4 ms·

We can regulate 100 companies, or ask 8 billion people to individually change their behavior. Which of the two pushes responsibility onto amorphous others again

We can regulate 100 companies, or ask 8 billion people to individually change their behavior. Which of the two pushes responsibility onto amorphous others again? Which do you think is more likely to succeed if attempted?

maerF0x0 3y ago
I'm actually in favor of what you're saying, but would attribute that contribution to putting the onus on government (not businesses). To me businesses taking responsibility looks more like 1% for climate change and social responsiblity, which I think companies do poorly due to (seemingly) conflicts of interest. I think we agree in principal on a good path forward, but I disagree that the study says people think the government should regulate more. btw here's a lead for those wondering "why 100 companies?" - https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
Spinnaker_ 3y ago
Are you sure those are two different things? Those 100 companies provide energy, food, transportation, consumer goods etc to many of those 8 billion people. By regulating them you are pushing change on their customers as well.
emodendroket 3y ago
True but it's also true that Saudi Aramco isn't drilling just for the thrill of it.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Ah yes, because for the last hundred years in america, using oil was a choice, instead of a nearly required part of daily life
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    It's simplistic to say "choice!" or "no choice!" like we can boil the whole thing down to one or the other. Yes, you pretty much need to have a car. But plenty of people resisted any effort to, say, build transportation, or even build stuff like HOV lanes, tooth and nail, and that continues to be the case.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Those are largely not the same people who have been warning about climate change.
      - emodendroket 3y ago
        OK… that seems like a different conversation than we were just having.
revelio 3y ago
You're arguing something different. maerF0x0 is saying that survey respondents are saying what they think they're supposed to say, but they don't really care, which is why they think other people should be the ones to do something. You are saying it's easier to make a small number of powerful people do things than make lots of people do things. In other words, that's the best way to force 8 billion people to do things they don't want to do. That may be so but isn't really related. In particular, if most people don't actually care because they don't think a lot of the claims are true but are afraid of being cancelled for saying so, then there's no moral basis for controlling those 8 billion people by manipulating 100 companies.

maerF0x0 3y ago

I'm actually in favor of what you're saying, but would attribute that contribution to putting the onus on government (not businesses). To me businesses taking responsibility looks more like 1% for climate change and social responsiblity, which I think companies do poorly due to (seemingly) conflicts of interest. I think we agree in principal on a good path forward, but I disagree that the study says people think the government should regulate more. btw here's a lead for those wondering "why 100 companies?" - https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

Spinnaker_ 3y ago

Are you sure those are two different things? Those 100 companies provide energy, food, transportation, consumer goods etc to many of those 8 billion people. By regulating them you are pushing change on their customers as well.

emodendroket 3y ago

True but it's also true that Saudi Aramco isn't drilling just for the thrill of it.

mrguyorama 3y ago
Ah yes, because for the last hundred years in america, using oil was a choice, instead of a nearly required part of daily life
- emodendroket 3y ago
  It's simplistic to say "choice!" or "no choice!" like we can boil the whole thing down to one or the other. Yes, you pretty much need to have a car. But plenty of people resisted any effort to, say, build transportation, or even build stuff like HOV lanes, tooth and nail, and that continues to be the case.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Those are largely not the same people who have been warning about climate change.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      OK… that seems like a different conversation than we were just having.

revelio 3y ago

You're arguing something different. maerF0x0 is saying that survey respondents are saying what they think they're supposed to say, but they don't really care, which is why they think other people should be the ones to do something. You are saying it's easier to make a small number of powerful people do things than make lots of people do things. In other words, that's the best way to force 8 billion people to do things they don't want to do. That may be so but isn't really related. In particular, if most people don't actually care because they don't think a lot of the claims are true but are afraid of being cancelled for saying so, then there's no moral basis for controlling those 8 billion people by manipulating 100 companies.