• TheBlue22@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    1 year ago

    How about instead this “personal responsibility” bullshit we focus on the actual causes of global warming, I.e. massive corporations that create the majority of greenhouse gasses

    • ebikefolder@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why has it to be either, or? We need both. Systemic and behavioural changes on all levels. And we need it now. We no longer have any time left to shift the blame back and forth! I’m getting so sick of this blame game!

      • Anemia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s 100% personal responsibility, it’s just that part of that responsibility is to vote/convince others for more systemic change. All the kids just blaming the “biggest 100 companies” while not voting and making no lifestyle changes are just as bad as the people they critizise.

        • ebikefolder@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If you put it this way: sure. And those famous “biggest 100 companies”, which are constantly used as a cheap excuse to not do anything on a personal level, are run by maybe 1,000 or so individuals. And employ a few 100,000 individuals.

          All decisions are 100% personal responsibility, because entities like corporations or nations can’t decide anything. It’s always individual people.

          • Anemia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I mean I agree with you. Most people who won’t even take basic personal actions like not flying on vacation twice a yeah and not buying a stupid oversized car. If those people were put in the same position as these CEOs you can bet your left buttcheek that they would maximize profits in the exact same way. We need to both take individual action and also hold each other accountable by changing the law and applying social pressure.

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

            You didn’t. My point was more that voting isn’t enough. Just because there are worse people, that doesn’t mean that we are free of blame. The entire west is living very unsustainable lifestyles. So we both need to stop the big polluters by voting and we also need to do our own part to strive towards reaching sustainability.

            • TheBlue22@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              If everyone suddenly changed their lifestyle to be more sustainable, world would still go to shit. Because again, individuals combined contribute minimally compared to corporations individually.

              Not to mention, “carbon footprint” is a myth made by british petroleum and spread by big oil. It is made exactly to scare people like you, making them think responsible for problems not caused by individuals.

              Only way to combat climate change is systematic, not individual. You can do you and be more sustainable if you want, but don’t spread lies made by the ones actually responsible.

              • Anemia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                If everyone changed their lifestyle the we would solve the climate crisis. It’s not like the big corporations release co2e because it’s fun, they do it because the people want the products (and they want them at a cheap price). Corporations are no angels by any means but they are directly downstream from the people.

                It’s obviously more complicated than that but the idea that big corporations have the sole responsibility is just shifting the blame. You are still responsible for the portion that you put into the atmosphere.

                • johnhowson@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  @Anemia @TheBlue22
                  It’s not quite as simple as that. There are the carbon emissions we actively produce such as fuel in motor vehicles. Then there are passive emissions from transporting items such as foodstuffs which we are not directly responsible for. So changing lifestyle can only achieve so much. Feedback mechanisms such as carbon sequestation through planting trees needs balancing against additional gasses from melting permafrost etc. A global government level effort is what is needed

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

                    I absolutely agree that a global political effort is required to force companies and people to make the required changes. Even if the transportation is an indirect emission I would still say that the consumer is largely responsible. Like if I buy an avocado that is flown from South America to Sweden then I ought to take that emission into account when considering the purchase.

                    The only emissions that i would fully ascribe to the companies are the hidden emissions that the consumer cant be expected to know of. An example would be a big swedish meat company selling meat as “swedish meat” but in reality they took swedish raised animals, transporting them to poland for slaughter and then back to save a bit of money.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What does voting for Capitalism have to do with helping the environment? They are 100% orthogonal to each other.

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

            I didn’t even mention capitalism? Are you responding to the wrong person? My argument is that people ought to vote for the more environmental option.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The fact that you don’t even realize that capitalism is the problem and then you think voting for one of the two capitalist parties will fix anything, shows you don’t care about the problem enough to think deeply about it at all.

              • Anemia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Even if I agreed with you, voting is still important. We need to do what we can in the current situation even if you don’t think it is the full solution.

                What type of action do you propose instead?

                  • Anemia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Out of curiosity, what does that actually mean (political, personal, etc)? What kind of actions have you done in this category?

                    I agree that some forms of actions against companies could be valuable, but as a way to change public opinion.

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

      How do you think those companies pollute? Are they burning fuel at Shell’s headquarters? Or do they have lots of customers who think their personal behavior doesn’t matter?