4 ms·
I personally dislike how environmental damage was rebranded as "carbon footprint", since it removes all nuance, ignoring for instance low-CO2 carcinogens that d
by 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 agoCarcinogens 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 agoI 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.