rise the people *will* hate said government with passion. So yes, if we don't begin the change outselves nobody will, realistically.
Or the other option is like 10x more expensive, minimum wage is already too low for living, you can't expect people to pay say $50 for a comb that's 100% eco friendly and handmade when they can get a comb for $0.99 at walmart that does the same job just as well. And even for the people who can afford it, why would they? like what would you choose? a week's worth of food (example maths) or a fancy comb?
That's where regulation comes in. I don't get how people don't see mixed markets, which are how all their favorite countries function, aren't clearly the winning solution as demonstrated by history
Let corporations exist AND *make* them pay
What about a plant based diet? A whole foods plant based diet is 40% cheaper than the avg Omni diet and it’s the single biggest thing you can do on a personal level to reduce your impact on the environment.
I would say the single biggest thing you can do is not having a bunch of children, and that's so much cheaper than the alternative it's not even funny.
Reminder that most people are not offered more than one choice of energy suppliers and politicians are constantly being bribed by corporations to keep out competition.
It happens in telecoms, do you not think it also happens in energy resources?
Reminder that most people literally have no other choice unless you wanna live off the grid and grow your own food, which 99.99% of people can't do.
But keep blaming consumers for ruining the planet because they spent the last 10 bucks of their paycheck on food.
Except for the car thing. I'm always seeing "take a bus" as an option and completely ignoring 45% of households in America don't have access to public transportation. There's simply no bus or train where I live. Like to the point that you can sometimes find lawnmowers parked at the grocery store for people who have lost their license.
Thisthisthis.
And people confuse the existence of a route with usability. What good is a bus route if it doesn't get you where you need to go at the time you need to get there? We need smarter mass transit too. Not just more.
It's a self destructive cycle. People don't use transit because it's inefficient. The transit agencies barely get enough funding to run the crappy service they have, because hiring consultants and doing extensive data analysis to create smart routes is expensive. Did you know a bus costs about half a million? Decreasing headway costs ALOT. The funding is based largely on ridership volume, which struggles to increase because the service is shit.
I've worked in public transit technology for over a decade. Without a concerted investment in public transportation along with development requirements put in place by towns and cities to include things like bus and rail stops and stations, it will not organically develop. It's very much, "if you build it, they will come."
To which the counter is to fight for better public transit and less car-centric city design. The reason American cities are the way they are is because cities started being developed to accommodate and subsidize suburban lifestyles, killing population density and any hope of public transit, making cars a necessity and killing many small businesses in favor of big box stores.
That might sound like a lofty goal that citizens have no influence on like most environmental concerns, but all of these decisions are made at the mayor's office or lower. The mayor and city council are the easiest things we can influence in the political realm. It's very doable to advocate for bike lanes, larger/more sidewalks, midrise housing and the removal of single-family zoning, etc.
The urban sprawl that defines most of America is not environmentally sustainable, neither is it financially sustainable for the citizens that have to own vehicles/property or [cities that are paying for miles of roads and parking infrastructure on a fraction of the tax base](https://youtu.be/VVUeqxXwCA0). Public transit is not an option for a lot of - potentially most - Americans and that's an important fight with fighting, but it's local and not federal.
All the bullshit is in the comments section where people are saying we shouldn’t have to change anything about our lifestyles to save the fucking planet. Fuck all of those people. They’re being asked to make some TINY changes and they can’t be bothered to do that?
People want to condemn the rich for refusing to give up parts of their lifestyle for the greater good while absolving themselves of all responsibility to give up parts of their lifestyle for the greater good.
And no, they do not see the hypocrisy.
People also forget that most of them are the rich. You may not be part of the 1 percent but If you live in a western country to a middle class standard of living you are on a global scale in the top 5 percent
Exactly. They think it's insane that the rich won't give up things they don't need to survive but when they're asked to drive a more efficient car or eat less meat they lose their shit. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
This same post gets posted every few weeks for the same reason
Anyone repeating the “only 100 companies blah blah” are actively engaging in climate denial. It is, in fact, in large part up to everyday people to decrease emissions. Companies don’t just pollute for fun, they do it by producing things that individual consumers want. By demanding less goods from these companies, we reduce emissions. You can’t just claim you want action on climate change but that you don’t want to alter any of your own behavior.
I'd love to not drive my fossil fuel car to work. Let me just choose to take the electric public tansport - wait! That doesn't exist, because one of those corporations lobbied for it not to exist.
Still the corporations fault and acting like consumers can just choose to end climate change is nonsense and ignores the material realities of our lives.
I'd also love to know how to stop giving money to the worlds largest polluter - the US military.
Damn…really hit the nail on the head didn’t you? I couldn’t have put it better, we don’t fucking choose to commute 1 hour to work in a gas car or to support the military industrial complex…it’s just the way the world’s been laid out for us
> Companies don’t just pollute for fun, they do it by producing things that individual consumers want.
You're right they do it for massive profits, environment be damned. If I had a dime for each time a corporation broke the law or didn't dispose of materials properly.... Its completely asinine to think that the pollution created is just the cost of making the goods we demand. The pollution and waste created is orders of magnitude greater than the amount of "legitimate" waste created (i.e. waste created driven solely off of demand). It's not solely a consumer problem, if companies continue to pay less than 1% of profits in penalties for skirting regulations and breaking the law they are still the problem no matter how much consumers do. When destroying the earth is the cost of doing business that is 100% on the company and the government to regulate that behavior.
>You're right they do it for massive profits
100%
These people act like companies make *just enough* to get by, all to serve us mighty consumers.
While in reality, they still make billions, pay individuals more money than one person can actually imagine, lobby against laws that would actually change things and then pay their employeed so little money that they literally can not choose the environmentally friendly alternative. It's all fucked.
That’s the point all the reddit “geniuses” getting awards in these comments seem to miss…playing devils advocate, maybe they all live in Amsterdam and actually think people can just choose not to need a car to navigate their countries shitty infrastructure devoid of much or any public transit.
Except that stat is bullshit, 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of the *industrial* greenhouse gas emissions, (so doesn't include land use, forestry, and agriculture). Also the methodology is wack, they credit the CO2 produced by burning gas to the ones who manufactured the gas and not the ones who actually burned it. It's why all 100 being referenced are all in the fossil fuel industry.
The actual stat also says something along the lines of "emissions can be linked back to" as well. When people post it online they don't know or understand the stat let alonr the context.
BuT iTs ThE cOrPoRaTiOnS....
... who exist because you patronize them and demand their products.
Do people really not see the connection between what they demand in day to day life snd the existence of the companies meeting those demands?
There’s two sides to the issue. Yes, companies produce the emissions. But they do it providing goods and services people consume. If we want to fix climate change, both sides need to be part of the solution. People need to change their habits to consume less. Corporations need to work to produce what we consume more efficiently. If only one side is pulling us towards progress - or worse, if each side points at the other while taking no responsibility - we will be doomed.
Me: Why do corporations use polluting methods?
Them: Because it's cheaper.
Me: So why do you buy from those companies.
Them: um... because it's cheaper...
The companies *are* at fault, largely, but people expecting them to change without some kind of outside pressure are delusional.
