3 ms·

Why would you restrict yourself so when 71% of climate emissions are produced by 100 companies?? Never understood the impetus to restrict yourself when we're b

by mptest 3y ago

Why would you restrict yourself so when 71% of climate emissions are produced by 100 companies?? Never understood the impetus to restrict yourself when we're beyond negligible. Carbon footprint propaganda was rhetoric popularized by BP themselves to shift the blame to empathetic people like you and your wife, while they continue to make everything worse. Vote for and organize for serious progressive candidates who take climate seriously in your local elections. That will do a million $ more than you not taking a vacation because of plane emissions while the rich take private flights down to the grocery store.

Gud 3y ago
Still it’s worth changing your individual behavior. Just because Al Gore takes a jet to the grocery doesn’t mean that parent commentators reduction in CO2 emissions has been useless. I think we should work both ways: be conscious about what we can do as individuals and at the same time, organize society.
- mptest 3y ago
  >parent commentators reduction in emissions has been useless Useless? Of course not. Completely negligible? Absolutely, 100%. I'm no climate scientist but voting literally once for the party that believes in climate science probably has about a million x the effect of you not going on vacation. >Be conscious about what we can do as individuals All I'm contesting is that the most effective thing we can do is participate and organize in politics. Not going on vacation and markedly decreasing your quality of life to reduce climate emissions by 1x10^-9999999 percent is naively negligible at best, a propagandized (by an oil company nonetheless) abdication of their larger responsibility to participate in politics causing the actual damage as science denying lunatics fill offices around the nation at worst.
  - MrOwen 3y ago
    I wouldn't disagree with you but I agree with gp that you need both sides. If you had a population that was apathetic and didn't believe change was possible (and did not act accordingly), then really nothing would get done. The only way stuff gets done is through outreach and education. Once a critical mass of people truly believe that the only way forward is through intense environmental law reform, then it will happen. Of course companies will fight tooth and nail to not make it happen but that shouldn't be the primary deterrent for not doing anything about the problem.
    - mptest 3y ago
      >The only way stuff gets done is through outreach and education. Once a critical mass of people truly believe that the only way forward is through intense environmental law reform, then it will happen Exactly. I completely agree with the both sides bit, I just think we've got the direction of priority wrong. Reduction in consumerism comes downstream from that type of education and outreach. Going at consumerism first just makes you seem like a reactionary who wants to "steal our gas stoves" to the ignorant propagandized, and unfortunately needed, masses
  - hnfong 3y ago
    > Not going on vacation and markedly decreasing your quality of life to reduce climate emissions by 1x10^-9999999 percent is naively negligible at best The sad thing is that, with all the COVID lock downs and travel restrictions, carbon emissions only slightly went down a couple percent in 2020, and promptly went back up to "normal" levels in 2021. Given all those rhetorical shaming of individuals to consume less, it's illuminating to actually look at the data and see what's the actual the effect even if you could literally force (instead of shaming) everyone to live that lifestyle.
    - mptest 3y ago
      >Given all those rhetorical shaming of individuals to consume less, it's illuminating to actually look at the data and see what's the actual the effect even if you could literally force (instead of shaming) everyone to live that lifestyle. Yeah, almost like the entire notion of a "carbon footprint" was a piece of propaganda produced by a literal oil company[0] to move the blame of polluting the planet from the corporations that knowingly did it, to earnest and empathetic individuals like the original person I replied to, causing them to abstain from vacation (and more) for negligible benefit while the corporations continue to pollute with impunity. [0] https://youtu.be/1J9LOqiXdpE https://youtu.be/1J9LOqiXdpE
ericmay 3y ago
There are many problems here but to cut to the chase, BP (or whoever) is going to keep selling you oil and gas as long as you keep buying it. Shifting blame on to some faceless corporation and absolving yourself of responsibility is exactly the wrong answer.
- mptest 3y ago
