If we HAD trains and public transit, I would LOVE to take them!
Yes, the US has abysmal public transport (at least in houston, tx in my case) compared to even third world countries like Egypt. It’s downright embarrassing.
deleted by creator
This is all by design of the oligarchs and their puppets in Congress. Democrats and Republicans are against progress.
I live inside the 275 loop around Cincinnati. My work is 11 miles away. In order to get to work via public transit I’d have to walk 3.5 miles to the closest bus stop, take a bus the wrong direction, wait for a transfer to another bus heading closer to work, and then walk 2.5 miles to my job. The schedule is so sparse it would take me 3-4 hrs one way and I’d be walking more than half of it. No bike lanes or sidewalks either, and the roads are so dangerous that in almost 20 years of working there I’ve never seen a bike attempt any of my possible routes. I have seen memorial bikes on the roadside where someone got hit.
In Egypt, a large part of public transport is from private entities, the people driving the microbus and tok tok own those vehicles. In the west, these services are expected to be funded by the government for some reason
I live in Germany and while not perfect, I’m glad we have such a thing.
The problem is when a 10 minute car drive takes an hour with public transportation
Next problem is surge pricing and general ticket prices. I recall one city I was living in a few years back having advertisements for taking the train. And I was like “Yeah sure. It’s just double the price and triple the time”.
To me taking the train (at least for long distances) is a luxury thing.
For me, it’s both more expensive and takes longer, to take the train.
Ok. If you don’t? There’s still countless aspects of your life that you interact through the economy to fulfill that have the potential for change and improvement.
Still buy new clothes from Old Navy or JCPenney? Maybe think about going to your nearest GoodWill or local thrift shop(s) (and on a regular basis) to see what gems pass by now and again. College towns right after the end of the semester are ripe for this, and I would wager that you have a college town somewhat closer to you than any kind of public transit. Not saying that you have to do this for your entire wardrobe, but choosing used over new means that resources are avoided in making that new garment, such as all of the fuels needed to move resources to and from each factory along the value chain, all of the solid waste destined for landfill or incineration from the scraps of cutting-and-sewing that new garment, all of the water pollution associated with dyeing or printing your new garment, or the potential human rights violations that could pop up throughout the value chain. A lot of these can be mitigated by buying more sustainable brands that seek to minimize these things, but a cheaper alternative is to buy used too.
Still have an air conditioner? Maybe think about hooking up a smart thermostat or equivalent and enrolling in peak-load demand response initiatives so that your AC or furnace works a little less hard in exchange for the entire grid not having to provide as much power (the alternative is blackouts or brownouts where everyone turns their AC on blast but kills the grid so no one has power anymore). Doing this means that demand curves by customers don’t reach as high of historical peaks, which allows utilities to avoid using peak response assets like Combined Cycle Combustion Plants that use natural gas to operate. You in turn create a greener grid, that’s also better for the climate. And if having a warmer house isn’t enough for you, there are other ways of mitigating this, like setting up phase-changers directly to your bedroom so that it stays cool, unlike the rest of the house, or buying ice vests that you can wear on your person, or going to a public facility like a library or mall and centralizing cooling loads to there instead of decentralized cooling loads via everyone’s homes.
How old are your assets like cars, AC units, furnaces, fridges, etc.? Perhaps if it doesn’t break the bank, look into purchasing models that are more efficient, as in those cars that have better mileage and/or that are hybrids and can be plugged in to a normal outlet to charge, or fridges and AC units that use coolants better and that have better insulation to keep things cooler for longer. These choices don’t necessarily have to be accompanied by the insane bits of technology and information that bigger companies want to shove down our throats with these newer, smarter devices.
Does your local grocery store carry organic goods as opposed to conventional ones? I know that ALDI near me carry those, and I’ve had to shop there for years thanks to the low prices they offer. If you minimize your costs while still going organic, maybe consider shifting your diet away from red meat and pork towards other options like chicken, fish, or straight up whole food, plant-based ingredients like vegetables, fruit, legumes, grains, nuts, seeds, mushrooms, etc. Or, if you’ve gone that far, have you considered seeking out local farmer’s markets near you that often offer these goods both organically (or “organically” since the official label is so expensive), in season, AND locally. A good resource for finding farmer’s markets near you is https://www.localharvest.org/.
Getting back to the public transit problem you bring up:
Is there public transit near you? Do you know for sure? Most major cities like Houston, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and even the smaller ones like Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, etc. do have some version of public transit, whether that’s via subway, rail, tram, or bus, so perhaps there are more options near you thank you might think. And do you use these when you have the opportunity to? All of these services are offered via companies that use metrics like ridership and rider time to gauge how they might want to invest in these services into the future. If you start engaging with more and more public transit when you can, every human adds up on their balance sheets and can impact what happens with public transit in the future. I know that in my area, the public transit corp running our interurban train is constructing a new service line South, when it traditionally only extended East & West, which will capture an even larger portion of the market and make the service even more financially lucrative over time, leading to even more expansion and coverage. But I do agree with you on the lack of other interurban solutions like Amtrak. That service is downright terrible, and we as a country (assuming you live in the US) need to start demanding better service, as well as less of a grip on the railway network in this country by the railroad tycoons.
There are changes that can be made all around us that involve the economy and a corporation on the other side. All of the above examples I listed do. There are two sides to the economy, that economists tell us: Supply and Demand. Just because we can’t control supply outside of efforts like political action doesn’t mean we can’t control demand too. Little changes that every common person makes over time one way or another add up and show up on these corporations’ balance sheets.
Hope is not lost. Stay focused on sustainability and making what changes you can make in your life right now and into the future, including political action. All of this adds up.
Oops, there’s been another oil spill caused by a multi-billion dollar company shirking regulation and safety, all your effort is now void and moot.
Short-term catastrophes don’t negate long-term habit changes though. That oil spill doesn’t impact all water bodies across the entire planet at the same time. While I think more developed nations should introduce more punishments to prevent things like this from happening, we have technologies that can mitigate these things once they do happen.
Progress may be up and down, but as long as the slope trends upwards, it’s better than nothing.
Message stays the same: do as much as you can when you can in the specific ways you can.
No, but it does more local damage than 100,000 people do.
So, what are you saying, exactly? That the individual shouldn’t take any responsibility for their own behaviour?
I’m saying that the scale of individual effect to corporate producer effect is so large that your individual responsibility even pushed to it’s maximum will have zero meaningful impact. Not just that, but the combined individual responsibility of the majority of citizens is not something you can magic into existance especially when most are too poor to seek or have access to alternatives.
To give you an idea of the scale, the ~90,000 container ships that are transporting daily use twice the amount of fuel as the ~1,450,000,000 cars on the road globally. You could make every single land based personal vehicle in the world use zero fuel, and only remove 30% of the global fuel usage. Keep in mind that includes land based commercial transport, and doesn’t even touch aircraft.
Plastics make up 4% of global oil use, you not using products because they were made with single use plastics doesn’t stop them being made, but if it did, would still account for just about nothing.