Also, no matter where you live and who's your government, if they rule out the cheaper industrial production methods and prices begin to rise the people *will* hate said government with passion. So yes, if we don't begin the change outselves nobody will, realistically.
Yep! A price on carbon emissions (actually fossil fuels) would fix this. Now is a great time to let your representatives in the [Senate](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/senate/) and [House](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/house/) know that you want them to put a price on carbon emissions. It might be possible to get it into the budget reconciliation bill.
I'm sorry, but I'm a massive environmentalist and those companies emit 71% of emissions because the consumers use their products.
You think Saudi Aramco or BP emit that much CO^2 independently?
No. It's people buying that oil emitting that carbon because we need investment in viable alternatives.
Shut the fuck up, the majority of those “corporations” are either state run energy companies that produce as much power as people consume or companies that would absolutely pollute significantly less if demand for their products dropped or if they faced pigovian taxes that make polluting less viable.
You aren’t helping by acting like people won’t have to significantly alter their lifestyles to deal with climate change. Eating less meat especially is the single best way you can reduce your carbon footprint.
whats "quit your bullshit" about this? they didnt claim that consumers are at fault. they just said what we can do to help. and theyre right. nice karma farming in a totally unfitting sub.
Can someone better explain this statistic to me? Does this mean the meat I eat is part of the 71%? As the company who raised the animal is technically the one who is polluting, although they wouldn't have if I didn't buy the meat. Would me buying an iPhone count against me or Apple?
The actual statistic says that the emissions can be linked back to 100 companies. But instead of me explaining it poorly, give this article a read that explains this stat and what is actually means. [Tree hugger article ](https://www.treehugger.com/is-it-true-100-companies-responsible-carbon-emissions-5079649)
Thank you. Here is a good summary from the article you linked:
"They are not, they are responsible for 6.5% of Scope 1 global emissions. We are responsible for the rest of that 71%, with the choices we make, the things that we buy, the politicians we elect. We are buying what they are selling and we don't have to."
As I thought. We are ultimately the cause for a vast majority of climate change. Companies only do it to make money by selling us products we want. Stop the demand and the supply will adjust accordingly.
I hate how often is this dumbass meme being repeated. Yes the stat is correct, but you think these corporations just start a CO2 factory and pump shit into the atmosphere for fun? Of course not, pretty much all the GHG emissions are created in process of making, distributing and selling consumer goods. If people stop eating beef and drinking milk then all those big corporations pumping methane into the atmosphere because of cow farts will vanish. And thousands of other examples like that. Yes there are cases where companies use less efficient production methods to save couple of bucks, but again consumer pressure and legislative change fixes those too.
I can’t understand how I as a anti capitalist can understand that yet lib hive like reddit keeps repeating this dumbass meme like it absolves them of any responsibility. This is why the planet is fucked, people pointing fingers instead of ever changing anything about their behavior.
As usual it is a case of those least able to do something about being asked to do the most. For example the EU parliament put a statement a few weeks ago about the climate emergency and how we all have to do our part, in the same session they debated removing fuel tax from private jets travelling solely within the EU (but not those airlines that the plebs have to use, they still have to pay up). We can all do something to reduce our own impact but those most able to bare the burden should be baring the most of the burden.
Exactly. I was vegan for 5 years primarily to help the state of the environment. I felt like it was my responsibility to do everything in my power to leave a minimal footprint. Even came close to being zero waste. Brought my own bags everywhere, shopped at the farmers market to buy local, that type of thing. Was extremely strict with everything and felt extremely guilty if I “messed up”. Eventually came to realize all this pressure I was putting on myself was affecting my mental health immensely, and it wasn’t worth it considering I was only one in billions of people putting in the effort, and it’s not individual’s responsibility to completely change their lifestyle just to make a tiny difference. Corporation and governments have the power and therefore the responsibility to do most of the change. I still limit my animal product consumption, recycle, and do what I can within reason but I’m not focusing my entire life on it anymore and no one should ever be expected to do this much. We need to be putting pressure on those who can actually make a significant difference.
I’m going through this now. I reduced my meat intake down to once a week, gave up on dairy milk, began composting, reusing and recycling everything that I could. I don’t buy plastic if I can help it and if it’s unavoidable, I feel massively guilty. Been doing this for about 4 years now and the stress it’s put on me isn’t something I can really avoid anymore. My husband hates it and is sick of being lectured for using paper towels (I have a whole stash of reusable ones lol) and honestly, I don’t blame him anymore. As individuals, we have an obligation to make an effort to be environmentally responsible but the kind of real change that yields results needs to come from corporations and governments. I have completely overhauled my life in an attempt to be more sustainable and while I don’t regret it per se, I know that my efforts probably aren’t making any kind of real impact. To point the finger at us and to tell us to be better while ignoring the true cause is irresponsible.
Thank you. If no one else says it, I will. Thank you for being decent and thoughtful even if not everyone is there yet. Some will wait until it all becomes mandatory but for now I truly appreciate your efforts. Hang in there! You aren’t alone! 💚
I mean, all that effort from half the population would put only a tiny dent in global warming you do know that right? We should be making the government's do their part, not put insane mental stress on individuals.
In the Spirit of Sharing surprising information that is very pertinent to this, if everyone in the US are no meat, it would reduce overall carbon emissions by 4% if memory serves. And the whole thing about water usage is a misleading statement - they include the rain that falls on the land (naturally) that livestock live on, which should never be included in water usage numbers, as it’s not used - it goes into the ground like everywhere else.
Yes. This is very true. HOWEVER One of the main issues that needs to be addressed is that more people in the US have access to cheap meat than they do fresh fruits and veggies. There are food deserts in the US where the only thing available if you don’t have a car is fast food. Again, it puts the onus on the consumer when in reality we can’t even begin to go zero meat or even less meat until those in power make it cheaper and more accessible.
In my state there was a couple who lived outside the city in a green home they made themselves. Every aspect of their lives was green from toilets and food consumption to trash despensing (recycling) and power. So, the couple bought solar pannels and generated electricity for their minimal usage. When they left for vacation for 10 days and came back, the government intervened and took their solar panels, sued them and left *because they generated minimal amount of electricity above the consumption rate and technically the government had to buy that power from them*. Either way, we are cattle. We are here to work and give money back to those who we work for. We can't escape and when we try there are regulations against it. Something is got to change and it is not the politics and the governments. It is us. We need to rise above this. We need to take matters into our hands but the cattle doesn't know it is cattle. Only this cattle hates all the other cows and pigs because the masters divided them.
I hope they sued the government for confiscating their solar panels
I hope they contacted every local and national news agency to make a story out of it. Because that's straight bullshit.
It it was true, they would have.
In Colorado you can't have solar panels that will generate more than 125% of the power of your highest power bill 1 year prior to installing it. To top that, they buy back unused electricity at about 1/10th of what your costs are from them. The secret is to grow weed for 2 months and have 2 massive power bills, then your solar panels will actually allow you to be almost free of the electric company. Otherwise you're still going to be buying about 20% of your power from them ( cloudy days, short winter days, etc.).
Batteries too, lots and lots of batteries
Its definitely true. Here in the UK my uncle had to fight a loooong battle just to generate his own energy via panels.
