• gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Honestly I’m starting to hate this narrative

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

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

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

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

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

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

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

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

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

      • TheColonel@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 hours ago

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

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

        • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Really? I didn’t see the racist overtones you did apparently. I read that as ‘China is the largest pollution source, but only because of X Y and Z, and they’re doing more to mitigate it than anyone else’.

          • TheColonel@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            I hear your point there, you’re not wrong, but it does lay the blame at their feet then sort of back away from the stance.

            The fact is, most people won’t read it all. They’re just going to see “blame India and China!”

            “Phew, at least I’m off the hook.”

            I don’t even like to admit the idea of the above but based on the last month (and let’s face it, very long time before that), people are willing to jump to all sorts of conclusions.

            Hell, maybe I did about it sounding racist! But I don’t know the intent behind every message I read. I’m just feeling very skeptical and cautious.

            • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              You make some very good points. Being sceptical and cautious are important skills to have in this modern world :/

  • someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    12 hours ago

    This always gets me. They are producing stuff that we the people buy. They aren’t out there just for the fun of things. Inb4 Lemmy’s famous misreadings, yes it is an issue, yes we need regulation (which we will have to start again from scratch, hopefully in 4 years), yes we need renewables. But this simplistic “it’s just 100 companies” is misleading AF.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      54 minutes ago

      Have you somehow missed just how car-centric just about everything is? I mean, most public space out there is taken by roads and public transport is generally insufficient.

      Granted, there are much better countries in this than others.

      Ditto on other things imposed on people such as planed obsolence: Can you still buy a fridge that will last you a lifetime? Does your 15 year old original iPhone still work well? How many of the electronics out there are not repairable?

      Then there’s all the pressure to make people consume, using techniques from Psychology (you can go read all about how the nephew of Freud introduced into Marketing techniques from Psychology back in the 50s). Absolutelly, people should be stronger and wiser than that, but most are not and just claiming that “it’s people’s fault” when others take adavantage of natural human weaknesses is just victim blaming.

      Absolutelly, Consumerism is a big part of the problem and it’s a lot down to individuals to do less of it, but lets not deceive ourselves that the environment we’re all in not only promotes it massivelly and relentlessly, but plenty of decisions which were taken for us by others mean individuals often don’t even have a choice not to buy new junk or ride a personal-polution-device, and in Capitalism those decisions were taken mainly by large Companies directly or by the politicians they bought.

      • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        28 minutes ago

        As you said, plenty of countries are better in terms of public transportation, but most people still insist on driving cars even in places with good public transportation coverage.

        And the biggest counter to the “it’s not a personal issue, it’s companies who don’t give options” is diet: eating meat is far worse for the environment as well as more expensive than a plant based diet; but people hate the idea of eating less meat and they love to mock vegans.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 minutes ago

          Meat eating is actually a very cultural thing.

          In India, for example, there is an area where most people are vegetarian and have been so for centuries.

          My point about how people are psychologically pushed to consume also applies here.

          Further, excessive meat eating (and the average meat consumption in most Western countries is at those levels) is actually bad for one’s health and life expectancy, so even from a pure individual selfishness point of view people aren’t doing what’s best for themselves, which would indicate there’s more to it than merelly individuals being selfish.

          That said, I agree that people should eat less meat, it’s just the expectation that they’re informed enough (at various levels) to do it that I find unrealistic.

          It’s another of those things which in order to change needs to be pushed as education to all of society, while what we really have is massive economic interests pushing in the very opposite direction.

    • AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Those 100 companies have made it so it’s incredibly difficult not to buy from them.

      Groceries? There’s like 10 companies that own all of the food supply. Good luck figuring out which one’s have child labor, and a horrendous environmental impact. They’ve very purposely masked that image.

      Oh wow, everything is recyclable! No, those companies just slapped that logo on all of their products so we can ignorantly wish-cycle their garbage. Most of it ends up in the landfill.

      Don’t want a car? Our cities are very deliberately designed to require cars. There is a very strong private agenda against good public transportation.

      Then there’s the pollution. These companies pollute so much more than we know. Whether that’s dumping forever chemicals into our water, or taking private jets everywhere. It’s not like the label on your T-shirt tells you that.

      Finally find a good company? They’ll buy it up, lobby against it, or coerce them out of business. Just look how many companies Luxottica has destroyed.

      There’s layer after layer of obfuscation to hide what these companies are doing. It’s not just a matter of picking Product A over Product B. We rarely have much choice, or the information to make better choices.

