• whoami@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Todd_Padre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Flaky_Fish69@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • bestdude@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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 lmao

        • whoami@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Public 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

            • kittyrunningnoise@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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%…?

      • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • EnderWi99in@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.