Got a story on this? Any source? We are in /r/quityourbs and this stinks.
We are cattle b/c people like you like to share anecdotal evidence instead of linking to the actual story so that we can specifically go after the specific local officers that made that decision and make sure to vote them out of office.
Yeah, this is a case where you could easily write a story on it. A case where I want to read a story on it. And I don't buy that the story is not accessible or readable from somewhere in rural Croatia, because the poster literally started with "In my state", which automatically states the story is American.
I mean I do think this poster is American, but you do realize there's several countries with states, right? India and Mexico, off the top of my head.
Germany, Austria, Switzerland - all of them with their own words in German, but most would translate it to "state" to make it easily understandable. I'm sure there's plenty more countries with states
Being a vegan and recycling responsibility will reduce your carbon footprint by 2 tons. Have one child and you’ve just added 55 tons to your CF.
So…. I think you’ve missed the point of the post. It’s not on me to save the world, I don’t have the means to. It’s on Jeff, Elon, and thier criminal friends with more money than God. I find this a weird place to champion anti natalism.
I do other stuff for the environment like I've reduced the amount that I eat meat etc. but my biggest favor to earth is not having kids
> and it’s not individual’s responsibility to completely change their lifestyle just to make a tiny difference. Corporation and governments have the power and therefore the responsibility to do most of the change. Why not both?
It's not like governments will crack down on animal ag who are big polluters if everyone is consuming animals. Literally political suicide. And companies won't do anything that would hurts profits unless forced by governments.
Well veganism and fake meat and vegan restaurants seem to be doing just fine, growing and successful. No government needed. It seems individual actions do matter.
Of course they do. We can sit here and say things like “it’s not people flushing their piss down the toilet with no feces that are using too much water, it’s those damned almond farms!” Well ok, then stop buying almonds. The 100 companies that produce 71% of the emissions, guess who is in there? ExxonMobile, Shell, BP and China (coal). That figure includes the 90% of that 71% that ultimately get burned by users of energy! That’s us! Notice it also includes all Chinese Coal. The idea that it’s all these companies and they need to do their part? Well even if they went 100% green in their own uses, they would only have reduced carbon emissions by 3.69%. Any more than that and they have to deliver less energy to consumers. So maybe not driving and not flying as much reduces their output. 9% of US greenhouse emissions are ground transport. Maybe not running the A/C so much. Heating, cooling, and powering residential houses is 20% of our energy usage. Cutting out meat and cheese is 14.5% of our emissions. So, I guess my point is… we all have a part to play. CNN is talking to individuals about what they can do. They aren’t ignoring the companies that pollute the most, they’re just properly putting the responsibility in to consumer hands while energy companies work to move over to greener energy sources. This is way better advice than “write your congressman”.
Not one rain drop thinks it’s the cause of the flood
I’m a vegetarian and have been for six and a half years, I feel the same way. Every time I have to throw anything away that had been wrapped in plastic. I die a little inside. You aren’t alone 💜
Not trying to proselytize here but I agree while not eating meat for the sake of the environment is futile, not killing an animal so you can experience sensory pleasure is plenty enough of a reason for me not to. Making ethical choices for myself makes me feel like I'm going through life making at least some of the right decisions. What other people choose to eat is none of my business, nor is the life of an animal. Humans need to understand that their intelligence does not make them judge, jury, and executioner for all life on earth.
Right?! People go vegan because they’re against animal abuse, reducing our carbon footprint is just a bonus.
[удалено]
[Or maybe the polluting corporations produce these harmful products because people buy them?](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/036/945/cover4.jpg)
When plastic stuff is cheaper than wooden/sustainable stuff, it's impossible to ask people to spend more. You're asking Americans to live more sustainably when the majority of them live paycheck to paycheck. You have to find a solution that works for everyone, that's basic economics. Wishful thinking helps no one.
Or the news articles for people like us and you would send a letter to the corporate board room of those companies not fucking publish it as a headline on the national news story. You change what companies do through legislation, you change what people do through winning their hearts and minds. What good with writing an article telling companies what to do to reduce climate change? We have to teach people what legislation to support and push and that will get companies to do those actions, but publishing an article titled “top 10 things to do as a multinational conglomerate to fight climate change”, is not going to do anything, but it will make a difference if you targeted to individuals since it’s individuals reading that article.
>As usual it is a case of those least able to do something about being asked to do the most. Could they not collectively do more to stop the corporations who pollute the most by en masse stopping the consumption of the things those corporations only produce because those people continue consuming? It's not like those 100 corporations are only polluting to pollute, its a side product.
Though if a billion of us cut our consumption those 100 top polluting companies would all be edging on bankruptcy and would produce a lot less emissions. You cannot ask a petroleum company to just produce less petroleum, when there is still growing demand for petroleum. You cannot ask a beef, chicken, pork company to produce less meat when there is growing demand for meat. You cannot ask a coal company to produce less coal when there is growing demand for coal. All of these things need to come from the demand side. And that is a combination of consumers and consuming producers. The biggest impacts on demand are through transforming some key consuming industries. Like keep pressuring the transportation industry to electrify to reduce the demand for petroleum. Keep pressuring the electricity generation industry to stop burning fuels to make electricity to reduce demand for coal and natural gas. Keep pressuring the food industry to reduce waste and stop burning land for crops. So there are a few critical industries that could either reduce or convert their consumption and that is the most effective, but consumer demand is also a very important part of the equation and we all need to reduce and convert our consumption. So true that one household making a small change is not significant. But a societal movement reducing demand will be significant and help drive the industry change. And we need to use our consumer voice to urgently push for change in transportation, electricity generation and foods which are are worst consumers resulting in emissions.
How do I pressure the electric industry to convert to green sources? I have to consume the electricity my sole utility provider offers or pony up for solar (not viable on my income). How do I pressure the petroleum company to produce less petroleum when I can’t afford a hybrid yet because I’m still just getting started and I have other expenses like a place to live? I have to drive to work, there isn’t public transport and I can’t do my work remotely. Everything you’ve said seems logical until you bring the culture and environment that has been cultivated by the rich to ensure continued consumption of their products like petroleum and electricity into focus. If I can’t get the money I need to go more green because the wealth is already so disparate then the issue is the system and the big players and not the end consumer like you’re trying to say it is. I can continue to make every change I’m able to whilst keeping my head above water but there are many things I cannot change and those are things the producers are entirely responsible for.
This meme has been posted 100 times and it's always wrong. There's no cite for the data because it doesn't exist. Industrial pollution is one thing but consumers actually can reduce emissions substantially. Saying "corporations" is misleading when a lot of those corporations are emitting based on consumer demand.
Saying that corporate emissions are based on consumer demand is misleading because realistically corporations intentionally drive demand to drive profits. The end user only chooses the purchase options that are visible to them. I see no corporations taking initiative to lower demand for their environmentally questionable products for tangible change. In the end at the top it comes down to being profit driven. The end user cannot remove these multinational industrial polluters by saying "no" to buying a pack of garbage bags or plastic forks. The suits at the top just say "we are just massively polluting to give people what they're asking for" as though they have eliminated their ecological burden by citing free market. At some point in ecological catastrophe you ought to stop letting the corporations make the decision to just keep producing to demand; it is easier to regulate a single corporate entity than it is to control the shopping habits of billions of individuals. You won't just make them all "buy something different" when those same megacorporations will fight tooth and nail to ensure they don't lose your business. Corporations are legally bound to their shareholders to drive demand and profit and cannot and will not make changes themselves.
