5 ms·

Strange how "carbon footprint" is being thought of as some kind of corporate conspiracy. It is just a number that can be calculated. If you actually do that t

Strange how "carbon footprint" is being thought of as some kind of corporate conspiracy. It is just a number that can be calculated. If you actually do that then you can see clearly that corporate operations are primarily responsible for carbon output. But it also enables people to lower their own carbon output if they so desire. There is no rational way to make this a conspiracy, yet that is where we are now.

vgatherps 4y ago
How much better can you get by pushing production to use greener methods instead of reducing demand or changing it to something else (which would fall on personal consumer activity change or raising cost of production via say carbon tax)? Obviously there's not a clear distinction between the two, i.e. food deserts / car-only locations forcing people to make certain choices, but it seems like for most things outside of energy production meaningful improvement requires a meaningful change in downstream consumer experience/behavior.
subjectsigma 4y ago
Read the linked article. Nobody is arguing that there is literally no such thing as a “carbon footprint”. They are saying there was (is?) a coordinated advertisement campaign designed to help distract people away from supporting legislation of corporations themselves. Whose fault is it that all those bottles are in the ocean - people who bought them and threw them out, or the people who made them in the first place? PepsiCo definitely wants you to think a certain way.
- pksebben 4y ago
  it's not the first time, either. Recall the "weeping native" ad campaign [1]. 1 https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-indian-crying-environment-ads-pollution-1123-20171113-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec...
- tome 4y ago
  I don't understand how it makes sense for PepsiCo to want consumers to think that way, because rectifying the fault would involve consumers purchasing less from PepsiCo.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    The belief, as I understand it is that it is not the consumer's fault, but PepsiCo's. Therefore, consumers should not have to change any behavior, but PepsiCo should have to clean up the bottles. Within this belief framework, if PepsiCo wants people to still buy bottles but recycle, Pepsico is evading the clean up and passing it on to the consumers/public.
mihaic 4y ago
I personally dislike how environmental damage was rebranded as "carbon footprint", since it removes all nuance, ignoring for instance low-CO2 carcinogens that destroy our bodies. This quantification into a single number is also promoted by the corporate propaganda machine, since it gives companies more leeway to bullshit being green. While it's not a coordinated conspiracy, something severely suboptimal is happening. Many identify this but simply don't have a better term to voice their frustration, so we're left with "conspiracy".
- somedude895 4y ago
  Carcinogens and other environmental damage tend to directly affect a country's population and are thus up to governments to regulate. CO2 emissions and climate change are a global issue with hard to quantify effects that can't easily be solved with national legislation. Separating greenhouse gas emissions from other environmental issues absolutely makes sense.
  - mihaic 4y ago
    I agree that separating them makes sense. What's happened in practice is that "carbon footprint" has become almost synonymous with environmental impact as a whole from a responsibility point of view, leading to poor behavior from companies and governments alike for a lack of public pressure.
googlryas 4y ago
Corporations generally operate for the benefit of people in some capacity.
dclowd9901 4y ago
Not a conspiracy. Doesn’t seem like BP conspired with other petroleum groups to come up with it. More like “there is a sense that people are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this global warming thing… since it would be very disruptive to our operations to have regulatory bodies come in (by way of pressure from their constituents), let’s show that we care about the environment too with this PR campaign. It won’t actually be any meaningful steps toward helping the situation, but it effectively takes the pressure off of us.” No doubt they took a page out of gun manufacturing, sugar manufacturing and tobacco playbooks.

vgatherps 4y ago

How much better can you get by pushing production to use greener methods instead of reducing demand or changing it to something else (which would fall on personal consumer activity change or raising cost of production via say carbon tax)? Obviously there's not a clear distinction between the two, i.e. food deserts / car-only locations forcing people to make certain choices, but it seems like for most things outside of energy production meaningful improvement requires a meaningful change in downstream consumer experience/behavior.

subjectsigma 4y ago

Read the linked article. Nobody is arguing that there is literally no such thing as a “carbon footprint”. They are saying there was (is?) a coordinated advertisement campaign designed to help distract people away from supporting legislation of corporations themselves. Whose fault is it that all those bottles are in the ocean - people who bought them and threw them out, or the people who made them in the first place? PepsiCo definitely wants you to think a certain way.

pksebben 4y ago
it's not the first time, either. Recall the "weeping native" ad campaign [1]. 1 https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-indian-crying-environment-ads-pollution-1123-20171113-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec...
tome 4y ago
I don't understand how it makes sense for PepsiCo to want consumers to think that way, because rectifying the fault would involve consumers purchasing less from PepsiCo.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  The belief, as I understand it is that it is not the consumer's fault, but PepsiCo's. Therefore, consumers should not have to change any behavior, but PepsiCo should have to clean up the bottles. Within this belief framework, if PepsiCo wants people to still buy bottles but recycle, Pepsico is evading the clean up and passing it on to the consumers/public.

mihaic 4y ago

I personally dislike how environmental damage was rebranded as "carbon footprint", since it removes all nuance, ignoring for instance low-CO2 carcinogens that destroy our bodies. This quantification into a single number is also promoted by the corporate propaganda machine, since it gives companies more leeway to bullshit being green. While it's not a coordinated conspiracy, something severely suboptimal is happening. Many identify this but simply don't have a better term to voice their frustration, so we're left with "conspiracy".

somedude895 4y ago
Carcinogens and other environmental damage tend to directly affect a country's population and are thus up to governments to regulate. CO2 emissions and climate change are a global issue with hard to quantify effects that can't easily be solved with national legislation. Separating greenhouse gas emissions from other environmental issues absolutely makes sense.
- mihaic 4y ago
  I agree that separating them makes sense. What's happened in practice is that "carbon footprint" has become almost synonymous with environmental impact as a whole from a responsibility point of view, leading to poor behavior from companies and governments alike for a lack of public pressure.

googlryas 4y ago

Corporations generally operate for the benefit of people in some capacity.

dclowd9901 4y ago

Not a conspiracy. Doesn’t seem like BP conspired with other petroleum groups to come up with it. More like “there is a sense that people are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this global warming thing… since it would be very disruptive to our operations to have regulatory bodies come in (by way of pressure from their constituents), let’s show that we care about the environment too with this PR campaign. It won’t actually be any meaningful steps toward helping the situation, but it effectively takes the pressure off of us.” No doubt they took a page out of gun manufacturing, sugar manufacturing and tobacco playbooks.