This reply misunderstands the fundamentals of market economics. If we, the consumers, start making the global climate more of a factor in our purchasing decisions, that will directly affect what gets produced in a capitalist system. Not trying to absolve these corporations of responsibility for the problems they’ve caused, just saying that if enough people start taking the bus/train instead of driving or substituting meats for plant based foods, we can have a significant impact. Of course the best thing we can do is vote to get ignorant climate science deniers out of office.
Choosing what to buy is a luxury most people don’t have. Companies need to be forced into changing because the market proves time and time again that it can’t regulate itself
Chosing to eat chicken instead of beef impacts the whole chain from fertilizer to animal feed to clearing the Amazon for pasture to methane produced by cows.
You have more choice than you think, like which meat to pick or to use more eggs and cheese as replacement instead. This is just one of the obvious everyday choices. Not all fish is equal too, with sustainable aquaculture being the best choice for the world.
If the oil majors, or just one of them switch off the taps tomorrow we will just get Russian gas crisis x10 and make OPEC and friends insanely rich. We need to transition to something else, that’s for sure, but blaming them for everything is super naive.
The issue with that logic, voting with your money, which I once used as well, is that richer people get more of a vote than poor people. And as a bunch of the issues with global warming didn’t really hit rich people, we shouldn’t depend on them to fix it.
In order to make an actual impact on the environment, we’d need to all go back to living without electricity in stone houses. Everyone in the world could take the bus and it would do fuck all. Society needs to change how we produce energy and how we construct things. That’s stuff consumers cant do by changing their habits.
Here’s a great video by Kurzgesagt
That’s a 2 hour video from a guy with 35k subscribers and it starts off with Chad memes and an ad break for an alpha male bro podcast…
Do you have any response to the substance or is the style the only thing you want to attack?
The video does not “debunk” kurzgesagt" but disagrees with who to blame. It’s the same conundrum that is happening in this thread. When telling individuals to do what they can to protect the environment you aren’t telling them that they alone are responsible. I don’t understand how people so regularly make this jump.
This Video is badly researched and the worst you could accuse Kurzgesagt is that they have sloppy research on sponsored Videos. Which in my opinion is also not correct.
the worst you could accuse Kurzgesagt is that they have sloppy research on sponsored Videos
Oh boy. If you think that’s the worst thing you can accuse Kurzgesagt of you must have entirely missed the whole Coffee Break drama, where not only did Kurzgesagt reveal himself to be a complete dishonest arsehole in his private commications with Coffee Break, he also stood by while a whole heap of his fellow large creators sicced their audiences on a small-time creator who was putting out really interesting stuff.
Plus, unrelated to all of that, his former business partners at Standard/Nebula do not have positive things to say about how he completed himself there. Supposedly he and CGP Grey saw Standard as a way for those of them who got in early to essentially leech off of the newer creators as Standard expanded, and when the other creators wanted to keep expanding it in a way that way mutually beneficial to all, those two creators tried to shut down the whole thing. It only survived because the others agreed to buy them out.
Can’t buy what doesn’t exist, can’t buy a healthier option if one isn’t produced, can’t buy a more sustainable product if one isn’t produced, can’t buy a solar powered utility vehicle if one isn’t produced, can’t buy wind power if it isn’t produced, can’t buy items without single use packaging unless they’re produced.
Needs and wants may drive a market, but nothing is consumed before production.
IIRC the study that the “X% of companies are responsible for X% emissions” is somewhat misleading. For example they use the combined output of everyone’s car exhaust and attribute that to the major oil companies since they provide the gas. Not saying that large corporations and the wealthy in general contributing to climate change exponentially more than the average person, but its misleading to say that as an individual it doesn’t matter if we try to use less energy.
This exactly! We need to go after the corporations with policy changes but that doesn’t mean that we, as individuals, are completely blameless or that individually actions are inconsequential. If nobody chooses to drive less or to take the bus then collectively we’re telling the major oil companies to continue with business as usual at if nothing’s wrong. The corporations are to blame but we’re all active participants!
I have some troubles with this line of thought.
For a big majority of people, there isn’t simply a lot of options, or any options at all, to take the car less, or buy less over packaged items, or reduce the pollution footprint.
The corporations won’t offer any alternative unless legislations make these alternatives the right choice business wise.
So toothless legislation is a problem and the governing bodies absolutely have the lion share of responsibilities and the personal efforts are worthless without the support of the governing bodies.
For many people, there absolutely is an option and they refuse to take the mild inconvenience.
This 100%
deleted by creator
On the topic of what we do though, campaigning for actually effective legislation 1) actually works, and 2) has a far greater effect than trying to micro-optimize our individual lives. Optimization problems are solved by gathering data and focusing on the largest contributor, not just picking shit randomly.
Also, make no mistake, enacting a carbon tax, for example, would make all of our lives harder, we simply wouldn’t be able to afford as much stuff as we do now. But it would align the market forces to find efficient, low-carbon solutions, as opposed to find efficient solutions despite carbon emissions. Trickle-down economics is bullshit when it comes to rewards, but no company (that stays in business) ever shied away from passing along operating costs. (A similar thing happened to nutrient labeling, the food industry fought tooth and nail against it because it would be a downturn in the business, but it was ratified anyway and since then options across the board got a lot healthier, because there was simply an incentive for the corpos to fix their shit to some degree where there previously wasn’t. And that was just about informing consumers, not fully ) So don’t make this out as if we’re just pointing the blame so you can sit back and let the big companies do all the work, because that’s not what this is about, it’s simply about the fact that capitalism doesn’t run on morals (as it is so clearly apparent in its results) so we need a little more than that to force the corpos to work along with the rest of us. Because if they don’t, all our efforts will be in vain.
The point is, regulation would actually work. We tried to make climate change the individual’s responsibility for decades and we’re still barreling straight towards the climate apocalypse, so it’s time to add some other measures too, not just try to slightly increase individual contributions and see if that solves it. Spoiler: it won’t, but it’s comfy to some high-ranking execs if we waste valuable quarters trying that again and again and again. And I guess it gives us a comfy delusion of control too.
Removed by mod
Bro the big oil corporations spent decades at the beginning of the 20th century creating and forcing the demand and dependency on oil. Watch “How Big Oil Conquered the World” from James Corbett.
It’s not like WE chose this to be the way things are. The people who control industry, and marketing, and media and THE GOVERNMENT, all MADE us and it all this way.
right but if you keep participating in broken systems you’ll just perpetuate them. gotta find ways out and take them… or make them.
The past few centuries have been carefully and slowly built to disempower people like you and me, and empower the newly-minted elites. It was the period of power consolidation for capitalism, when it fully overtook feudalism and other pre-capitalist systems over the whole planet.
You and me have no choice in how people’s lives are lived. The systems of control built in steer the masses into living exactly as they live.
We might individually live marginally less negative lives, but to completely eliminate our negative impact on the world, we have to completely remove ourselves from society.
The solution is not piecemeal changes and fixes to our individual attitudes and behaviours.
We have to completely change the system. We need to dismantle it and build something better from the lessons we learned.
Recycling cardboard and shopping at thrift shops is not it.
And I’m not sure we have many other options now, other than the old burning down the banks and guillotine routine.
