3 ms·

> The overwhelming majority of emissions come from industry, Producing... what, exactly? Right, "consumer goods." Or upstream supply chains for said, or mach

by Syonyk 5y ago

> The overwhelming majority of emissions come from industry, Producing... what, exactly? Right, "consumer goods." Or upstream supply chains for said, or machines to produce the machines that build said, or... etc. "Consume less" solves an awful lot of problems too, but when the people who talk loudest about how awful climate change is going to be aren't willing to do so, they're unlikely to lead many people. Like her or not, Greta at least attempts to live something resembling a sane response to what she's talking about.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> Producing... what, exactly? Right, "consumer goods." Or upstream supply chains for said, or machines to produce the machines that build said, or... etc. Sorry to ruin your mic drop moment, but... Of course, there is no way for individuals to know how much pollution was involved in the manufacture of the item, so the fact that they're manufacturing things that ultimately bottom out in consumer goods and services doesn't actually do anything. Even if you really want to minimize your footprint, you basically have to trust the packaging about whether the product is actually "green" ("greenwashing" exists as a term precisely because the packaging can't be trusted). But you can't cheat carbon pricing. And consumers don't even need to care about the environment--carbon pricing aligns their economic interests with the interests of the climate, so the cheapest products will be the greenest. Of course, that really puts a damper on the fun for those of us who like to make a big show about how much we sacrifice for the environment.
- Syonyk 5y ago
  ... or I could just not buy the thing in the first place, find a way to reuse something else, etc.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I have a hard time taking this suggestion seriously, because it amounts to asking everyone to give up every material pleasure with no actual sense of the degree to which it harms the environment, particularly when we could instead change the system to produce things with minimal harm to the environment. But again, I recognize that's no fun for the folks whose identity is wrapped up in sacrificing "for the environment". It's politically impossible, there's everything to lose, and there's nothing to gain over a carbon pricing scheme. That said, if I were in charge of Exxon's marketing apparatus, I would absolutely campaign to get people to think that they could personal-responsibility their way out of this problem. Go environmentalists! You can do it! Put your back into it!
    - Syonyk 5y ago
      > ...particularly when we could instead change the system to produce things with minimal harm to the environment. Hold on, you're shifting your posts here somewhat. Minimal carbon emissions, or minimal harm to the environment? They're not the same thing, and minimizing one may or may not minimize the other in the process.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        I'm operating on the assumption that GHG emissions are overwhelmingly the largest threat to the environment (and thus human civilization) such that minimizing emissions and minimizing harm to the environment are functionally the same thing. I don't know of any serious emissions-reducing proposals which would actually do more harm to the environment than maintaining our emissions trajectory.
  - andrekandre 5y ago
    we are all born into a system that limits what we can do try surviving in the u.s without a car (gasoline) or shopping at a supermarket where everything is packaged in plastics we don't have much choice in where our electricity comes from, nor what companies choose to package things in... what individuals can do is tiny compared to those in industry and billions if not trillions of capital to invest and research in better more sustainable methods and materials also, corporations are in competition with each other which also limits how much profits they can give up pursuing said goals... our entire system make dealing with this externality incredibly difficult

by Syonyk 5y ago

throwaway894345 5y ago

> Producing... what, exactly? Right, "consumer goods." Or upstream supply chains for said, or machines to produce the machines that build said, or... etc. Sorry to ruin your mic drop moment, but... Of course, there is no way for individuals to know how much pollution was involved in the manufacture of the item, so the fact that they're manufacturing things that ultimately bottom out in consumer goods and services doesn't actually do anything. Even if you really want to minimize your footprint, you basically have to trust the packaging about whether the product is actually "green" ("greenwashing" exists as a term precisely because the packaging can't be trusted). But you can't cheat carbon pricing. And consumers don't even need to care about the environment--carbon pricing aligns their economic interests with the interests of the climate, so the cheapest products will be the greenest. Of course, that really puts a damper on the fun for those of us who like to make a big show about how much we sacrifice for the environment.

Syonyk 5y ago
... or I could just not buy the thing in the first place, find a way to reuse something else, etc.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I have a hard time taking this suggestion seriously, because it amounts to asking everyone to give up every material pleasure with no actual sense of the degree to which it harms the environment, particularly when we could instead change the system to produce things with minimal harm to the environment. But again, I recognize that's no fun for the folks whose identity is wrapped up in sacrificing "for the environment". It's politically impossible, there's everything to lose, and there's nothing to gain over a carbon pricing scheme. That said, if I were in charge of Exxon's marketing apparatus, I would absolutely campaign to get people to think that they could personal-responsibility their way out of this problem. Go environmentalists! You can do it! Put your back into it!
  - Syonyk 5y ago
    > ...particularly when we could instead change the system to produce things with minimal harm to the environment. Hold on, you're shifting your posts here somewhat. Minimal carbon emissions, or minimal harm to the environment? They're not the same thing, and minimizing one may or may not minimize the other in the process.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      I'm operating on the assumption that GHG emissions are overwhelmingly the largest threat to the environment (and thus human civilization) such that minimizing emissions and minimizing harm to the environment are functionally the same thing. I don't know of any serious emissions-reducing proposals which would actually do more harm to the environment than maintaining our emissions trajectory.
- andrekandre 5y ago
  we are all born into a system that limits what we can do try surviving in the u.s without a car (gasoline) or shopping at a supermarket where everything is packaged in plastics we don't have much choice in where our electricity comes from, nor what companies choose to package things in... what individuals can do is tiny compared to those in industry and billions if not trillions of capital to invest and research in better more sustainable methods and materials also, corporations are in competition with each other which also limits how much profits they can give up pursuing said goals... our entire system make dealing with this externality incredibly difficult