3 ms·

I see your point, but ultimately it's down to you to see that your can ends up in the bin. I think these bottlers latch on to that argument because it's intuiti

I see your point, but ultimately it's down to you to see that your can ends up in the bin. I think these bottlers latch on to that argument because it's intuitive and pretty reasonable

dredmorbius 6y ago
Framing environmental deterioration as the result of poor individual choices—littering, leaving the lights on when we leave a room, failing to car-pool—not only distracts us from identifying and demanding change from the real drivers of environmental decline. It also removes these issues from the political realm to the personal, implying that the solution is in our personal choices rather than in better policies, business practices, and structural context. -- Annie Leonard From the article linked above.
- byecomputer 6y ago
  I read the article, what I'm saying is that it's a go-to argument for these companies because there's truth to it, and when taken at face-value it's really not that audacious to say, "people ought to recycle the containers they buy". Is that sentiment exploited by Coca-Cola and others in a way that makes it encompass more than it really does? Of course. But if it was an all-around flimsy argument then it wouldn't be "ol' faithful", they'd just find a different argument to use instead.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Re-read the passage I quote: the tactic reverses culpability, distracts, projects blame, and results in toxic and divisive holier-than-thou purity tests among and against those advocating for change. At the same time greater effectiveness or the sham appearance of same of recycling or reduction decreases pressures on the packaging industry and those selling goods utilising them, but actually makes the practice more attractive vs. sustainable or less polluting alternatives. And the message resonates through simplicity and guilt, and advertising budgets. Just because a model is simple and transmits readily does not mean it is correct.

I see your point, but ultimately it's down to you to see that your can ends up in the bin. I think these bottlers latch on to that argument because it's intuitive and pretty reasonable

dredmorbius 6y ago

Framing environmental deterioration as the result of poor individual choices—littering, leaving the lights on when we leave a room, failing to car-pool—not only distracts us from identifying and demanding change from the real drivers of environmental decline. It also removes these issues from the political realm to the personal, implying that the solution is in our personal choices rather than in better policies, business practices, and structural context. -- Annie Leonard From the article linked above.

byecomputer 6y ago
I read the article, what I'm saying is that it's a go-to argument for these companies because there's truth to it, and when taken at face-value it's really not that audacious to say, "people ought to recycle the containers they buy". Is that sentiment exploited by Coca-Cola and others in a way that makes it encompass more than it really does? Of course. But if it was an all-around flimsy argument then it wouldn't be "ol' faithful", they'd just find a different argument to use instead.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Re-read the passage I quote: the tactic reverses culpability, distracts, projects blame, and results in toxic and divisive holier-than-thou purity tests among and against those advocating for change. At the same time greater effectiveness or the sham appearance of same of recycling or reduction decreases pressures on the packaging industry and those selling goods utilising them, but actually makes the practice more attractive vs. sustainable or less polluting alternatives. And the message resonates through simplicity and guilt, and advertising budgets. Just because a model is simple and transmits readily does not mean it is correct.