3 ms·

> consumers wanting to keep consuming and feeling good about it while blaming someone else Strong disagree. It feels like an attempt to convince the public at

> consumers wanting to keep consuming and feeling good about it while blaming someone else Strong disagree. It feels like an attempt to convince the public at large that a) they still have significant agency and b) they should feel extremely guilty and/or empowered by that. This paradox is usually a polite fiction at best, and in the worst-case it's a well-orchestrated psy-op. Like how "recycling" in many communities is just a different funnel that goes to the same dump, or how many good water-preserving citizens are encouraged to have short showers while we ignore the thirsty golf course next door. What are the real scenarios where the habits of the general consumer actually matter, if we stack them up against corporate consumption and those inefficiencies? Does it really make any sense for John Q. Public to feel bad about driving a gas-guzzler to work when the international shipping industry or the municipal/state government isn't looking to upgrade to electric? Or we could talk about the conspicuously missing mass-transit projects that would remove the need for the cars we're supposed to feel guilty about. Why are consumers who are already hard-pressed expected to lead the charge anyway? > feeling good about it while blaming someone else But we don't feel good! We feel bad because we got the wrong light bulbs and dishwashers. Every "drop in the bucket" matters, but going after drops in the first place is a paradox, so we won't feel good after we're living in dark rooms with dirty dishes either. I sure hope this actually matters and it isn't a scam to sell more dishwashers and light bulbs! Like come on, efficient appliances are great, but does it really matter when coal was still ~10% of total U.S. energy consumption in 2022? (source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/use-of-coal.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/use-of-coal.php )

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> Like how "recycling" in many communities is just a different funnel that goes to the same dump, Yes, recycling was a ruse to allow people to keep consuming and feeling good about it. >or how many good water-preserving citizens are encouraged to have short showers while we ignore the thirsty golf course next door. This one is a valid example, and it is very easy to solve. Marginal water prices. The more water you use, the more you pay. Same with electricity. > Does it really make any sense for John Q. Public to feel bad about driving a gas-guzzler to work when the international shipping industry or the municipal/state government isn't looking to upgrade to electric? Yes, because it’s John Q Public that will not vote for a politician to increase fossil fuel taxes high enough to curb excess consumption. In one fell swoop, the problem of carbon emissions and plastic degradation could be solved, but John Q Public WANTS cheap travel and cheap out of season fruits. Also, in this specific example, John Q Public is literally opting to buy gas (and electric) guzzlers instead of more energy efficient vehicles. Nobody forced anyone to buy big SUVs and compact SUVs. >Or we could talk about the conspicuously missing mass-transit projects that would remove the need for the cars we're supposed to feel guilty about. Because John Q Public (at least those with kids) wants detached single family homes on a 0.1 to 0.25 acre lot with a 2 car garage and a front and back yard. And mass transit simply is not tenable at those low population densities. There’s a few people out there willing to make the sacrifices, but by and large, the population will opt for short term comforts. Kind of like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcKqAhLeM-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcKqAhLeM-4
throw10920 3y ago
> they still have significant agency It is objectively true that the public has significant agency, and the empirical evidence is the number of companies that took a political stance on some issue and then had to reverse it because of (uncoordinated) public backlash. Your unfounded assertions are categorically refuted by concrete examples such as Target and Bud Light publicly reversing their stances on some issues after consumer backlash.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

> Like how "recycling" in many communities is just a different funnel that goes to the same dump, Yes, recycling was a ruse to allow people to keep consuming and feeling good about it. >or how many good water-preserving citizens are encouraged to have short showers while we ignore the thirsty golf course next door. This one is a valid example, and it is very easy to solve. Marginal water prices. The more water you use, the more you pay. Same with electricity. > Does it really make any sense for John Q. Public to feel bad about driving a gas-guzzler to work when the international shipping industry or the municipal/state government isn't looking to upgrade to electric? Yes, because it’s John Q Public that will not vote for a politician to increase fossil fuel taxes high enough to curb excess consumption. In one fell swoop, the problem of carbon emissions and plastic degradation could be solved, but John Q Public WANTS cheap travel and cheap out of season fruits. Also, in this specific example, John Q Public is literally opting to buy gas (and electric) guzzlers instead of more energy efficient vehicles. Nobody forced anyone to buy big SUVs and compact SUVs. >Or we could talk about the conspicuously missing mass-transit projects that would remove the need for the cars we're supposed to feel guilty about. Because John Q Public (at least those with kids) wants detached single family homes on a 0.1 to 0.25 acre lot with a 2 car garage and a front and back yard. And mass transit simply is not tenable at those low population densities. There’s a few people out there willing to make the sacrifices, but by and large, the population will opt for short term comforts. Kind of like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcKqAhLeM-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcKqAhLeM-4

throw10920 3y ago

> they still have significant agency It is objectively true that the public has significant agency, and the empirical evidence is the number of companies that took a political stance on some issue and then had to reverse it because of (uncoordinated) public backlash. Your unfounded assertions are categorically refuted by concrete examples such as Target and Bud Light publicly reversing their stances on some issues after consumer backlash.