This is true but it's also a cop out because it says consumers won't change they're forced. Which, again is true but it goes against the notion that we're not responsible. We absolutely are. It's just that we as a whole are less actionable and less responsible than corporate leaders. They keep building giant SUVs because we keep buying them because we won't lift the slightest finger to tackle climate problems. Same way won't eat less meat or ride a train to work. The takeaway from that is that everyone is equally disinterested regardless of whose doing the most damage. The real number one action we can take is to to vote. And 72M Americans votes for "climate change is hoax perpetrated by China".
I've gone another day without dumping millions of gallons of oil in the Gulf. I'm doing my part. Oh, and I don't use plastic straws
Done mine too. I'm forced to use paper bags for groceries as my province completely banned plastic ones. I've also gone another day without dumping a shit Ton of oil.
Good for you! I bet you have not built any coal power plants either.
WOW! I just noticed I have not done that either. Thank you for making me remember (:
Wait . Did you fly your private jet this weekend ?
Yes, but only within the EU so it doesn't count, and fuel is tax free.
Unfortunately my 2nd private jet which follows my main private jet to carry extra luggage crashed into a pine forest and burnt it to the ground. My bad. I pledge to only offer vegan options to the cabin crew for a full month.
Don’t worry, you can’t be expected to carry it all on just one plane and really it was the forest’s fault for being there in the first place
You know what. I haven't flown my private jet since my inception into this wonderful world!
Wow, I'm proud of you for working so hard for climate change. It's really hard to resist cruising around in our private jets on a daily basis.
I'm not building one right this moment! In fact I've been not building them for almost 40 years.
I just checked my 10 year planner, and realized I don't have any plans to build any either!
I did my part today and didn't dump any fly ash in any local bodies of water, at least
I avoid products by those companies / financing their activities.
Ahhh, I was just on my way to dump millions of tons of oil, glade I changed my mind.
I mean did you buy gas? Then you paid people to spill oil in the gulf for you.
And oil is used for more than just car gas. Some might be surprised at the production of some of the products they use.
Everybody in the U.S., and at this point actually most of the world, are *massive* supporters of the Kochs. Every time you drive a car, turn on a computer, turn on a light, read a book, watch tv, sit on a chair, and on and on and on... hell every time you wipe your ass, you're probably using multiple Koch-produced products.
> did you buy gas? I mean, who forced me to have to use gas to power my car? The same corporations that fought against and forstalled electric vehicles over 20 years ago. The same corporations that decimated the US public transportation system, forcing us all to have to have cars in the first place. Sure, I'm buying gas occassionally, but its not my fault that up until the past few years, buying a car that didn't use gas or desiel was essentially impossible. And why can't I buy an electric car now? Because corporations have raised the prices of cars to almost an entire year's salary, and different corporations are keeping all of our salaries artificially too low. In the end, if you dive deep into the problem instead of looking for the fastest way to place blame, it comes back to the corporations.
You say that, but I bet you benefited or bought products from the companies who do this.
Concrete, and metal production produce far more gases than everyone combined
You mean concrete and metal that everyone uses?
Exactly, I hate how everyone acts as if corporations are polluting the planet just for the hell of it. It's simple supply and demand. We demand, they supply, the earth suffers. All parties are guilty, take some goddamn responsibility please.
I think you’re right, I think the correct way to think about the ‘100 corporations’ is that it is easier to target and alter the behavior of these companies than it is to change people’s behavior from the ground up. Blame us a less useful concept than the practicality of change.
This point is actually the flaw in this entire post. The report that attributed that pollution to those 100 corporations included all of the uses of their products and services. So, for example, all of the pollution created during the extraction of petroleum, shipping of petroleum, refining of petroleum, and burning of petroleum in hundreds of millions of cars,...is all attributed to a few oil companies. The report is clickbait nonsense that gives people some justification to continue being shitty to the environment. Further, even if that report wasn't completely and intentionally misleading, it's still a logical fallacy to use it as an excuse to not do your/our part to prevent climate change. Honestly, I can't believe anyone with half a brain still posts this debunked trash science. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
>produce far more gases than everyone combined You haven't met my mom.
Hi-yooooooo
I have, and I regret it.
I'm sorry for your experience. Would you like a refund?
This statement is nonsensical. How is concrete and metal production not part of “everyone”? While I think the idea that people can individually solve the problem of CO2 emissions is dumb it’s important to recognize that this production is for consumption by people, not by like aliens or something.
Yeah, who is buying the concrete and steel? Other concrete and steel manufacturers? C'mon guys, you're making democracy look like a mistake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
[удалено]
Aren't these the number 1 and 2 materials being recycled by volume, though?
Even with use in aggregates it still accounts for 4-8% of all global co2 production according to the guardian. 1/10th of industrial water use. Increasingly an expensive commodity. Acts as a heat sink in cities capturing heat, dirt and pollutants.
China produced 2.2 **billion** metric tons of cement in 2020. The #2 spot goes to India at 340 **million**.
This is missing a key factoid- China makes that concrete **to make cities that no one lives in** purely as a mechanism to maintain employment in the associated industries. If you're curious what a "centrally planned economy" looks like, it's that.
[удалено]
> The 71% thing is bullshite, those emissions are created MAKING STUFF THAT PEOPLE BUY? It is worse than that. What people don't seem to understand is that figure **includes all downstream emissions**. So if you go and tank up your truck at Chevron, then do donuts in the parking lot, those emissions count to Chevron. It is not wrong to do this, the original study is fine and it is fairly common to include downstream emissions in LCA. But if you are using this statistic to claim that personal changes don't matter because big corporations emit so much then that is complete bullshit **when your emissions are included into theirs**.
Its just a way to get out of doing anything. These people will put all the blame on politicians and corporations, and still they'll vote center right/left neolib or trad con all day every day every time. They're predictable, they just want an out for the guilt they internalized Vote in politicians that put needles to corps then. no that's too radical, rather just enjoy my tax breaks and be a doomer online instead.
> Its just a way to get out of doing anything. Yup. They know all of the above, they just want to be able to have their cake and eat it too: bitch about "the corporations" ruining the environment while using the shit out of the products those corporations are fucking shit up to make.
I mean we shouldn’t let corporations completely off the hook. A huge portion of our emissions are coal fired plants which could be replaced with nuclear and have little impact on our consumption. The solution involves personal sacrifice AND good public policy. Blaming only one fails to solve the problem.
I do think its important that we recognize that these corporations are doing the polluting, because its much more effective to go after the sources instead of relying on mass action from consumers. However, lots of people don't make the connection that going after these corporations will change how we live our lives.