  >Shifting blame and absolving yourself Reckless misrepresentation of my comment. I suggested that political action is what you should do, not spend your days worrying about how many plastic straws you used. I'm suggesting all empirics point to the notion that tackling regulation of corporations would have a trillion x the effects of you not allowing yourself to go on vacation because planes = bad. I am not suggesting any absolution of responsibility. I'm suggesting we look at the basic math behind carbon consumption and note the pretty clear picture painted by 100 companies producing 71% of emissions. Voting/organizing for politicians that actually change the subsidies given to fossil fuel companies among a litany of other reductions is and always will be a billion x more productive than needlessly preventing yourself from having a nice vacation.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    100 companies producing 71% of emissions to sell us products that we continue to buy. You can’t have a nice vacation in which you hop on an airliner and then rent an SUV to drive around Banff or whatever without these emissions. It’s contradictory. Consumption reduction has to happen while you also stop subsidies and create emission regulations that can reduce the ongoing damage. If you aren’t willing to make personal changes then nothing will get done because you’ll complain about gas being $19/gallon and a new iPhone costing $4,000 and demand the same economic incentives (emissions) that make our lifestyle artificially cheap. It’s a fair amount of cognitive dissonance that is required to not put 2 and 2 together here. To your point, we can do many things at once. But personal consumption reduction everyone likes to hand wave away because it’s easy to just keep doing what you’re doing today and say well if only the corporations maaan.
    - 3y ago
ianburrell 3y ago
The companies are producing climate emissions on your behalf. Oil companies are making gasoline for you to burn, natural gas companies are pumping it to you to burn, and electric companies are burning coal to make electricity for you. On the other side, changing your behavior is a drop in the ocean. Everybody needs to change their behavior. But your behavior will need to change at some point so helps to do it now, and model it to your neighbors. The companies are a target for regulation, or opponents. But the behavior of consumers will have to be regulated. They definitely have distracted people by talking about stuff like plastics and recycling. When it is energy and how it is produced that matters. A lot of stuff will become green when energy and transport is green.
- mptest 3y ago
  >The companies are producing climate emissions on your behalf Let's not be naive, most if not all things they produce on my behalf could easily be produced with a more ecological process, it would simply require reduction of profit to retool/rebuild infrastructure. Which we all know is only going to happen by enforcement/regulation. If all of that's true, political action is the answer for "most effective individual action you can take to impact climate change", not "abstaining from vacation and plastic straws". >A lot of stuff will become green when energy and transport is green. Exactly, which is why we should utilize regulation to tip the economic scales of profitability in different methods of energy production... And other such legislative tools we can use to incentivize such transitions... All of which relies not on "paper straws" but on concerted political action.
raffraffraff 3y ago
Those 100 companies get paid with our money. The choices we make drive the market. My purchasing choices (or lack thereof) will have far more impact on co² reduction than my vote, because there isn't a single candidate, let alone party, that is going to do a damn thing about it. If being close to carbon neutral does nothing more than let me say "I did my best, so I'm not gonna beat myself up", them so be it. That's actually quite a lot in my book. Oh to be a sociopath! I could do as I please and not worry about my conscience!
- mptest 3y ago
  >Those 100 companies get paid with our money. As I've commented before, the things we all consume could be produced more ecologically, at the cost of reduced profits. Which will never happen unless through legislation. >My purchasing choices (or lack thereof) will have far more impact on co² reduction than my vote Agree to disagree here. Heard of the EPA? What purchase can you make that has anywhere near the impact of an institution like that? (Before it was regulatory captured...) >there isn't a single candidate, let alone party, that is going to do a damn thing about it Patently false. Plenty has been done research and legislation wise, but since there isn't enough support to get stuff like the green new deal passed, what are we do to? Oh, elect more politicians that DO support it? Think i mentioned something like that... >If being close to carbon neutral does nothing more than let me say "I did my best, so I'm not gonna beat myself up", them so be it Again, not saying you should stop, just saying a conscientious actor might feel even better if you did a notably more effective action, and it might do a lot more for climate change to boot. > I could do as I please and not worry about my conscience! Another misrepresentation of my stance. I am not suggesting that, I'm simply suggesting political action is a much more efficacious approach. The fact you believe not a single politician cares about climate change is a depressing and inaccurate stance that does explain your position though, as much as I disagree with it.

