this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
1884 points (94.5% liked)
Memes
45737 readers
393 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah yes, "enlightened" centrism, where causing relatively insignificant damage to stop the destruction of the planet is just as bad as destroying the planet for profit.. ๐คฆโโ๏ธ
This shitty take reeks of being
Your take is bad. The person who is destroying the planet isnt some conpany that sells you shit. They just give you what you want for some competitive price. I would bet my entire life that if most people had the opportunity to pay more for a greener product/greener service, they would still choose the cheaper/worse for environment option.
I mostly agree with this. Companies only pollute as part of their process for making whatever good or service it is that they sell. They only sell those goods or services because people are buying. If suddenly everybody stopped buying and switched 100% to growing their own crops, the pollution from corporations would drop to zero. Not because they'd suddenly care about the environment, but because you don't spew out a ton of CO2 making a widget if nobody's buying widgets.
Having said that, corporations are optimized to produce as much profit as possible. If it's cheaper to run a plant on coal and they can get away with it, they'll do it.
As consumers, we have no real way to audit a company's supply chain. Even a government would have trouble doing it since most supply chains are international. If I honestly wanted to buy the most ethically-created widget out there, I'd have to trust a lot of people's stories about where everything comes from. And, because corporations know how hard it is to audit their supply chains, they're incentivized to save any bucks they can, even if that means massive pollution, massive suffering, and so-on.
Then there's lobbying. It would be nice if the government passed a law that required audited supply chains, but the government won't because it's corrupt. Evil government. But, the government won't pass anything like that because corporations will lobby against it and bribe politicians to make sure it never happens. Evil corporations. But, the money corporations have to lobby / bribe comes from their revenues, which come from people buying their goods and services. Evil consumers. But, consumers don't know which corporations are lobbying and bribing because there's no audit trail. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a law requiring audit trails...
Fundamentally, we can only do what we can do. Part of that is admitting we're part of the problem. If you own an F-150 for status, not because you move heavy things often, you're a big part of the problem. If you live in a part of the world where you need central heating in the winter, you're part of the problem. If you run air conditioning in the summer, you're part of the problem. If you use a car (even an electric one) instead of public transit, you're part of the problem. If you buy potato chips in a plastic bag, you're part of the problem. If you eat meat, you're part of the problem. If you have kids, you're a huge part of the problem. If you watch sports, you're part of the problem.
This is the true black pill. We are in a loop where we as the general public are in control, but everything is so convoluted so we are more comfortable shifting blame to the next guy. Its attractive to say that we cant see the supply chain but in the end it wont matter unless we start caring about it.
But what does it mean to care in this case? We can end lobbying, but we dont vote for that because it might be in an omnibus bill that also gives tax breaks to billionaires. We can end overfishing, but we like eating sushi on Fridays even though we live in Omaha. We can reduce overspending on useless purchases, but I have undiagnosed depression and spending gives me endorphins.
Then we need to work on building a new economy that provides for all of those needs from the ground up, in an environmentally friendly way.
Yeah that's the point. We know people will choose the cheaper option even if it fucks up their future.
Some oil refineries getting exploded would result in the "worse for the environment" option to be more expensive than the green option. Now I don't think we're at that point yet, but without significant changes, in a few years we may reach the point where blowing up a refinery is the only way for people to have a chance for survival.
Bruh this has nothing to do with centrism. It's "if we blow up an oil pipeline, the oil will spill out and be far more destructive than it would've otherwise"ism.
Fuck off with your "Insignificant damage" bullshit.
Fuck fossil fuels, fuck the industry that peddles them, but your ideas would just cause way more problems than they solve.
It doesn't have to be an extreme like that. It would send a strong message If every gas station had to replace their LCD screens every week, or the windows of their headquarters.
But I guess non-action and bootlicking while we wait for our thoroughly bribed politicians to do nothing is better.
Gas stations are not the place to make a difference. It's at the very end of the supply chain.
Especially when gas stations are often individually franchised... Burning an Exxon down doesn't actually hurt the Exxon company all that much.
A large number of gas stations are franchises. Breaking the LCD screens hurts the local franchise owner, not whichever fossil fuel company they're working with.
More to the point, breaking LCD screens accomplishes absolutely nothing. Most people don't drive because they love driving, they drive because of zoning, sprawl and a lack of reasonable alternatives. If you get rid of fossil fuel infrastructure without fixing the underlying car dependency, they'll be stuck at home.
The people downvoting you clearly haven't lived anywhere with shitty public transportation.
I do, and I get it. We used to have the infrastructure, but it was lost as our communities became more car-centric. Personally, I own a cheap used fuel efficient car that I only use when I have to drive long distances.
I also know a lot of people who own gas-guzzling pickups and SUVs who don't need them, and people who choose to live in expensive suburban areas because they fancy themselves too good to live amongst us "poor people" in "bad neighborhoods" because we're supposedly dangerous. Also, a lot of people who think they have to drive everywhere they go, even a few blocks from their home. Those people can fuck right off.
I'd rather be inconvenienced by losing my car than continuing to subsidize the type of people I see driving every day.
Breaking those LCD screens might just convince them to stop installing them, stop playing those fucking ads while I'm trying to refuel.
The problem with gas stations isn't their LCD screens.
Nation-wide action, of course, is best. Something like the green new deal or even a market-based solution like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.
On a local level, though, there's a lot of action that can be done.
Nation-wide, the biggest category of carbon emissions is transportation, at 28% of all emissions. Over half of all transportation-related emissions are from cars and trucks.
The amount people drive is closely tied to local urban design, which comes down largely to local zoning regulations and infrastructure design. Those are primarily impacted by the people who show up at town meetings and vote.
Advocate for walkable, mixed-use zoning, improved bike infrastructure, etc. Most people aren't "drivers", "cyclists" or "public transit riders", they're people who want to get from point A to point B as easily as possible and will take whatever is best.
You're the only one talking about non-action and bootlicking. I think you might be projecting a little.
And please realize that actions such as breaking lcd screens is going to increase the production of lcd screens. But if you wanna throw some bricks through some windows, i say go for it.
Just to point out, we're running out of sand to make those windows, as well. They're digging it up from the ocean floor, at this point, which isn't great.
I have no solutions, but I'll sure be quick to point out the problems...
True. But at least glass is non-toxic, unreactive, and will break back down into sand over time.
I'll take it as the lesser of two evils.
Good point.
Anything other than writing strongly worded emails is going to cause some form of economic damage, even just peaceful protesting with signs.
It's about being heard and forcing the governments to ignore the billions in oil bribes they have already received. You can't do that by sitting at home and making angry faces.
At what point did I give a shit about economic damage? Throw bricks, occupy refineries, do what you want. Just don't dump an inordinate amount of toxic material into our environment just to try prove a point about protecting the environment.
"You can't do that by sitting at home and making angry faces." Agree 100%, never said we could, glad we're on the same side here.