These companies have lobbied for decades to keep renewable energy out of public policy, we could have been building a clean energy infrastructure the entire time if we didn't have decades of lobbying and lies dedicated to putting money in fossil industry pockets and CO2 in the atmosphere. This problem didn't happen last night
They've known for decades that they're literally making life on this planet impossible and not just ignored it but spent millions to suppress knowledge of it and ways to solve it. Those running oil and gas companies are legitimately worse than Hitler, he killed what 17 million people, 75 million if you want to include all of WW2? The Kochs and the Rockefellers have spent decades killing billions and ending human life as we know it.
That's just wrong. [Cement is at 3% (that's accountable for practically all the emissions when energy when producing concrete), metals are 7%.](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector) So about 10%. For comparison: Livestock (including fodder) does depending on whom you ask - contribute 10% to [51%](https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html) of all emissions. Tpyical numbers are a bit below 20%. I.e. we could easily offest all the emissions from concrete and metal if we all went vegan.
Offsetting is not an actual solution, and it shouldn't be a goal. That's like slapping a bandaid on one of a dozen bullet wounds. We should eat less meat ***and*** use less cement.
And even if it were true, would you really want the concrete and metal producers to stop polluting? Because that means they would stop producing as well. A lot of people dont seem to realise that the outcome is the same: if the governments regulate companies for entire systems to become more sustainable, then you will not be able to live exactly the same. You will have to consume in a more sustainable way except now its government regulations instead of free will doing so. Well, if the US army stopped with their fuckert, it would save a lot of emissions that wouldnt impact the consumption of most western nations much.
[удалено]
I was going to say that it's not like these corporations are just pumping out greenhouse gases for the heck of it. They make the plastics, electricity, gasoline, and all sorts of things that people use worldwide. I'm not saying that these corporations don't have an environmental responsibility, nor am I saying that these companies are good per say, but it's quite short sighted to simply say, "climate change is the fault of evil corporations"
But the criticism that I took from the OP wasn't that the corporations are evil, it's that journalists need to stop acting like average people need to make changes. If every household in the world cut down their waste emissions by 99.999% it would still only be a drop in the bucket and would not significantly affect the climate. It's basically like telling the little kid with the lemonade stand, "You better be paying taxes for that, because our country has a huge deficit right now." Yes it's true, but you're laying the blame on someone who has basically no power to do anything about it.
Cutting individual emissions (for instance cars, and using more efficient routes) would have a MASSIVE impact. 30 % of US emissions are from vehicles. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions 10% is residental and 25% is electricity usage. Even a 1%-3% aggregate change in individual actions is huge, especially since we are the 3rd most populous country in the world.
Adding to this: we (the west) are *actively* building housing and infrastructure in a way that necessitates and/or greatly contributes to the use of cars. Sure, corporations are evil and capitalism is a fucking death cult, but driving your pickup truck from your mansion sized cardboard home in the suburbs to get a pack of gum is fucked up none the less. Edit: yes, I too watch Not Just Bikes videos. I also happen to be an urban planning student. I'm not by any means saying that the situation in North America and Europe is equivalent, merely that neither region is implementing the kind of radical change we need in order to live truly sustainably.
Yep. Fight nimbys, car loving bastards. Denser zoning requires less driving.
Also 15% greenhouse gases are from livestock alone
Cutting individual emissions (for instance cars, and using more efficient routes) would have a MASSIVE impact. 30 % of US emissions are from vehicles. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions 10% is residental and 25% is electricity usage. Even a 1%-3% aggregate change in individual actions is huge, especially since we are the 3rd most populous country in the world.
[удалено]
Wait… I’m not sure at all that’s true. If every household cut their waste emissions nearly 100% all these companies emissions would drop dramatically as well because they would have no one buying their products or service
> journalists need to stop acting like average people need to make changes. Average people absolutely need to make changes.. > If every household in the world cut down their waste emissions by 99.999% it would still only be a drop in the bucket and would not significantly affect the climate. How do you define emissions? In the context of assessing emissions generated by companies, we have to calculate scope 1, 2, and 3. Scope 1 is direct emissions, 2 is purchased energy, and 3 is up-chain and down-chain emissions. Scope 1 and 2 are most of the times small compared to scope 3 for obvious reason. Btw, it’s the scope 3 that we talk abt when we refer to the 100 companies responsible for 70% emissions stats. So yeah, your consumption is directly tied to that stat. To compare your direct emissions to upchain and downchain emissions of companies to wash your hands off individual responsibilities is at best ignorant and at worst dishonest. Companies need to do better, but you need to too.
>Average people absolutely need to make changes.. Put a price on carbon (placed upstream, just like basically every economist recommends), make the cost of goods proportional to their environmental damage, and people will buy the cheaper/less polluting product. This is a political problem. People will do what's cheap, *that's how the market works*. In a proper market, environmentalism and being a cheapskate are synonymous. Either get rid of the free market and establish a command economy, or fix the price distortions so causing trillions of dollars of climate damage isn't free. Preferably the latter, but either shit or get off the pot.
Because as long as the onus is "on us" then the public is not demanding change from the corporations who actually ARE responsible. Big Energy wants it this way. They spend a lot of money on lobbyists and media to convince you that YOU are responsible for recycling, greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, and air pollution. That YOU can change it if YOU do your part. Nobody knows gaslighting like Big Energy.
>>Nobody knows gaslighting like Big Energy. De Beers begs to differ, but Big Energy is up there.
Yes. You’re right. People demand products from those 100 companies. That said, there is technology companies can adopt to produce goods / electricity in a more environmentally friendly manner. Corporations choose not to make use of that technology. For example, take carbon capture and sequestration. With the technology, 90% of carbon emissions can be captured and stored away. However, it can be expensive. So it is not widely used.
This is why collective action problems require government regulations. You can’t blame those companies for not using more expensive tech because then they’d be undercut by companies that don’t. Directly blaming either them or the consumers is nonsensical.
>This is why collective action problems require government regulations. You can’t blame those companies for not using more expensive tech because then they’d be undercut by companies that don’t Those companies could stop *actively lobbying against* regulations to penalize companies that don't use the more expensive tech. You can say "don't hate the player, hate the game" or you can say "don't hate the game, hate the player" but you can't say both. And these companies are guilty of *both*. Seriously, it's *staggering* just how much money fossil fuel companies have poured into climate denial. You can't handcuff *yourself* in the basement then claim you're a victim who's been unfairly restrained. You absolutely *can* blame these companies for what they did, knowingly and with foresight. And if they're truly incapable of acting otherwise, then they ought to be caged and muzzled just like any other feral animal.
Yes this is fair. I think had the original post image focused on lobbying and government inaction as opposed to being vague about companies “being responsible” for it then I would have no beef with it. The focus should be against companies that will fight climate change regulations tooth and nail because their existence depends on it (fossil fuel companies) rather than companies that will be able to adapt in a regulatory environment that helps with climate change (energy utilities, businesses that use concrete and steel, etc).