by mptest 3y ago

Gud 3y ago

Still it’s worth changing your individual behavior. Just because Al Gore takes a jet to the grocery doesn’t mean that parent commentators reduction in CO2 emissions has been useless. I think we should work both ways: be conscious about what we can do as individuals and at the same time, organize society.

mptest 3y ago
>parent commentators reduction in emissions has been useless Useless? Of course not. Completely negligible? Absolutely, 100%. I'm no climate scientist but voting literally once for the party that believes in climate science probably has about a million x the effect of you not going on vacation. >Be conscious about what we can do as individuals All I'm contesting is that the most effective thing we can do is participate and organize in politics. Not going on vacation and markedly decreasing your quality of life to reduce climate emissions by 1x10^-9999999 percent is naively negligible at best, a propagandized (by an oil company nonetheless) abdication of their larger responsibility to participate in politics causing the actual damage as science denying lunatics fill offices around the nation at worst.
- MrOwen 3y ago
  I wouldn't disagree with you but I agree with gp that you need both sides. If you had a population that was apathetic and didn't believe change was possible (and did not act accordingly), then really nothing would get done. The only way stuff gets done is through outreach and education. Once a critical mass of people truly believe that the only way forward is through intense environmental law reform, then it will happen. Of course companies will fight tooth and nail to not make it happen but that shouldn't be the primary deterrent for not doing anything about the problem.
  - mptest 3y ago
    >The only way stuff gets done is through outreach and education. Once a critical mass of people truly believe that the only way forward is through intense environmental law reform, then it will happen Exactly. I completely agree with the both sides bit, I just think we've got the direction of priority wrong. Reduction in consumerism comes downstream from that type of education and outreach. Going at consumerism first just makes you seem like a reactionary who wants to "steal our gas stoves" to the ignorant propagandized, and unfortunately needed, masses
- hnfong 3y ago
  > Not going on vacation and markedly decreasing your quality of life to reduce climate emissions by 1x10^-9999999 percent is naively negligible at best The sad thing is that, with all the COVID lock downs and travel restrictions, carbon emissions only slightly went down a couple percent in 2020, and promptly went back up to "normal" levels in 2021. Given all those rhetorical shaming of individuals to consume less, it's illuminating to actually look at the data and see what's the actual the effect even if you could literally force (instead of shaming) everyone to live that lifestyle.
  - mptest 3y ago
    >Given all those rhetorical shaming of individuals to consume less, it's illuminating to actually look at the data and see what's the actual the effect even if you could literally force (instead of shaming) everyone to live that lifestyle. Yeah, almost like the entire notion of a "carbon footprint" was a piece of propaganda produced by a literal oil company[0] to move the blame of polluting the planet from the corporations that knowingly did it, to earnest and empathetic individuals like the original person I replied to, causing them to abstain from vacation (and more) for negligible benefit while the corporations continue to pollute with impunity. [0] https://youtu.be/1J9LOqiXdpE https://youtu.be/1J9LOqiXdpE

ericmay 3y ago

There are many problems here but to cut to the chase, BP (or whoever) is going to keep selling you oil and gas as long as you keep buying it. Shifting blame on to some faceless corporation and absolving yourself of responsibility is exactly the wrong answer.