I travel as little as possible, I’ve been attempting to grow my own food in my apartment, I’ve rarely bought clothes and never bought furniture. A roll of paper towels lasts me months and I eat meat a couple times a week (I sprained my ankle stretching in bed before adding meat back in)
My carbon footprint is way too large, and IDK what to do about it. All I want is to buy a mountain and fill it with fruit, but it’d take a decade of destroying the world to get there
I’m a damn good programmer, and open to suggestions… This is a constant weight for me. IDK how to not make things worse
Have you assessed what makes up your carbon footprint? What gets measured gets improved
But when to not participate is to starve to death, there’s not much of a choice. There’s no public transit for me to use as an alternative to my car, I can’t afford to spend extra $ on stuff that’s healthier and less impactful on the environment.
Stop buying what shit? Everything? Corporations lobby for policies that save them money at the cost of our environment. Yes there are things individual people can do to help but posts like this one from CNN shift the focus from the actual problem
Yeah this is where taxing these negative externalities would help to curb the demand of wasteful products and thus lower waste produced by corporations.
We can’t expect corporations to just do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts, because the products would cost more and the masses would just purchase the cheaper more waste producing products. We need to level the playing field by taxing pollution and waste.
This is the way. Carbon tax will take care of that
Carbon tax and zoning reform. A tax won’t actually succeed in reducing demand if people continue to be forced to drive everywhere because their destinations are too far apart.
Very true. Especially in the US and Australia. On the other hand, increased cost for transportation would create a lot of pressure on individual transport that should lead to more demand for public transport. The effect would probably be slower than a zoning reform
I agree with you, but don’t use ableist slurs when making arguments about social responsibility.
I especially like the part where I prefixed this with “there’s no responsibility on the part of consumers whatsoever”
Re read what he wrote. He said without including that or some form of. For example, Elon put a larger carbon footprint into the world in one week with his jet than most of us will over the course our lifetime. Does it mean we shouldn’t do our part? No. We definitely need to do and be better. It would take only a few of the biggest contributors to make a big impact while it would take thousands, if not millions, of us.
Not all changes are an improvement, but all improvements are a change. That applies to both our lifestyles, especially in rich countries, and corporations, what they do and how they operate.
Animal agriculture is the most obvious example to me, it’s unjusifiable ethically let alone environmentally so no matter what people are gonna have to stop eating animals and their secretions, and most people can stop pretty easily and eat healthily (it’s extremely easy to do better than the SAD) so start now and get ahead of the curve
IMHO twitter OP’s take basically amounts to climate change denial.
There is the caveat of business practices which are often unknown to the consumer—think of all the times businesses have been busted and then(temporarily) boycotted for it. But, yeah, consumers consume and should be well aware of their consumption.
Demand controls supply.
Go back to reddit, and type something no one will see, hipster wanna be.
They’re not just wrecking the environment for no reason, they make products people consume
The average person isn’t wrecking the environment for no reason either, and yet they always appear to be the target for “environmental sustainability” snipes presented by mainstream media as fact. There are an innumerable number of practices that large industries can practice to limit their carbon footprint, but it is never a priority.
I like the whole “save water” bullshit. like in california. Or anywhere else being fed by lake mead. Like, “You need to take shorter showers! conserve water”. the ten minute shower they’re berating consumers for… is literally nothing compared to the water straight up wasted for California’s agriculture. (and by wasted, I mean water lost before it even gets to the plants.)
Most of Lake Mead and the Colorado River aren’t used by people. it’s used by corporations that don’t give two shits because nobody gives a damn about them wasting water- can’t harm the jobs, now.
Private companies aren’t going to do the right thing just for the sake of it, because any moral sacrifice on their part will give ground to other companies that won’t do the right thing. It has to be fixed through regulation, ushered in through representatives elected by average people.
But most average people don’t care. They want lower taxes and cheaper gas.
yes i think this goes both ways, both producers and consumers should be responsible. but we shouldn’t forget shell wouldn’t continue selling gas and instead shift their operations if gas wasn’t in such a demand.
also if you’re littering you can’t blame corporations for that lmaoPublic transport probably isn’t a viable option in some cases, so I’m hoping EVs do catch on for this reason. Reducing or eliminating meat consumption, or at least finding more sustainable ways to provide it (i.e. lab-grown meat) also would definitely play a significant role. I am not advocating for eliminating all responsibility from the consumer side
It is a viable option in about 90% of cases.
your statement is highly dependent on where someone lives. I wonder what percent of people live within about ten minutes’ walking distance from useful public transportation. I bet it’s not 90% or even anywhere close. most people on Earth do live in cities now though, so maybe it’s ~50%…?
I meant in general, not just with the current infrastructure, sorry for a late reply
The thing about big companies like oil companies is that they’ll do anything they can to prevent alternatives from taking hold. Often it involves lobbying or spreading disinformation to fight against renewable energy for example. Car makers also fight public transportation.
I mean yeah for a whole host of reason we should shut down animal agriculture. But until we can make that happen people shouldn’t support it. People don’t support it for no reason but they do almost always support it for bad reasons like habit/tradition and sensory pleasure
It’s largely a problem of government that is exacerbated by the influence of the businesses themselves. It’s the governments job to enact policy change that force business to address these issues and develop more sustainable production process and product offerings, but since the government has essentially been bought out by those same businesses, nothing happens at all.
We can’t decouple business from government without policy changes that would place limitations on such influence, and we cannot enact those policies because of the influence from businesses. I don’t see a solution unless people wise up and elect a lot of people in the same election cycle not beholden to these groups, but I don’t know how that can be accomplished.
Whoo, you saved me the effort of typing out a response!
Exactly. Saudi Aramco is wrecking the environment because (among others) Dow Chemical keeps buying their oil. Dow Chemical keeps buying their oil because Sterilite keeps buying the plastic that Dow makes. Sterilite keeps buying Dow’s plastic because people keep buying Sterilite bins to store all their junk. Ultimately if there wasn’t a person consuming things at the end of the chain, the oil wouldn’t be removed from the ground in the first place.
Ultimately it all comes down to people’s lifestyles. When you buy something that’s made of plastic or transported on a container ship, you’re giving these companies money they use to wreck the environment. If instead of kiwi fruit, you buy melons from an Amish farmer who brought them to market using a horse-drawn carriage, that lifestyle choice has an impact on the environment.
Having said that, it’s true that companies use lobbying to twist laws in their favour, and use sales and marketing to drive demand for their products. It’s hard to know whether a product you’re buying is damaging to the environment because the companies that damage the environment don’t want you to know and will oppose any law that makes it clearer. It’s hard to choose to purchase a less environmentally destructive item if you don’t know it exists.
But, it’s just ridiculous bullshit to pretend that nefarious companies are out there burning coal just for fun, while cackling evilly. Everything companies do is in service to making money, and virtually the only way they make money is to sell things that people want to buy.
australian coal producers:
Ok CNN. I’ll follow your lead and start using public transportation.
