4 ms·

I'll wager that in order to write this message you used a device which had a certain number of plastic components, and I suppose that the probability of said d

by Pamar 8y ago

I'll wager that in order to write this message you used a device which had a certain number of plastic components, and I suppose that the probability of said device to reach your home or office entirely by muscle or wind powered vehicles are pretty near 0. In other words, while I am sure that "fossil fuel industry" was never motivated by purely altruistic ideas, we have also to take in account that the standard of living we take for granted is in large part due to "fossil fuel industry and all other gross industrial polluters".

KozmoNau7 8y ago
Yeah sure, on that scale everyone is a hypocrite. But unless you want everyone who champions for climate-friendly living to live as a literal hermit in a cave, there is a trade-off. After all, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. We can try to minimize our impact, but the burden is not on the individual, it is on industry. I do try to keep a low personal climate profile, but there is only so much each individual can do, while still being able to sustain a living under the current system. Industry has been given a free pass for far too long, their pollution has been grandfathered in and even considered a necessary evil in the name of Holy Profit. But we are no longer so ignorant to their deleterious effect on our climate and (to put a point on it) the continued existence of humanity on this planet. Corporations could have shaped up and improved their environmental profiles decades and decades ago, when climate scientists first started pointing out the problems. But their didn't, because it was more profitable to continue poisoning the environment and clear cutting the rainforests.
- Pamar 8y ago
  I wasn't trying to paint you as an hypocrite, I have my own "ideals" and I am painfully aware that I have also constantly to make pragmatic choices about these (specifically: I am an ethical vegetarian) - it was just that the original message sounded too much like a rant: especially invoking a pogrom against fuel manufacturers didn't seem to offer any real improvement to the situation of, well, anybody.

by Pamar 8y ago

KozmoNau7 8y ago

Yeah sure, on that scale everyone is a hypocrite. But unless you want everyone who champions for climate-friendly living to live as a literal hermit in a cave, there is a trade-off. After all, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. We can try to minimize our impact, but the burden is not on the individual, it is on industry. I do try to keep a low personal climate profile, but there is only so much each individual can do, while still being able to sustain a living under the current system. Industry has been given a free pass for far too long, their pollution has been grandfathered in and even considered a necessary evil in the name of Holy Profit. But we are no longer so ignorant to their deleterious effect on our climate and (to put a point on it) the continued existence of humanity on this planet. Corporations could have shaped up and improved their environmental profiles decades and decades ago, when climate scientists first started pointing out the problems. But their didn't, because it was more profitable to continue poisoning the environment and clear cutting the rainforests.

Pamar 8y ago
I wasn't trying to paint you as an hypocrite, I have my own "ideals" and I am painfully aware that I have also constantly to make pragmatic choices about these (specifically: I am an ethical vegetarian) - it was just that the original message sounded too much like a rant: especially invoking a pogrom against fuel manufacturers didn't seem to offer any real improvement to the situation of, well, anybody.