4 ms·
...also shareholders. I assume the implication is to stop buying their stuff? Or choose other market participants who have lower emissions in their supply chai
by vegetablepotpie 5y ago
...also shareholders.
I assume the implication is to stop buying their stuff? Or choose other market participants who have lower emissions in their supply chain?
Try changing your utility provider. If you go to a store and ask an employee how much carbon was released to produce one or another product, how likely will you get an answer for every product you need in your daily life?
Our markets provide consumers with neither the influence nor the information needed to apply their purchasing power to lower the carbon emissions of corporations. Policy is needed to eliminate emissions.
- gruez 5y ago>...also shareholders Right, but Exxon isn't drilling for oil so they can pay dividends to their shareholders in the form of oil. >I assume the implication is to stop buying their stuff? Yes, what do you think would happen if a corporation saw that demand was dropping? >Our markets provide consumers with neither the influence nor the information needed to apply their purchasing power to lower the carbon emissions of corporations. Policy is needed to eliminate emissions. Refusing to buy such products would lead to it not being produced. What else do you think would happen? That they'll continue producing a surplus and let it pile up? As for still buying the product but wanting it to be less polluting, I agree that policy is the best solution, as long as you can get everyone on board. This is tricky because support for the environment tends to drop when people realize they have to pay for it.