That just involves me leaving my house at 4am and driving 9 minutes to the local bus stop, then take a bus ride for 37 min, transfer from there to another bus for another 19 min ride, transfer to another bus and ride for an hour, then either call an Uber for a 3 min ride or I can walk for 30 minutes to reach my workplace.
Or… I can just drive and reach my workplace in 40min.
I would love to use public transportation, and when I lived in Japan that’s all I ever used, which I much preferred to a car.
America first needs to get serious about establishing actual reliable and accessible transportation in order for more people to use it.
To be fair the big three (Ford, GM, Chrysler) made some politicians very rich suppressing light and cross country high speed passenger rail, also public transit all across the nation.
The US (through its deeply corrupted electoral system) totally bought that ticket to ride that train… so to speak.
Please, think of the oil companies and quit being selfish! /s
You’re right! How could I forget about the oil companies?
How ever would they make even MORE money now at the expense of Americans having better public transportation?!?
Flying pigs are actually carbon neutral, lets just use them
Swap your car or plane ride for a bus or train
Kinda hard to do when there’s nowhere near enough investment in public transit
It’s not actually about the transit; it’s about the zoning. Both the reason we “need” transit in the first place and the reason it’s too expensive per rider to be viable is that our homes and businesses are spread too far apart.
If you’re not within easy walking distance of a grocery store, your town was built wrong.
That too, but it’s not like transit investment isn’t also lacking
“Just one more road, bro. I swear this time it’ll work out, bro. Just one more lane in that 8-lane highway, bro”
Yeah where I live, there’s a bus every 2 hours that needs ~30 minutes to get to where I work. If I took that, I’d have to walk an additional 15 minutes to my actual workplace and I’d still be an hour too early.
And after work, I’d have to again walk 15 minutes to the bus stop and wait another 30 minutes for the bus home.So between leaving my house and coming back home, there’d be ~11.5 hours. When I use my car, that’s ~9.5 hours.
My old job was located out of the city and the times I worked there were no busses running (4am til whenever we were done) so I drove ~30 minutes to work, then work between 12 to 14 hours then drive back, which can take between 30 minutes to an hour if there was an accident. Then only being able to sleep like 3 hours a night then repeat the process was torture.
I’m so glad I was able to get a remote job where now I actually have time during my work days to do other things like actually go to gym everyday and be able to see my family more rather than just work and sleep.
I literally cannot do either of these things. Haven’t ever been able to in my life. No town I have ever lived in had public transport available. Closest train station was literally a two hour walk away.
It’s a nice thought, but there isn’t enough infrastructure to play like it’s generally available.
This is such a fucking stupid argument to make.
The reason airlines make x% of CO2 emissions is because people want to fly, they’re an airline, and there is no emissions free way to power a plane.
The reason the plastic company makes x billions of plastic sporks every year is because I want a spoon to eat my Taco Bell Nachos in my car. They’re not making all the plastic pollution because they just hate the Earth.
They’re not cartoon villains like in Captain Planet that pollute just to make pollution.
If it’s that bad, then let’s make a law that fixes the problem.
You can take this and just welp, plastic spoon is cheaper and all my concurrent are doing it so fuck it.
We want a greener industry? Make the fucking law reflect that otherwise, fuck off.
It’s almost as if regulations are needed because humans are incapable of doing the right thing to protect themselves. Fairly common thing I might add but you’d require a slightly larger government to do it and we can’t have that either.
Which is how this ends up being a chicken-egg problem.
Are people driving plastic usage or is capitalism driving policies that drive people to use more plastic?
And if so, why is industry writing policy instead of the public, or agents that are supposed to work for the public’s interest?
None of this ends until enough “regular people” coordinate to take power back from industry so that we operate like an actual democracy again. If you want to preserve an environment on Earth fit for human habitation, you have to get loud about… Campaign finance reform : P. And then realized that as boring as that sounds, that that will be when things actually would get violent and scary bc real power would be threatened.
I am not optimistic we’ll even get that far. Our population probably will take some very severe hits in our lifetime though. I’ll cut down on meat where I can, but I am mostly just enjoying the good times we have left.
It doesn’t help that a sizable subset of Americans will bitch and moan at any efforts to reduce the reliance on things like disposable plastic forks, plastic straws or plastic shopping bags because it’s “woke”.
For chrissake, remember when they sold Trump branded plastic straws?
Tbh the best way to avoid that is to use marketing instead of force, make carrying a reusable spork cool, market it differently to people (like for the woke say it’s green and one company that makes a certain spork is employee owned by gay people, for the trumpets say it’s good for their prepping or because the microplastics are estrogenating the children or some shit and also this other spork brand are god fearin’ christians unlike GaySporks, etc), until they become common like nalgene bottles were and then you can either just phase out the disposables or then pass your law with more support, or just let them be as emergency rations for if you lost your spork on the way to taco bell today or whatever and you need another.
Edit: shit, you could even have fast food and fast food+ style places rebrand a spork with their logo and sell them instead of giving away free disposables. Capitalism is the problem and it won’t go away? Exploit it against itself and make it work for the enviornment. To some degree it’s not only doable but probably easier than force through law.
You get a lot less support with “plastic straws are now illegal, go buy a metal one and some pipe cleaners to carry now” than if you figure out how to make the straws popular with everyone first.
From what I understand, a lot of corporations have power over the options consumers have, the market isnt as free as this argument implies. For example, coal and fossil fuel lobbies do a lot to prevent sustainable alternatives from being adopted.
The US doesnt rely on oil and coal because thats what consumers want, or because its necessarily the cheapest, its because the people that run those corporations have the means to subvert democracy. They are not cartoon villains, but they are absolutely villains.
What you are saying is true for plastic straws and airlines, but I would guess it doesnt really apply to many of these 100 corporations
there is no emissions free way to power a plane.
You can run it on biofuels. This is how Gates excuses his private jet, conveniently ignoring the possibility of combining biofuel AND comercial flights.
Some airlines are trying to, and electric on shorter flights.
Biofuel does emit around the same carbon output to the atmosphere (compared to storing it). Producing the amount necessary to replace most of petrol requires a ton of crop land, and alternatives means of production are not available quite yet, if ever.
I’m sure tons of voters are going to be happy and will reelect the politicians that make air travel 2x to 5x more expensive.
The proportion of politicians running on green agendas is increasing year on year. Younger people vote green.
You’re absolutely right. They aren’t cartoon villains. They’re just rational agents acting according to very real incentives.
But where do these incentives come from? They depend on how we choose to organize our economy, what guiding principles our society follows in how to distribute resources, and harvest them from the environment.
They come from our economic system. Our economic system is capitalism. And one of the many, many problems with capitalism — it can’t fucking slow down. In the eternal chase for greater and greater quarterly profits, there is no room for questions such as “is this growth sustainable?” or “I know there’s demand for this, but should we really be doing it?”.
Pointing fingers and blaming people is, indeed, a waste of energy. Instead, it may be better to ask: “How do we incentivise people to change their behaviour? What about our system needs to change? And how quickly can we dismantle the oil companies?”
We can’t incentivize people to change their behavior because no one is going to deliberately lower their quality of life.
What politician is going to win on a platform of…
Let’s make air travel so expensive that normal people can no longer regularly fly!