mptest 3y ago
>Shifting blame and absolving yourself Reckless misrepresentation of my comment. I suggested that political action is what you should do, not spend your days worrying about how many plastic straws you used. I'm suggesting all empirics point to the notion that tackling regulation of corporations would have a trillion x the effects of you not allowing yourself to go on vacation because planes = bad. I am not suggesting any absolution of responsibility. I'm suggesting we look at the basic math behind carbon consumption and note the pretty clear picture painted by 100 companies producing 71% of emissions. Voting/organizing for politicians that actually change the subsidies given to fossil fuel companies among a litany of other reductions is and always will be a billion x more productive than needlessly preventing yourself from having a nice vacation.
- ericmay 3y ago
  100 companies producing 71% of emissions to sell us products that we continue to buy. You can’t have a nice vacation in which you hop on an airliner and then rent an SUV to drive around Banff or whatever without these emissions. It’s contradictory. Consumption reduction has to happen while you also stop subsidies and create emission regulations that can reduce the ongoing damage. If you aren’t willing to make personal changes then nothing will get done because you’ll complain about gas being $19/gallon and a new iPhone costing $4,000 and demand the same economic incentives (emissions) that make our lifestyle artificially cheap. It’s a fair amount of cognitive dissonance that is required to not put 2 and 2 together here. To your point, we can do many things at once. But personal consumption reduction everyone likes to hand wave away because it’s easy to just keep doing what you’re doing today and say well if only the corporations maaan.
  - 3y ago

ianburrell 3y ago

The companies are producing climate emissions on your behalf. Oil companies are making gasoline for you to burn, natural gas companies are pumping it to you to burn, and electric companies are burning coal to make electricity for you. On the other side, changing your behavior is a drop in the ocean. Everybody needs to change their behavior. But your behavior will need to change at some point so helps to do it now, and model it to your neighbors. The companies are a target for regulation, or opponents. But the behavior of consumers will have to be regulated. They definitely have distracted people by talking about stuff like plastics and recycling. When it is energy and how it is produced that matters. A lot of stuff will become green when energy and transport is green.

mptest 3y ago
>The companies are producing climate emissions on your behalf Let's not be naive, most if not all things they produce on my behalf could easily be produced with a more ecological process, it would simply require reduction of profit to retool/rebuild infrastructure. Which we all know is only going to happen by enforcement/regulation. If all of that's true, political action is the answer for "most effective individual action you can take to impact climate change", not "abstaining from vacation and plastic straws". >A lot of stuff will become green when energy and transport is green. Exactly, which is why we should utilize regulation to tip the economic scales of profitability in different methods of energy production... And other such legislative tools we can use to incentivize such transitions... All of which relies not on "paper straws" but on concerted political action.

raffraffraff 3y ago

Those 100 companies get paid with our money. The choices we make drive the market. My purchasing choices (or lack thereof) will have far more impact on co² reduction than my vote, because there isn't a single candidate, let alone party, that is going to do a damn thing about it. If being close to carbon neutral does nothing more than let me say "I did my best, so I'm not gonna beat myself up", them so be it. That's actually quite a lot in my book. Oh to be a sociopath! I could do as I please and not worry about my conscience!

mptest 3y ago
>Those 100 companies get paid with our money. As I've commented before, the things we all consume could be produced more ecologically, at the cost of reduced profits. Which will never happen unless through legislation. >My purchasing choices (or lack thereof) will have far more impact on co² reduction than my vote Agree to disagree here. Heard of the EPA? What purchase can you make that has anywhere near the impact of an institution like that? (Before it was regulatory captured...) >there isn't a single candidate, let alone party, that is going to do a damn thing about it Patently false. Plenty has been done research and legislation wise, but since there isn't enough support to get stuff like the green new deal passed, what are we do to? Oh, elect more politicians that DO support it? Think i mentioned something like that... >If being close to carbon neutral does nothing more than let me say "I did my best, so I'm not gonna beat myself up", them so be it Again, not saying you should stop, just saying a conscientious actor might feel even better if you did a notably more effective action, and it might do a lot more for climate change to boot. > I could do as I please and not worry about my conscience! Another misrepresentation of my stance. I am not suggesting that, I'm simply suggesting political action is a much more efficacious approach. The fact you believe not a single politician cares about climate change is a depressing and inaccurate stance that does explain your position though, as much as I disagree with it.