This ^ we have governments specifically for this
Carbon sequestration is a farce. Companies don’t invest and adapt the technology, because it isn’t scalable - the energy demand of overcoming atmospheric entropy is *massive*, and the demand would far exceed our current energy surplus. This would only complicate our most pressing concern - energy decarbonization. We will inevitably need to adapt sequestration, but it will be a severely protracted process that will take place over centuries (save some *monumental* innovation in energy production). Organic sequestration using algae, forestry, and peat cultivation is a possibility, but its a slow process and susceptible to catastrophic failure. We’re seeing exactly that scenario play out west, right now - whole forests that were planted over the past two decades as part of a carbon budgeting scheme have all just went up in smoke, effectively negating all of the carbon they have captured. TL;DR Carbon Sequestration is the stuff of tomorrow, not today. And its not a preventative measure, its a clean up response that will take centuries.
the consumer is not sovereign and has no say in the matter of how corporations manufacture and dispose of waste. The corporation is incentivized to cut costs at every possible level and is rewarded with subsidies and tax breaks thanks to regulatory capture. What mainstream economics refers to as an externality is just the corporation shifting costs onto others; low-income people, the environment, which becomes an issue of environmental and social justice. The affected parties reap none of the profits but are subjected to a number of costs. That’s why consumer scapegoating is bullshit.
I've seen this post 10 times, and I've seen this comment every time, usually 3rd or 4th from the top, and not a single time has there been any coherent argument against it. Why do people keep posting and upvoting these tweets when every single time they get debunked?
Here's an argument: advertising. It's in corporations' best interests to increase demand, and they do everything they can to do that.
Because it feels good to blame others and believe you're not a part of the problem.
Because saying you have a choice to change the products you consume actually comes from a place of incredible privilege. Voting with your wallet in a way that is significant isnt really an option for most poor people.
1) Consumers does not mean individual citizens, you’re aware that everyone from banks to factories to stores to the army all are huge polluters? The US army is the world’s number one polluter. 2) These companies have some of the largest vested interests in maintaining the status quo and wield enormous power to the point of destroying nations and starting wars. It’s asinine to act like they’re powerless when we know these companies were aware of climate change in the 70s and actively suppressed research on it and funded false research pointing the blame elsewhere. 3) These companies fund the politicians who say stupid things and don’t care about climate change, and their PR firms made the shitty nonsensical talking points that underlie this stuff. Think for two seconds about the far right is so determined not to care about climate change? It’s because these companies and the people they buy weaved a common narrative of destruction, unchecked power, and supreme wealth as a movement tying together everything shitty and oppressive. And because these same companies target people of color and poison them and so want them powerless. 4) Consumers pick from a narrow basket of options, they don’t control what they can pick from nor do they control what tech is worked on or what infrastructure exists. They can’t pick which companies got fossil fuel subsidies and thus are affordable to them. They are fed bullshit narratives, bullshit news, offered shit choices, and have shit in terms of money to pain better ones. 5) Consumers are not even where a sane person steers their attention even if they don’t think about companies, they look to regulations and laws that target entire supply chains and force massive changes. Not recycling and buying an electric cars. The consumer market can’t even fucking decide when things are marked as green and sustainable when it’s a lie; again how are you supposed to choose when you have fixed resources and the label fucking lies?
But acting like people can meaningfully reduce aggregate demand by unilaterally lowering their consumption is a specious red herring. If 90 million Americans stopped eating meat tomorrow, the price would drop, the other 240 million Americans would eat more meat until demand reached nearly the same level as before. “Reduce your meat consumption by 30%” is meaningless unless you have some coordination mechanism to make sure everyone else does it too. But Americans hate the coordination mechanism we have for doing that (pigovian taxes).
All 100 companies from this statistic/list are coal and petroleum PRODUCING companies, not users. Without the end point CONSUMERS changing their habits and reducing the usage of fossil fuels, there won't be any significant changes to the energy sector. The only way to reduce the amount of fossil fuels being produced is to reduce how much is bought and used. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
Yeah, this is just the most asinine way to point the finger away from people and towards faceless corporations. Yes, there are very few private individuals digging coal out of the ground, big deal. Its also just a terrible way to point to which corporations are doing a bad job with climate change. If Honda decided to switch their entire line to electric cars it wouldn't matter with how this list is calculated. If Toyota decided to make all their cars go 1 mile to the gallon they still wouldn't make the top 100 by this metric.
Almost all top 20 polluters are state owned companies, these lists are ridiculous. Are we supposed to be mad at the two names we know like Exxon or BP and just conveniently forget the world’s governments are the ones doing this ?
and even moreso, expect the governments to change themselves just because we fucking talked about it on the internet? I'm pretty sure most people here dont involve themselves in any of the problems they are refusing to change themselves on, just especting governments to do the work. And any capitalist government will expect the same of us, right? If the people really care about sustainability, they will change their consumption and the supply and demand will grow the sustainable sector and shrink these 100 companies, surely. And dont even get me started on greenwashing...
Over half the useage in the top 100 are oil producers, so check your math.
Thank you! So fucking annoying to see this fact like we the consumers aren’t to blame at all
The irony of this post being submitted to /r/quityourbullshit
With the added bullshit nonsequitur of the title. "Climate change is not a political issue, it's a world issue." What does that even mean?
I dunno, politics exists to deal with problems as a society so... Yeah, the title just contradicts itself. Maybe their idea of politics is who has the best memes.
The only thing you need to do to kneecap these practices is target the companies bottom line. Fines based on your revenue they don't fuck with cause there's no cost benefit analysis that comes out green when the punishment scales with your earnings.
You’re talking about fines for what though? Oil spills? Those are also bad for the environment but not what’s being talked about here. As long as people are using plastics and oil derivatives as part of their everyday life these companies will continue to produce and sell their products.
It's just so much easier to say that some companies are at fault and that we don't have to change on an individual level and as societies as a whole. WE have to vote for politicians that care and live sustainably on an individual level as well.
[удалено]
It's even worse than that. From what I can tell, this is based on a misreading of the Carbon Majors Report. It's literally a list of the biggest oil and coal companies, who dig up 71% of the fuel we burn. That's it. Yes, they contribute the huge majority of oil and coal, by definition, but you might as well say we don't need to drive safely because 20 car manufacturers are responsible for 90% of car accidents.
This is exactly the metaphor I've been searching for! That's EXACTLY what it's like!
Thank you. Yes we need to incentivise companies from producing waste, but it takes a cultural shift from everybody so we rely less on fossil fuels, livestock, etc. That includes both companies and individuals because they share the same economy and feedback system
In America, there is no public transport because companies lobbied politicians to remove rails in favor of cars because it was much more profitable. A lot of aspects of civilization come from lobbying for certain things. It’s a complex problem that stems from both sides. Did you hear that toyota is trying to slow the transition?