Vote for me I’m going to double your electricity bill!
You know that big SUV you love that is entirely impractical but you just like it because of how big it is… If you vote for me I’ll make gas $7 a gallon so that you can’t afford to have a giant SUV anymore.
You know how you like to eat your Taco Bell nachos in your car with a plastic spork… If you vote for me I’ll replace the plastic spork with a cornstarch spork that starts to melt when you use it.
The only thing that is going to save us is technology. Like air travel being fueled by biofuels, electricity costs kept somewhat normal by building new nuclear generation, giant SUVs being powered by batteries charged by nuclear/renewable energy, actually recycling the plastic spork.
Corporations create the heat and cooling, build the cars and airplanes, and raise the meat for… wait for it… consumers. These things go hand in hand. Asking people to make changes to their lifestyles that will help the environment IS demanding the corporations to stop producing so much pollution. No one wants to take the blame.
When the world is on fire, no one will care, but the idea that corporations are somehow a separate entity from the consumers/individuals that line their pockets with profits is equally irresponsible. It does come down to daily choice, because the corporations follow demand. But no one wants to suffer the inconvenience of changing their lifestyle, so we blame the corporations that we then buy gas, electricity, meat, and cars from. It’s blindingly dumb from either direction.
Spiderman points at Spiderman.
Note that the IPCC acknowledges that no one is paying the true cost of energy or food. You could decapitate all corporate executives, and, if we truly wanted to pay the environmental costs of heating, cooling, and food, all prices would go up. If you think things are hard now, give it a decade. Prices for everyone for everything will go up. You could kill all the rich people on the planet, and it wouldn’t change that fact, and it wouldn’t suddenly make the environment sound. It truly does come down to fundamental lifestyle changes that none of us want to enact.
You cannot eat money.
This is classic dog wags the tail and vice-versa. Is it the demand causing these corporations to make the product or are they creating the demand through plentiful supply and marketing?
If these entities were to make something with lower emissions and marketed that as a better alternative will nobody buy that something? I highly doubt it…
I remember when the things we bought were extremely durable and could last for decades if taken care of, I’m talking about anything, from tools, to cars, to clothes.
Now, from the 2000s to present day, everything is made to be consumed extremely fast, products are made with cheaper materials and most likely designed to fall apart sooner, this increases consumption by A LOT on a shorter span of time meaning more money in less time, something corporations just drool at.
With things being replaced on a shorter span means more energy required for the factories, more materials, more waste, and yes, way more pollution.
A lot of the times the “consumers” were created artificially with this tactics. Many things that lead to the current state of nsumption by the common folk is engineered.
I’m glad someone else understands this. Everytime I see the statistic about corporate emissions, I can’t help but think about how it’s so misleading. Exxon et al keep polluting because we keep collectively buying their product.
That doesn’t absolve them from their efforts to discredit climate change research, but to suggest they are just some evil entity polluting at will is just ridiculous.
You can’t expect someone not ride a car if they need one for survival.
The same is true for the fast-food industry: a lot of people dont cook anymore and just go to McDonald’s. Hell, a lot of people don’t even make their coffee in the morning anymore.
If we want to get back on track, make a law that reflect this otherwise, fuck off.
Admittedly part of the issue is that huge parts of many cities, especially in the anglosphere, are designed in such a way that living there without a car is impossible, because they’ve been built too spread-out and too far away from anywhere people want to go
And remedying this would basically require densifying everywhere close to urban centres, up to 5 stories in most places, then fucking razing the suburbs to the ground and making it abundantly clear to anyone who wants to live at that old suburban density or lower that the price will be having a septic tank and dirt roads
Electric cars won’t change this, btw. Mass adoption of them is not practical due to their weight, strain on the grid, tendency to catch fire in a way that takes 1 entire tender per car, and use of finite lithium, and should be reserved for those with a very specific set of disabilities that make walking difficult while not impairing driving abilities, or those who actually want to live out in the country and put up with aforementioned septic tank and dirt roads
I think it’s hard to estimate how much effort corporations put into getting us to do what they want. If you’ve ever looked at why the public transportation in the US is shit you’d know there’s something suspicious going on with it.
US used to have cities that are great for public transportation, the grid design of the 1920s is excellent or public transportation. Some cities like NY still have that but cities like Detroit spent decades destroying that to build a highway going straight through the city. Suburbs in America are being built in a way that only suits car travel. And not just that, people have been conditioned to think that only poor people would use public transportation. Not only have been people made to believe they don’t want public transportation, they couldn’t have it even if they wanted to because it would be horribly inefficient.
Who benefits from those decisions? Definitely not the people who are now dependent on owning cars. But I’m pretty sure car manufacturers and oil companies are pretty happy because they get to sell more cars and oil. Now I can’t point the finger at that those companies because there’s no evidence they influenced this, at least none that I know of. But it’s awfully convenient for them that when the car boom happened in the 50s the US government was happy to spend money literally rebuilding cities to make them more car dependent and keep at it, while the same thing was stopped in Europe pretty quickly.
I don’t mind giving off some conspiracy theorist vibe, but I don’t think it’s far fetched that corporations are entities that put money above everything else and if needless polluting let’s them make more money they will do it without hesitation. I wouldn’t put it past them to deliberately build the narrative that somehow the people are to blame for this polluting. After all EXXON started the “is it even real?” and “is it even man made?” arguments that regular people used for decades to derail the climate change discussions, all with the purpose of shifting attention away from them. It’s literally their MO.
I agree with this entirely. Of course there are corporations responsible for way more than myself. But using it as a means to justify myself doing nothing to reduce my own consumption is just backwards and stupid. It’s comparing a bad thing to another really bad thing but they’re both still bad things. Should they stop doing what they’re doing to contribute to this, yes. Should I also? Also yes lol. Plus like your comment said. These companies are driven by our own demand. It’s our fault for supporting and relying on the way things are for sure.
Thanks for your reply. I think the hard truth that we all need to look at is, regardless of who is to blame, we all need to make daily choices that work towards a common goal of salvaging this planet. And I think often those choices are annoying, inconvenient, or expensive. Some of us can shoulder the expense portion easier than others, but until we start acting every day like the world is worse than it was 100 years ago, we’re only going to make it worse in the future. Things are not going to be easier going forward. The more of us that make things harder now, the less hard things will be in the future for the young. It truly is a daily choice.
TL;DR:
Consumer choices can influence industries, but it is impractical to solely rely on this to drive ecological change due to factors such as lack of awareness, inconvenience, habits, price and limited to no alternatives. Government subsidies for ecologically detrimental industries and the lack of subsidies for ecologically beneficial industries worsen the effect. Improved legislation is necessary to address these issues by enforcing ecologically beneficial industry practises and guide consumers.
