4 ms·

I know odds are against us. If you really care about nature spend that 4 to 7 hours. Talk to your company and make it a policy, might be a fraction of your coll

I know odds are against us. If you really care about nature spend that 4 to 7 hours. Talk to your company and make it a policy, might be a fraction of your colleagues will do it. Meat, plastic and electronics are the problems I agree completely. We can change the packaging slightly. I already heard a lot about some vendors in Germany are going PET-less solution, TamilNadu (a state in India) also started banning plastics and packaging. My core idea is social policies will not change unless people are willing to accept it. When your locality goes zero-plastic bags, you will start seeing the influences that it creates on your local supplier and then it expands. It is how nature works and definitely, it takes time and effort but slowly it will (may) change the world. But in the end, it will remain at least we tried.

nobodyandproud 7y ago
Anyone who takes up this cause naively will lose out to people and organizations that don’t care. By lose out, I mean they will lose political and economic influence. If people who care have a significant overhead compared to those who don’t, guess who expands and has lobbying money and time? At a company-level, a 1% overhead can be rather steep cost. Really, my individual effort isn’t enough. Just look at littering. I don’t litter, but there are too many people around me that do. And this is with an action that has almost zero cost to individuals! The way to ensure we don’t kill ourselves is by tilting the market to favor sustainable approaches. Steeper Import taxes. Removal of certain subsidies. Adding other subsidies. Tax breaks to encourage repairs. At-purchase disposal fees. Packaging taxes. Etc. The scale of the problem involves billions of individuals. The scale of the solution must match, and must not favor cheaters or don’t-care organizations. Or it will fail.

nobodyandproud 7y ago

Anyone who takes up this cause naively will lose out to people and organizations that don’t care. By lose out, I mean they will lose political and economic influence. If people who care have a significant overhead compared to those who don’t, guess who expands and has lobbying money and time? At a company-level, a 1% overhead can be rather steep cost. Really, my individual effort isn’t enough. Just look at littering. I don’t litter, but there are too many people around me that do. And this is with an action that has almost zero cost to individuals! The way to ensure we don’t kill ourselves is by tilting the market to favor sustainable approaches. Steeper Import taxes. Removal of certain subsidies. Adding other subsidies. Tax breaks to encourage repairs. At-purchase disposal fees. Packaging taxes. Etc. The scale of the problem involves billions of individuals. The scale of the solution must match, and must not favor cheaters or don’t-care organizations. Or it will fail.