4 ms·
This sort of argument is something that annoys me incredibly. There isn't a simple answer. Responsibility is shared between the shareholders for failing to dema
by onion2k 3y ago
This sort of argument is something that annoys me incredibly. There isn't a simple answer. Responsibility is shared between the shareholders for failing to demand action, the board for failing to act, the customers for supporting a climate-unfriendly company, and the government for failing to regulate well enough, and probably many others. The result is the action of a system that has complex interlinked parts. You can't just point a finger and say "no, it's their fault" and absolve all the other parties. This is a major part of why climate change is a problem - no single party can solve it without action from the rest, and most of the parties have antagonistic goals.
If you're intelligent enough to read and comment on HN, you should be capable of thinking about things in a more nuanced way.
- Qwertious 3y agoThe government is made up of employees, politicians, and lobbyists. The employees are trying to act, the politicians are doing whatever they need to get reelected, and the lobbyists are actively sabotaging any progress that might interfere with corporate profits.
- mavhc 3y agoThe responsibility is only on the government for allowing the pollution of the commons for less than the cost of cleaning it up. Getting away with not paying your externalities is the reason things are cheaper than your competition. Tax pollution correctly.
- vimsee 3y ago>..action of a system that has complex interlinked parts. This is such a well formulated response and I just wanted to include part of it that I feel clicked with me. If I understand correctly, one entity cant take all blame because that entity also depends on actions from another entity.
- cutemonster 3y ago> one entity cant take all blame It depends, in some (rare?) cases, they can. Could depend on, for example, who knew about it but ignored it, who did it intentionally, who didn't know about it.
- deely3 3y agoAnd this comment annoys me incredibly too. (I'm not trying to fight, honestly) Yes, there no simple answer, but we have to somehow define the answer. If someone did something wrong we can indefinitely add "but someome have valid reasons to do it.." but thats does not invalidate fact that someone did something wrong and should be punished for it. I mean, does customers/people while buying something from big company should check big company logistic, partners, technologies,travel records to define climate impact of this company?
- onion2k 3y agothats does not invalidate fact that someone did something wrong and should be punished for it No one did anything illegal, and that's the only standard that really counts. Whether something is legal is society's agreed level of whether something is wrong or not. Otherwise it can only be described as disagreeable or maybe immoral. That's why the government are partly responsible - they failed to legislate well enough.