3 ms·
It is a red herring. It reminds me how soda companies shift blame on their customers: "exercise more, don't blame our sugar water". Actually, what and how much
by d0mine 10y ago
It is a red herring.
It reminds me how soda companies shift blame on their customers: "exercise more, don't blame our sugar water". Actually, what and how much you eat/drink is much more important than the exercise, to fight obesity.
Another (BS) example: "shower less to save water" -- compare the agricultural water consumption (giant) vs. the household needs (negligible by comparison).
If a corporation destroys the planet; its products should include the price today (e.g., via a tax): the problem fixes itself.
- AWildDHHAppears 10y agoNobody ever said exercise more. (That may be bad advice for obese people too, because it will make them hungrier and they may injure their already strained joints). Plus, it won't help the environment. (That's the subject here!) Just eat less!
- d0mine 10y agoIn case you are not playing stupid intentionally, my point: blame corporations, not people: tax corporations that contribute to the global warming today (that may have a real effect even if it is almost impossible to implement -- it should be easier with each more frequent natural disaster) instead of suggesting "eat less" to the whole population (that won't have nearly the same effect and it is even more impossible to implement).
- rbanffy 10y agoHe actually has a point. While corporations have their share of responsibility, so do individuals who choose the quick rewards of sugar/sodium/fat. Not that asking an addict to quit is really helpful...