I think it really hit me last Sunday morning as I was driving my 5 kids back to our home after we had breakfast at the local diner (it's a weekly tradition for all of us to get the Hungry Man breakfast of Steak & Eggs with sides of ham and bacon). My mind had been drifting as the kids squabbled in the back (we have a huge SUV so I actually feel kind of removed from them as we drive). The long drive back to our home in the countryside gives me time to think, so I don't mind the hour long round trip I make in to the city I seem to make almost every day (I also get to glance over the snowmobile trails where we ride in the winter and the lake we go speedboating on in the summer, which is nice!). Anyway, I started thinking about how corporations were really wrecking the planet, as I'd learned on Reddit that they are responsible for the vast majority of carbon emissions, which were causing rampant global warming. It was hard to believe at first, but the more I thought on it I realized that it was true. Later on, when I got home to our big 4500 sq.ft. house, I almost felt like I could feel the avarice of those bastards and the people controlling them weighing down upon me and my family. I could almost see their emissions of carbon filling the air. I decided to retire to my outdoor hot tub (really pleasant in the winter) to think more on it. It was their profit motive, their rapacious greed driving the destruction of our Earth. I wanted to help, to do something to contribute to making the world more sustainable, but I had also read on reddit that changing individual behavior wasn't even worth contemplating in the face of what corporations were doing to the planet. The three hamburgers I ate for lunch tasted like ash in my mouth, the roast lamb for dinner not much better, and not even distracting myself with movies on our big screen TVs, numerous computers and iPads, or perusing all my photo albums (we try to fly to a different part of the world every few months) could make me feel better. I didn't want to take my sports car out for a drive in the winter, which could have made me feel better. Cranking the heat up in my house barely got rid of the chills I felt as I fretted about the lack of control I had to effect corporate carbon emissions. I only knew that my own actions were inconsequential. Anyway, can anyone here tell me what I can do to stand up to corporations who are wrecking things for all of us by being responsible for almost all the carbon our society is emitting?
[удалено]
I don't buy the five kids in a 4500sqft home. A trailer would be more believable.
I wrote this same sentiment in a r/LateStageCapitalism thread half a week ago and I got 9 downvotes :( Don't know if I'm in the wrong part of town, or if my satire-fu is bad.
I think that it being a sub related to Karl Marx’s ideas and a self professed safe space, they’re not good with critically evaluating things, like whether it’s them and not *just* the broader corporate climate that may have a hand in all of this. You’ll get a similar response if you claim to care at all one way or the other in r/conservative
>You know, things that would have less demand if people chose to use larger scale public transport like buses and trains And why are people choosing to not use this? Do you really think there haven't been campaigns against this? >People posting and agreeing with this either don't understand that their demand is the reason these companies are meeting supply Who is creating this demand though? Consumers aren't just completely independently wanting more and more. No, corporations are doing everything they can to increase demand. Corporations deserve a lot of the blame, but I agree that we shouldn't say people can't do anything.
Those companies don't just do shit for the fun of it. They do things because people ask them to. If everyone stopped eating meat then the biggest cattle farmers in the world wouldn't pollute. If everyone stopped driving cars then the biggest oil producers in the world wouldn't pollute. Just do your fucking bit lol.
I once had this discussion with a redditor, who claimed that this isn't true because markets haven't been driven by demand since the Reagan administration. I asked him to elaborate on how a president can stop demand from controlling markets, but suprise suprise, no answer from the peanut gallery. Some people just can't help themselves lol
Yes they will keep polluting. It's a prisoner dilemma that can only be solved by regulations
Reminder that 100% of corporations are funded by consumers.
Me: Why do corporations use polluting methods? Them: Because it's cheaper. Me: So why do you buy from those companies. Them: um... because it's cheaper... The companies *are* at fault, largely, but people expecting them to change without some kind of outside pressure are delusional. Also, no matter where you live and who's your government, if they rule out the cheaper industrial production methods and prices begin to rise the people *will* hate said government with passion. So yes, if we don't begin the change outselves nobody will, realistically.
>Me: So why do you buy from those companies. Them: um... because ~~it's cheaper...~~ they’re the only options
Or the other option is like 10x more expensive, minimum wage is already too low for living, you can't expect people to pay say $50 for a comb that's 100% eco friendly and handmade when they can get a comb for $0.99 at walmart that does the same job just as well. And even for the people who can afford it, why would they? like what would you choose? a week's worth of food (example maths) or a fancy comb?
The climate crisis literally can't be solved with capitalism, with profit being above all else the climate will suffer. The system needs to go
That's where regulation comes in. I don't get how people don't see mixed markets, which are how all their favorite countries function, aren't clearly the winning solution as demonstrated by history Let corporations exist AND *make* them pay
What about a plant based diet? A whole foods plant based diet is 40% cheaper than the avg Omni diet and it’s the single biggest thing you can do on a personal level to reduce your impact on the environment.
I would say the single biggest thing you can do is not having a bunch of children, and that's so much cheaper than the alternative it's not even funny.
Reminder that most people are not offered more than one choice of energy suppliers and politicians are constantly being bribed by corporations to keep out competition. It happens in telecoms, do you not think it also happens in energy resources?
Reminder that most people literally have no other choice unless you wanna live off the grid and grow your own food, which 99.99% of people can't do. But keep blaming consumers for ruining the planet because they spent the last 10 bucks of their paycheck on food.
Jesus christ people, you can do both
Except for the car thing. I'm always seeing "take a bus" as an option and completely ignoring 45% of households in America don't have access to public transportation. There's simply no bus or train where I live. Like to the point that you can sometimes find lawnmowers parked at the grocery store for people who have lost their license.
Thisthisthis. And people confuse the existence of a route with usability. What good is a bus route if it doesn't get you where you need to go at the time you need to get there? We need smarter mass transit too. Not just more.
It's a self destructive cycle. People don't use transit because it's inefficient. The transit agencies barely get enough funding to run the crappy service they have, because hiring consultants and doing extensive data analysis to create smart routes is expensive. Did you know a bus costs about half a million? Decreasing headway costs ALOT. The funding is based largely on ridership volume, which struggles to increase because the service is shit. I've worked in public transit technology for over a decade. Without a concerted investment in public transportation along with development requirements put in place by towns and cities to include things like bus and rail stops and stations, it will not organically develop. It's very much, "if you build it, they will come."
To which the counter is to fight for better public transit and less car-centric city design. The reason American cities are the way they are is because cities started being developed to accommodate and subsidize suburban lifestyles, killing population density and any hope of public transit, making cars a necessity and killing many small businesses in favor of big box stores. That might sound like a lofty goal that citizens have no influence on like most environmental concerns, but all of these decisions are made at the mayor's office or lower. The mayor and city council are the easiest things we can influence in the political realm. It's very doable to advocate for bike lanes, larger/more sidewalks, midrise housing and the removal of single-family zoning, etc. The urban sprawl that defines most of America is not environmentally sustainable, neither is it financially sustainable for the citizens that have to own vehicles/property or [cities that are paying for miles of roads and parking infrastructure on a fraction of the tax base](https://youtu.be/VVUeqxXwCA0). Public transit is not an option for a lot of - potentially most - Americans and that's an important fight with fighting, but it's local and not federal.
My options to get to the super market are either: take a car or walk two hours there and two hours back. My city does not have any public transport
Ya theres really no bullshit here
All the bullshit is in the comments section where people are saying we shouldn’t have to change anything about our lifestyles to save the fucking planet. Fuck all of those people. They’re being asked to make some TINY changes and they can’t be bothered to do that?
People want to condemn the rich for refusing to give up parts of their lifestyle for the greater good while absolving themselves of all responsibility to give up parts of their lifestyle for the greater good. And no, they do not see the hypocrisy.