Verbose:
I agree with you partly. Yes, consumer choices do affect which companies get money and which don’t. But I would say that consumers are not completely responsible for the practises of a company. If a company chooses to power their production based on fossil energy carriers there’s not much a consumer can do about it. Sure, they can stop buying from them. But for that a lot of things must happen. First of all they must know about it. And if it’s not printed fat on the packaging or news are screaming about it, there is a high probability that they will never know about it. They could ask the companies themselves. And even if companies would be transparent and honest about their response, there’s only a small fraction of people who would do this. That’s because it’s inconvenient. As ugly as it sounds, people hate inconveniences. A lot of people don’t want to spend their precious free time with writing or calling the hundreds of companies, whose products they use, to ask about their production practises. Finally, if consumers eventually learn about the ecological impact of their products, they still need to collect a significant amount of mental energy in order to make the conscious decision of not buying them and possibly looking out for alternatives. That’s difficult, because people easily get used to stuff and it’s psychologically hard to change habits. And they’d need to do this for every single product they use. Even worse, in a critical amount of cases there aren’t even alternatives available to consumers. If you continue buying the wrong products (in an eco sense), because you don’t have access to an (affordable) alternative, that will send the wrong signals. The market won’t see an increased demand for ecologically friendly products in these (significant amount of) cases, but quite the contrary. I don’t say that it’s impossible, clearly humans seem to have the capacity of intelligence and can be educated to do better, but I claim it’s impractical for the everyday life of the masses. Especially, we don’t have the time to wait until the majority of people is able to change their consumption behaviour. That’s why we need laws, such that law makers do the hard work of paving the way for ecologically beneficial industry practises, so the Jon or Jane Doe going to the grocery store after a long day of work doesn’t have to worry about which products to buy.
Besides, in a lot of countries fossil based energy carriers are still cheaper than environmemtally friendy alternatives, sadly. If companies start to completely switch to green energy, this would increase the price. Increasing the price can lead to less consumers buying the products. Either because they can’t afford it or because they want or need to save money. This again would turn the circle of environmental destruction once more, since the cheaper alternatives, which consumers are looking out for, are usually less beneficial or even detrimental to the environment.
Also let’s not forget that also a lot of countries subsidise industries which are major contributors to greenhouse gases, e.g., the meat industry. Meanwhile there is a lack of sufficient subsidies for ecologically better industry segments. I live in a world where an organically grown cucumber is much more expensive than a pack of meat. That can’t be right.
We need good laws and can’t rely on the behaviour of consumers alone. There’s no way around it.
People demand goods and services. They very often do not care how those get to them. If they did, most corporations would go out of existence for using child and slave labor.
Your average person is not the one fighting against climate change regulation. It is the corporations throwing billions at government officials to not regulate them.
Shortest answer to the problem. Corps would LOVE if they could charge some people more for environmentally friendly shit while shoving more plastic in the ocean and carbon in the atmosphere for everyone who doesn’t and will never give a shit.
Not would, do. Energy providers, for instance, will often charge extra if you want to only use clean energy despite renewables being cheaper for energy production. That extra money subsidizes their failing coal contracts and investments.
Yeah you’re right, didn’t mean to say that doesn’t already happen. Even Amazon has made it an option to have your delivery be delayed to be more “green” while they pocket the cost savings themselves.
deleted by creator
If sociopathy can be transmitted by prion disease, that’ll be a quick way to find out.
For science!
💀
spoiler
I am Vegetarian
Go vegan, my guy. You’re almost there.
Nah, not even my food is obligate vegan, I’ll stick to eating opportunistic omnivores.
That’s nowhere near what a spoiler alert is…
spoiler
I want to fuck an elf unprotected
Is the usage ok now? 🥰
Not any more correct, but significantly more entertaining, so I’ll allow it 😁
It’s too fatty.
The 100 corporations include oil companies you rely on to put gas in your car, so it’s not like they are the one polluting directly.
nah, sorry, we’re on Reddit, so capitalism is to blame for everything and we individuals cannot do sh1t.
I mean, how stupid do you have to be to shift the blame for pollution from cars on car manufacturers and oil companies. But, no, no. It’s corporations polluting and I as an individual cannot do anything about it.
-
We’re not on Reddit.
-
Those same manufacturers don’t give a flying fuck if you drive. They’ll still make fuel for airplanes, ships, industrial machinery, etc., and will still continue to blatantly ignore regulations in pursuit of profit.
-
If you’re gonna gargle corpo dick like bulldog on a firehose, at least be honest with yourself, son.
-
Capitalism IS to blame for everything and we individuals CANNOT do sh1t.
Firstly, capitalists have convinced everyone they need to buy a lot of stuff.
Secondly, humans are selfish and in a capitalistic system it’s difficult to achieve your goals without money. Imagine you’re a young person, say late 20s or early 30s, who makes some money, but isn’t rich by any means. Are YOU going to pay twice or thrice as much for everything you consume just so it’d be carbon neutral? No, because you’re probably saving up for something, whether it’s a home (because, y’know, capitalism - you need to pay out the ass for a place to live), retirement (because with the aging population in most western countries, the national pension schemes can’t be trusted long term), or that foreign vacation you feel you deserve after 10 years of hard work.
Say you DO cut your carbon footprint by 90% or even 100%. I have bad news for you. 98-99% of the rest of people didn’t, because they want to go on with their lives instead of worrying about the future, so your changes are meaningless. What’s more, BP execs will smile at you for believing the whole carbon footprint thing they spread. Now you’re living like you’re in a 3rd world country, but everyone else around you keeps up their expensive polluting lifestyles, making your sacrifice meaningless. You can’t have a negative amount of cars, but someone else CAN have 5.
The only thing that can change anything is political change - tax the companies to oblivion for CO2 production. Watch them scramble to reduce their CO2 footprint in any goods and services where it’s possible, and stop offering goods and services that can’t be optimized. The individual carbon footprint was invented precisely to prevent this - make climate activists blame other civilians (who for the most part won’t stop consuming, thus having no negative effect on oil company profits) instead of politicians (who could actually effect some change). Yes, a carbon tax would affect end users and particularly poor people. But that’s the only way forward, and government programs can help those who are affected the worst.
Individuals can NOT bear the full responsibility for something that affects all of us. It simply doesn’t work, because humans don’t work that way. There has to be government level effort. It’s also why libertarianism doesn’t work. “The free market will regulate itself, you can vote with your wallet”. Well, if 99% of people don’t care about being poisoned by their food, or their video games being overmonetized, or the planet dying… Guess what, the free market doesn’t regulate itself, and no amount of awareness is going to make a dent in it.
So sure, make changes to your lifestyle. Tell your friends and family about the low-hanging fruit in their lives to reduce consumption, educate them. Spend tens of thousands on solar panels if you can afford it. These are all good things to do! But don’t blame the individual for the failings of society. We’re all playing the hand we’re dealt, and unless you’re born a millionaire, that hand is “shit is expensive, shit that pollutes less is even more expensive, I’mma do what I have to”.
PS: Ya know what is the worst part? Capitalists want worker drones back in offices so that people would consume more and office space values wouldn’t drop. 2020 was the ONE time in history we managed to curb our emissions, but that doesn’t jive well with capitalism, so working from home is now considered “immoral” by billionaires.
Exactly! It just takes everyone to choose to not murder people, then murder is not a problem. It is all a question of individual responsibility.
