3 ms·

Sorry for nitpicking on a serious comment, but wouldn't using the royal we here mean that you personally are going to hold polluters and companies liable?

• j4yav 6y ago
  That's correct, the royal we is a case where you use we to mean I.
  • noodlenotes 6y ago
    Using the normal "we" would imply you and the readers of the comment. The royal we implies that you personally (and whatever entities you're in charge of) will hold polluters liable. The royal we seems to excuse the audience from responsibility.
• pmiller2 6y ago
  That would imply they had actual power to do so. One average individual isn't going to be able to do anything to those who are polluting our air. Case in point: the US government is one of the top 10 greenhouse gas polluters in the world. You really think one individual without billions of dollars backing them can do anything against the US government?
  • sjg007 6y ago
    Yep. I do believe one person can make a difference.
    • pmiller2 6y ago
      That's very naive. There are only two hopeful scenarios here: action from the top, and collective action from the bottom. Action from the top means that we will have capitalists willingly going against their own short term interests. This is unlikely to happen; capitalists don't even look past the next quarterly earnings projections if they can help it. Action from the bottom is also unlikely, since people at the bottom of the economic ladder can't take time off work to protest. I don't see any other scenario that even comes close to saving us. At this point, I would say only God could help us, if I believed.