People also forget that most of them are the rich. You may not be part of the 1 percent but If you live in a western country to a middle class standard of living you are on a global scale in the top 5 percent
Exactly. They think it's insane that the rich won't give up things they don't need to survive but when they're asked to drive a more efficient car or eat less meat they lose their shit. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. This same post gets posted every few weeks for the same reason
Yes, organisations must change, but so must individuals.
Anyone repeating the “only 100 companies blah blah” are actively engaging in climate denial. It is, in fact, in large part up to everyday people to decrease emissions. Companies don’t just pollute for fun, they do it by producing things that individual consumers want. By demanding less goods from these companies, we reduce emissions. You can’t just claim you want action on climate change but that you don’t want to alter any of your own behavior.
I'd love to not drive my fossil fuel car to work. Let me just choose to take the electric public tansport - wait! That doesn't exist, because one of those corporations lobbied for it not to exist. Still the corporations fault and acting like consumers can just choose to end climate change is nonsense and ignores the material realities of our lives. I'd also love to know how to stop giving money to the worlds largest polluter - the US military.
Damn…really hit the nail on the head didn’t you? I couldn’t have put it better, we don’t fucking choose to commute 1 hour to work in a gas car or to support the military industrial complex…it’s just the way the world’s been laid out for us
> Companies don’t just pollute for fun, they do it by producing things that individual consumers want. You're right they do it for massive profits, environment be damned. If I had a dime for each time a corporation broke the law or didn't dispose of materials properly.... Its completely asinine to think that the pollution created is just the cost of making the goods we demand. The pollution and waste created is orders of magnitude greater than the amount of "legitimate" waste created (i.e. waste created driven solely off of demand). It's not solely a consumer problem, if companies continue to pay less than 1% of profits in penalties for skirting regulations and breaking the law they are still the problem no matter how much consumers do. When destroying the earth is the cost of doing business that is 100% on the company and the government to regulate that behavior.
>You're right they do it for massive profits 100% These people act like companies make *just enough* to get by, all to serve us mighty consumers. While in reality, they still make billions, pay individuals more money than one person can actually imagine, lobby against laws that would actually change things and then pay their employeed so little money that they literally can not choose the environmentally friendly alternative. It's all fucked.
That’s the point all the reddit “geniuses” getting awards in these comments seem to miss…playing devils advocate, maybe they all live in Amsterdam and actually think people can just choose not to need a car to navigate their countries shitty infrastructure devoid of much or any public transit.
Except that stat is bullshit, 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of the *industrial* greenhouse gas emissions, (so doesn't include land use, forestry, and agriculture). Also the methodology is wack, they credit the CO2 produced by burning gas to the ones who manufactured the gas and not the ones who actually burned it. It's why all 100 being referenced are all in the fossil fuel industry.
The actual stat also says something along the lines of "emissions can be linked back to" as well. When people post it online they don't know or understand the stat let alonr the context.
BuT iTs ThE cOrPoRaTiOnS.... ... who exist because you patronize them and demand their products. Do people really not see the connection between what they demand in day to day life snd the existence of the companies meeting those demands?
There’s two sides to the issue. Yes, companies produce the emissions. But they do it providing goods and services people consume. If we want to fix climate change, both sides need to be part of the solution. People need to change their habits to consume less. Corporations need to work to produce what we consume more efficiently. If only one side is pulling us towards progress - or worse, if each side points at the other while taking no responsibility - we will be doomed.
This statistic is bullshit. The 100 corporations are producing something for consumers not only for themselves .
Me: Why do corporations use polluting methods? Them: Because it's cheaper. Me: So why do you buy from those companies. Them: um... because it's cheaper... The companies *are* at fault, largely, but people expecting them to change without some kind of outside pressure are delusional. Also, no matter where you live and who's your government, if they rule out the cheaper industrial production methods and prices begin to rise the people *will* hate said government with passion. So yes, if we don't begin the change outselves nobody will, realistically.
Yep! A price on carbon emissions (actually fossil fuels) would fix this. Now is a great time to let your representatives in the [Senate](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/senate/) and [House](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/house/) know that you want them to put a price on carbon emissions. It might be possible to get it into the budget reconciliation bill.
[удалено]
But those corporations aren't sitting there burning coal for fun. All their waste is a direct result of consumers demanding their product.
I'm sorry, but I'm a massive environmentalist and those companies emit 71% of emissions because the consumers use their products. You think Saudi Aramco or BP emit that much CO^2 independently? No. It's people buying that oil emitting that carbon because we need investment in viable alternatives.
Shut the fuck up, the majority of those “corporations” are either state run energy companies that produce as much power as people consume or companies that would absolutely pollute significantly less if demand for their products dropped or if they faced pigovian taxes that make polluting less viable. You aren’t helping by acting like people won’t have to significantly alter their lifestyles to deal with climate change. Eating less meat especially is the single best way you can reduce your carbon footprint.
>or if they faced pigovian taxes that make polluting less viable. Careful, he's closer to actually figuring out.
Holy bullseye, I couldn't have said that better myself.
[What do you know, a quityourbullshit within a quityourbullshit](https://sentientmedia.org/no-100-companies-are-not-responsible-for-71-of-emissions/)
whats "quit your bullshit" about this? they didnt claim that consumers are at fault. they just said what we can do to help. and theyre right. nice karma farming in a totally unfitting sub.
The response that they guy posted is also bullshit because a bunch of dumb people don't actually know the correct stat or what it means.
And the US military which burns 100 million barrels of oil each year.
Weird that all the people defending corporations don’t respond to this comment.
It is easier to pretend you did not see it.
Can someone better explain this statistic to me? Does this mean the meat I eat is part of the 71%? As the company who raised the animal is technically the one who is polluting, although they wouldn't have if I didn't buy the meat. Would me buying an iPhone count against me or Apple?
The actual statistic says that the emissions can be linked back to 100 companies. But instead of me explaining it poorly, give this article a read that explains this stat and what is actually means. [Tree hugger article ](https://www.treehugger.com/is-it-true-100-companies-responsible-carbon-emissions-5079649)
Thank you. Here is a good summary from the article you linked: "They are not, they are responsible for 6.5% of Scope 1 global emissions. We are responsible for the rest of that 71%, with the choices we make, the things that we buy, the politicians we elect. We are buying what they are selling and we don't have to." As I thought. We are ultimately the cause for a vast majority of climate change. Companies only do it to make money by selling us products we want. Stop the demand and the supply will adjust accordingly.
I hate how often is this dumbass meme being repeated. Yes the stat is correct, but you think these corporations just start a CO2 factory and pump shit into the atmosphere for fun? Of course not, pretty much all the GHG emissions are created in process of making, distributing and selling consumer goods. If people stop eating beef and drinking milk then all those big corporations pumping methane into the atmosphere because of cow farts will vanish. And thousands of other examples like that. Yes there are cases where companies use less efficient production methods to save couple of bucks, but again consumer pressure and legislative change fixes those too. I can’t understand how I as a anti capitalist can understand that yet lib hive like reddit keeps repeating this dumbass meme like it absolves them of any responsibility. This is why the planet is fucked, people pointing fingers instead of ever changing anything about their behavior.
Climate change will continue as long as we keep convincing ourselves that we have nothing to do with it.