I abhor those leftist communists who always aim to regulate matters to death, when it’s just so simple: Just individually choose to not murder people. Then we don’t need all this communist “laws” and “regulations” crap! Because individuals have the power to do everything. Everyone just has to be a good person, and do the right thing! The solution to every problem in society is so simple! America! Fuck yeah! /s
Sadly, your sarcasm is nearly as thick as they are and I’m not sure they grasped your tone. 🤷🏼♂️
It is exactly what it takes. If everyone refuses to serve in the military, no killing will be done.
And if everyone goes vegan tomorrow, the whole meat industry will simply disappear.
But I guess you’d prefer to regulate the whole society to live the way you believe is better. If that’s the case, you might wanna look up the definition of socialism and communism in the dictionary.
Who is this Reddit you speak of? I thought this was Lemmy
You’re right, individuals can do a lot. We can take all of our politicians, CEOs, and corporate shareholders, and throw them out to one of their private islands that they love so much. Then, build a society where you aren’t pressured or even forced to drive, to replace tech every 3 years, or have a logistics system reliant on fossil fuels. Oh was that not the kind of public action you were talking about?
I have electric though. Worst case is the pollutants gone into the mining of the lithium and manufacturing of the vehicle. But how much of that can be controlled for mining and manufacturing?
Are you dumb on purpose?
And my favorite tidbit not included here is how much pollution the US military causes. We know it’s off the charts BUT they’re allowed to operate with zero oversight and accountability regarding the bugfuck amount of pollution and wrecked ecosystems that military exercises have caused. We don’t even know for sure how bad they are but you just look at how much fuel an single idling M1 tank uses and it’s insane
A tank will need approximately 300 gallons every eight hours; this will vary depending on mission, terrain, and weather. A single tank takes 10 minutes to refuel. Refueling and rearming of a tank platoon–four tanks–is approximately 30 minutes under ideal conditions. 0.6 miles per gallon.
It’s pretty accepted that the US military is the worst polluter on earth, but this never gets brought up
And on the other side of the coin military training areas in Germany are studied as potential nature reserves because just some limited amount of sane oversight goes a long way…
Yeah, I think I read something about how the DMZ in Korea is flourishing with wildlife because the animals there aren’t heavy enough to trip the mine that both sides have laid. Thus no people are encroaching on them and they can just let themselves happen.
The US spends millions of dollars buying up land around military facilities and permanently conserving it. There are Federal grant programs that work in partnership with nonprofit land trusts to accomplish the very thing. Every conserved property has a conservation values inventory completed as part of the protection process that documents natural communities (including rare and endangered species). This inventory serves as the baseline for enforcement of the conservation restrictions. I’m a reformed real estate attorney that works for a conservation land trust.
That statistic is flawed it counts downstream combustion of coal oil and gas for energy purposes (this is 90% of the total company emissions in the metric) which means you can buy a fossil fuel car fill it with petrol and burn it and that will be counted as corporate emissions
The statement is flawed because it takes the personal responsibility out of those corporate profits. Oil production burns a lot of fuel but it’s profitable because I keep buying it. Cargo ships make a lot of emissions but it’s profitable because I keep buying foreign goods. Cow farms produce tons of methane but they’re so huge because I keep eating beef.
Corporations do not exist without the customer. Massive buyout conglomerations greatly misrepresent true pollution per industry production units. If I said ExxonMobil is the dirtiest company in the world, does that mean they’re polluting worse than BP? No, not by itself. You have to look at tons of oil produced between the two and figure out a pollution per ton figure. Would it make sense to say Amazon is a very clean business because part of their business uses unconditioned warehouses? Not really, you’d probably want to separate out their trucking and delivery divisions from their storage and then compare it to UPS and FedEx via gallons per ton delivered. I’ve even seen people argue their single-item order from Amazon isn’t wasteful because “the truck is coming by anyway”. No! The truck is not an autonomous sushi conveyor belt swinging by. It’s a business asset being routed to customers.
I’m not saying these corporations are good or clean. I’m not saying they don’t cheat, lie, hide, and bribe governments to ignore their hazards. I’m just saying you can’t take a 100% hands off view of the issue, either. I drive a cleaner car and drive less so Exxon makes less. I wait for my ordering needs to build up a little to improve efficiency of the delivery. I buy more local and national so I don’t demand a cargo ship to carry my trinkets. Obviously it’s not perfect and I have a very, very minor impact, but that’s the whole point of being in a society. A community works together for the common good.
Is that methodology also how the CDP works? I am looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_contributors_to_climate_change#All_cause_1+3_cumulative_emissions_[8] in particular, and the figures aren’t looking ridiculously better still.
Or is that the difference between the Scope 1+3 tables and the All cause table in this page?
edit: Snopes has in fact written a fact check that corroborates the methodology used by CDP is potentially flawed for this exact reason. So it will not be accurate - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corporations-greenhouse-gas/.
I’ll defer to the following point by the original Twitter OP though, which I still think is valid: “The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting,” Johnson told us. “Individuals’ choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn’t be the focus of climate coverage.”
tl;dr: Yes, personal responsibility and reducing one’s carbon footprint is also very important, but there is chronic under-reporting on the other end of the equation.
The question is: should we stop reporting on how personal responsibility plays a part just because people think it’s unfair? Isn’t that straight out whataboutism?
still better than the opposite, where you’re just trying to buy food but everything comes in some shitty packaging made of hydrocarbons and it will be counted as your individual contribution to the waste problem. regulation works (that’s why they oppose it so hard) and it works a lot better than “voting with your wallet” which is what we would be supposed to do if it was up to us – where certain people have a hell of a lot more votes than we do
That’s interesting I wasn’t aware of this. Would you by chance have a source for this data? I’d be interested to see the true numbers.
yeah its in like page 1 or 2 of the primary source the stat comes from one sec ill get it
Direct operational emissions (Scope 16 ) and emissions from the use of sold products (Scope 3: Category 11) are attributed to the extraction and production of oil, gas, and coal. Scope 1 emissions arise from the self-consumption of fuel, flaring, and venting or fugitive releases of methane. Scope 3 emissions account for 90% of total company emissions and result from the downstream combustion of coal, oil, and gas for energy purposes. A small fraction of fossil fuel production is used in non-energy applications which sequester carbon.
Thank you!
Every time you suggest to meat eaters to eat less meat, they become violent.
Even if you suggest them cutting their 14 meat meals per week down to maybe 12 meat meals (skip one day), they flip their shit.
So ya, good luck suggesting to anyone to eat 30% less.
It’s meat wiring. I don’t know what it is actually called, but that’s what I call it.
I used to be a meat eater- nary a meal was made that didn’t have meat as a main and the rest of the meal built around that.I would say that I didn’t understand vegetarians- we need meat, we evolved to eat it. Then meat started getting expensive. Then meat started losing its quality. Then meat (especially chicken) started having a rubber texture to it and was like $15 a pound and I had enough and went pescatarian/vegetarian. It was hard at first, but we really couldn’t afford meat anymore so we made it work.
After a while I noticed that the smell of meat is absolutely nauseating. The idea of meat is sickening and I am dropping eating fish now in favour of full on vegetarianism.
