3 ms·

Consider this. Say completely neutral and impartial scientists have all the data that they need on how certain corporations and industries are having an impact

Consider this. Say completely neutral and impartial scientists have all the data that they need on how certain corporations and industries are having an impact on the environment. Those same corporations still have millions or billions of dollars to frame the narrative. That’s how you got the “carbon footprint” (BP). That’s how “actually you just need to recycle” can be astroturfed. That’s how the conversation and “discourse” can be focused around “consumer choice” and discipline. The result is that everyone knows what the problems are (see: scientists). But you’re stuck spinning your wheels on the BS busywork created by the marketing/spin departments of those corporations. And then there’s you. You’re just one gal. Okay, so maybe you’re cynical to a practical degree so you’re by-default skeptical of whatever “organic trend” that comes up on this topic. But so what? The regular people that are vocal on this issue are gonna come off as naive do-gooders. How could it hurt? Don’t you care about the environment? And what’s your retort to that? You can give them a three-paragraph lecture like this one here and feel like a mid-20th socialist intellectual giving a speech on Ideology. But you’re gonna come off as a crank. Old man/woman yelling at sky. Just some random person with an anti-social pet peeve. So you just go along with it even though it’s gonna end up in the same dump somewhere, you presume.

gruez 3y ago
>The result is that everyone knows what the problems are (see: scientists). But you’re stuck spinning your wheels on the BS busywork created by the marketing/spin departments of those corporations. Is that supposed to be surprising? Just because you know the problem doesn't mean we as a society can agree on what the solution is. During the covid pandemic we could barely agree whether we should do lockdowns or not, whether to shut down schools or not, or whether to force people to vaccinate or not. And this is arguably without "corporations still have millions or billions of dollars to frame the narrative". Going back to plastics and fossil fuels, they're used because they're cheap. Getting people to voluntarily pay more now for supposed benefits decades down the line was always going to be a tough sell. The fact solving global warming has prisoner's dilemma dynamics built into it (ie. you stand to gain economically if you don't cut emissions while everyone else tries to do so) makes it even worse. It's not as simple as just "just stop burning oil".
- keybored 3y ago
  > Is that supposed to be surprising? The whole point of that comment is that the dynamics are not surprising.

gruez 3y ago

>The result is that everyone knows what the problems are (see: scientists). But you’re stuck spinning your wheels on the BS busywork created by the marketing/spin departments of those corporations. Is that supposed to be surprising? Just because you know the problem doesn't mean we as a society can agree on what the solution is. During the covid pandemic we could barely agree whether we should do lockdowns or not, whether to shut down schools or not, or whether to force people to vaccinate or not. And this is arguably without "corporations still have millions or billions of dollars to frame the narrative". Going back to plastics and fossil fuels, they're used because they're cheap. Getting people to voluntarily pay more now for supposed benefits decades down the line was always going to be a tough sell. The fact solving global warming has prisoner's dilemma dynamics built into it (ie. you stand to gain economically if you don't cut emissions while everyone else tries to do so) makes it even worse. It's not as simple as just "just stop burning oil".

keybored 3y ago
> Is that supposed to be surprising? The whole point of that comment is that the dynamics are not surprising.