4 ms·
Contrary to the bad point you were making, yes. The article specifically brought up the view "when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible". They went fu
by electricEmu 10y ago
Contrary to the bad point you were making, yes. The article specifically brought up the view "when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible". They went further to explain you are responsible, but these corporations have more obligation and responsibility to cut down emissions.
"Don't bust the pot smokers, but the dealers."
- mc32 10y agoOr don't tax tobacco companies[1] for the ill health effects on smokers but the smokers, in the form of health premiums and life insurance premiums, who choose to smoke despite knowing the detrimental health effects. The thing is, if we want to life a modern lifestyle (i.e. refrigeration, transportation, medicine, etc.) we need energy and at this point in time, we don't have a viable alternative to switch over to tomorrow. As a society we can incentivize alternative and can move away from these sources, but it is disingenuous to frame it as these are the companies ultimately responsible for carbon emissions --we all are. [1]Discounting big tobacco's previous lies about their product's health impact.
- electricEmu 10y agoNeither me nor the article shifted blame and both acknowledge everyone is responsible. So. I large to the bystander effect, nothing changes until someone is pointed out and assigned. Nothing changed with tobacco until they were assigned blame. Nothing will change with oil if we're all bystanders. That's the point of the article.