As I went through a meat “detox” phase ( I know it’s not a detox but I don’t know how else to put it) my brain changed how it felt about meat while I wasn’t even paying attention. I was focusing on finding new, enjoyable veggie meals and my brain was working away purging all the want for meats.
Either they’ve convinced themselves they can’t eat less/no meat, or they simply do not care to.
That’s interesting!
I am allergic to most meat, and the few types I can still eat I don’t like to cook myself, because meat is something you need to make sure is cooked properly to be safe. So I end up rarely having it, and honestly, my life is no different. The rare times I do have it, it’s great, I enjoy ribs, bacon, etc, but it’s nothing I would get angry and defensive over.
I buy the beyond meat sometimes, and it’s delicious as hell. I go to vegan restaurants, as I can guarantee my deathly allergy is not going to pop up there, and it’s bomb ass food (usually. I find that some vegan places are -3/10, but others are 11/10 and their “meat” tastes 100% authentic and real, it’s something you need to discover.).
I use some meat replacements for things where it is hard to get the consistency with just lentils- like for shepherds pie, and I like the one meatless sausage Gardien does, but for most things like burgers I don’t want the authentic type meat, I want it to be as little like meat as possible, I just prefer veggies and beans. But I did use them regularly for about a year.
Have you tried sous vide cooking? Everything ends up cooked perfectly! Agreed though that Beyond Meat reminds me of a juicy medium-rare burger. Besides the price, it’s a great option that I find myself eating more and more often.
I had good friends to ply me with cheese and avocado. I still like meat but can eat it less frequently and with smaller portions.
But one of my dark secrets is patience. In the 70s, mom tried to quit red meat cold-turkey and didn’t last one menstrual cycle, and I learned it’s consistent among most women, that they are one period away from running down an elk in the woods in bloodlust.
So I’m only ever a week at most before someone nearby goes STEAK! TODAY! and we’re feasting once again on the fresh, sautéd flesh of dead animals.
I have high hopes for cultured meat (lab-grown chicken is on the verge of hitting the restaurant supply market) which will serve the cruelty factor. Nutrition balancing is a whole 'nother matter.
This is a weird comment.
I get that a lot.
Nah, I am a woman and stopped eating meat when I was 9 years old. I still got my periods in puberty and still have them regularly so that sadly did not work out for me.
I’ve never heard of periods ceasing due to a lack of red meat, though yes, I’d imagine that would be a great incentive.
Only that among women in my close proximity (close enough that I could glean their cycles) that a lot of them would have ferocious meat cravings once a month that enabled my own red meat habits, so that even when beef prices jumped, and we had economic reasons to cut down, meat would be on the menu again.
It’s so strange to see all the comments here defending CNN of all things.
Imagine a game where you can buy sustainable, ethically sourced resources for $5 and unethically sourced resources for $3. The manual tells you it’s nice of you to buy ethically sourced but there’s no governmentally enforced consequences. Which ones are you going to buy as a consumer?
Now worse, which ones are you going to buy as a downstream corp CEO? Your shareholders demand maximum profit and you are required to give them maximum profit. Justifying that you’re “doing your part” for the environment gets you thrown out as CEO.
At the end of this game, it’s cheaper, and necessary, to buy the shit that kills us all.
People unironically saying we’re all to blame. No shit, the system is designed so we are all complicit. It takes authoritative intervention to prevent corps from using and selling unethical and unsustainable products. You could also tax it for things like carbon emissions
Exactly, corporation and individual behavior is predominantly emergent of the system. Theres some blame that can be passed on to the consumer or the corporation but only so much, it’s not my fault I can’t afford an electric car. It’s not my fault installing solar panels on my house won’t recoup the cost by the time I leave/sell.
If you want people to eat less meat you need to make it worth people’s while to eat less meat. You don’t need to outlaw meat, you just need to make it less attractive from a financial perspective.
If you want people to use less gas you don’t need to outlaw gas cars you need to make it less attractive.
You could write individual incentives and disincentives but a carbon tax is simple and hits at the crux of the problem. Remove beef, oil, gas, solar, wind, hydro subsidies and implement a carbon tax. Boom, meat alternatives are now cost comparable. Green energy is now handily cheaper than oil and gas. Theres also a sizable amount of conservatives who are for a carbon tax since it’s a “free market” solution instead of picking winners and losers.
Yep. Taxing is the logical solution that fits within capitalism, and yet corporations are so vested in the machine they realize it’s cheaper to spend money to lobby and advertise against it.
It’s a busted system that needed correcting decades ago, and here we are.
I heard with some things it’s actually becoming cheaper to be green, as a result of engineering innovations leading to improved efficiency. Hopefully that trend continues.
Especially when some geniuses finally work out viable nuclear fusion. Real Engineering had a video on a US company working on some next-level fusion reactors, that seem really close to being actually ready.
Edit: of course, at the end of the day, the big oil companies won’t go out quietly. So in addition to all that wholesome stuff, maybe we should partake in some classic literature, such as How to Blow Up a Pipeline.
The fact that clean energy is cheaper without subsidies makes the whole corrupt apparatus even more apparent. Oil and gas beg congress to end subsidies for cleaner solutions because they’re having to compete which is a bad woke thing.
Just look at how long it took coal to die. And now we have “cleaner” nat gas which turns out causes more acute warming than CO2. And rather than convert to a sustainable solution they double down and green wash.
Removing pipelines would just let them raise prices and get richer but honestly if it curbs consumption it’s a net positive.
I mean, did coal die though? Germany basically runs on coal since they shut all their nuclear power plants down (AAAAAAAAAAAAAA FUCKING WHYYYYYYYYY), and the US still has a fair few places that use it as well. I don’t know what the situation is like in developing countries, but I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some were reliant on coal.
Yeah sorry I really meant just look at how long it took for coal to START to die.
Nuclear is such a no-brainer I can’t really understand why we don’t have more development. I assume its lobbying and initial investment costs but I don’t know for sure.
What happened is nuclear reactor failures at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima caused a huge public backlash, resulting in an actual mass anti-nuclear movement. Like I mean protests, political parties, the whole deal.
There was a huge popular push to decomission existing nuclear reactors, and in Germany the relevant political party became hugely successful and basically closed all their nuclear plants.
This is a big part of why the green energy movement, while enthusiastically endorsing solar/wind/hydro/geothermal/etc, doesn’t really support nuclear.
Aside from all that stuff, the economics of nuclear fission reactors are just much more long-term than those other kinds of energy generation. Nuclear reactors take a lot of time and resources to build. Both in and of themselves, and to make sure everything is properly up to safety standards. That initial investment will of course be recouped as the power plant keeps running, but it takes years and years. Of course, this is mainly a “downside” because of our definitely very rational economic system, which is obsessed with quarterly profits and is apparently allergic to these kinds of longterm investments.
There is work being done on developing smaller scale fission reactors with fewer up-front costs, but public sentiment still seems to be against it. Research into nuclear fusion seems to be going pretty great (the stuff Helion’s been working on looks promising), so if that comes through maybe we won’t have to fight a tide of stupid public sentiment to get proper, stable renewable energy.