      • IMALlama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I think the idea was “reduce consumption”. As a society we buy tons of stuff, way more than 50 or 100 years ago.

      • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        You seem like you have a consumption problem. Outside of a car, heating, and cooling nobody is forcing anything down your throat.

        You choose and desire to buy whatever product you’re talking about.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      That’s the best part! You can’t!

      Thanks to the consolidation and vertical integration of the largest multinationals, as long as you choose to live — no matter how careful and conscious your purchases — a significant proportion of it will still funnel to most of these corporations.

      • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        34 minutes ago

        Meat is one of the bigger polutters. Meat industry is subsidized by the state. Plant based diets are still cheaper. The vast majority of people still choose to eat meat and actively mock vegans. Just go look at beef (worse meat for the environment) consumption stats in the US.

        That’s just one example.

        People say they want change but won’t take it where they can, because deep down it’s a lie and they just want someone to fix the problem without them having to do anything.

      • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Outside or raw materials, a cell phone, and maybe a car where are you forced to support corporations?

        • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Food, shelter, hygiene prodcuts, clothes, furniture, fucking everything.

          Yes, some of these things aren’t technically necessary but you did include phone and a car, so I am assuming we’re not just talking about base subsistence.

          Unless you become a cave hermit or somehow manage to source everything from self employed artisans and cooperatives (and vet their material sources), you will support corporations even if you try to reduce your consumption as much as possible.

          Pretty much all industries have been captured by massive corporations at this point, and vetting all companies and their supply lines is literally not possible to do.

          Think with your head instead of just saying what feels right for once, please.

          • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            I buy my food locally. I buy my clothes local to my state. Furniture is made locally. All my hygiene but my conditioner is local. I generate more electricity than I use. But there you go, that’s all corporate

            It’s just easier to buy corporate. Literally nothing you have stated needs to feed corporations. 100% bullshit.

            • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 hours ago

              That’s all neat but there’s a few problems with advocating this approach as a solution to anything.

              1. The supply chain problem mentioned by the other reply to your comment.

              2. The economic viability for this approach from both the side of supply and demand.

              Local, especially “ethically” produced goods are usually much more expensive, and when people are barely making ends meet.

              It’s also much harder to expand a business that sources their goods “ethically” and so on.

              1. This is just not a solution. It’s an individualistic approach to an institutional problem.

              Companies are largely not accountable, there is largely no economic democracy (vote with your dollar doesn’t count), and increasingly all matters of government are once again captured by large corporations and wealthy individuals.

              The solution here cannot be to just consume better, something needs to change drastically.

            • y0kai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Where do the local farmers get their tractors and tools? Where does the fabric, dye, looms, sewing machines etc. for clothing come from? Where does the furniture maker buy his tools and who makes them? Are your solar panels homemade? What does that electricity power?

              Whether directly or not, some portion of the money we spend will end up in the hands of these corporations, even if it just means you paid the furniture guy for a chair and he used that money to buy his kids mcdonalds. And while it’s great that you sound like you’re actively trying to live in a sustainable way, I don’t think you get to deny that if you’re a part of the economy you’re still supporting corporations, simply due to the sheer depth and breadth of these companies.

              • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 minutes ago

                You don’t think you can’t source cotton directly from farmers and make a shirt by hand? Jesus we really are screwed!

                “I can’t do it all all I’ll do nothing” this thread man 🤣

            • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              I don’t have the option to buy any of those things locally. Just because you can doesn’t mean it is viable for anyone else.

              • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                8 hours ago

                👌👍 if you’re actually like some help not being helpless let me know you area and I’ll find you summer local alternatives to the corps.

        • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Clothing, food, shelter, software, electronics, medicine, fuel, consumable goods like batteries and much much more. These are just off the top of my head.

          • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            See my other comment. Bullshit beyond the medicine, healthcare is fucked for sure. Oh and the $20 of rechargeable batteries. Real corpo bullshit buying a pack of AAA or Samsung batteries every 4 or 5 years.

  • TurboWafflz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Well clearly it’s the fault of everyone noticing the problems because like 100 years ago no one noticed the problems and so clearly they weren’t happening because no one noticed and if they were happening someone would have noticed so if people just hadn’t noticed they never would have happened and then no one would have noticed them which of course then means they double wouldn’t have happened

    It’s just common sense if you think about it from that perspective