4 ms·

Should the conversation be production or consumption? Who's really to blame?

waihtis 2y ago
I agree, there's roughly three parties to blame, the large corps, the junk manufacturers and the idiots who buy cheap chinese junk en masse
- bel-crow 2y ago
  This might be ever so slightly off-topic and a silly question but why aren't sites like SHEIN being banned like Tik-Tok? They cause infinite harm, and clearly we're capable of banning big chinese sites, so why the holdup on SHEIN/Temu? I saw news about Congress members in the US calling for bans last year but nothing happened.
  - deelowe 2y ago
    Because TikTok was likely banned for not cooperating with intelligence agencies or perhaps cooperating with the wrong ones.
liotier 2y ago
Carbon tax, including as international tariff would sidestep that question, make the emitter pay and let the consumer choose.
brightball 2y ago
When it comes to regulations, production. Stricter laws in the US just lead to shipping production overseas to locations with less strict regulation.
- itishappy 2y ago
  Regulate trade. Carbon taxes on production and shipping disincentivize this.
  - brightball 2y ago
    That gets very messy very quickly. You could have just as easily taken that step on labor conditions years ago.
have_faith 2y ago
Consumption isn't a perfect knowledge game (although people are more educated now than they used to be). Individuals are never going to be perfectly equipped to evaluate the ramifications of every purchase they make. Regulations on production and the impact of delivering certain goods are the only real solutions. Because production itself can induce demand, it has to take at least part of the responsibility.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  We are well past being equipped to know the ramifications of using energy to move mass long distances. Using more space, traveling further distances, and moving more mass is all it comes down to. In order of impact, it means detached homes, individual huge car and air transport, animal food products, and shipping things across oceans (aka things stamped with made in China). Approximately no one is willing to give up these luxuries on a nation scale.
  - dgacmu 2y ago
    You're placing the blame on the wrong thing - The embodied energy of producing most of the things we consume is much higher than the energy of shipping. Shipping on a massive container ship is really impressively efficient. (Shipping by air is a very different matter, of course) You can see the same thing if you look at the energy cost of food shipping: perishable goods like asparagus are shipped in refrigerated planes, and the added energy of shipping is huge, whereas bananas are shipped on cargo ships. https://ourworldindata.org/food-transport-by-mode https://ourworldindata.org/food-transport-by-mode For example
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      True, I should have replaced shipping with the mass of everything else we consume.
card_zero 2y ago
The people in control of emissions policies. 1. Governments. 2. In functioning democracies, voters. And yes, production.

I agree, there's roughly three parties to blame, the large corps, the junk manufacturers and the idiots who buy cheap chinese junk en masse

bel-crow 2y ago
This might be ever so slightly off-topic and a silly question but why aren't sites like SHEIN being banned like Tik-Tok? They cause infinite harm, and clearly we're capable of banning big chinese sites, so why the holdup on SHEIN/Temu? I saw news about Congress members in the US calling for bans last year but nothing happened.
- deelowe 2y ago
  Because TikTok was likely banned for not cooperating with intelligence agencies or perhaps cooperating with the wrong ones.

liotier 2y ago

Carbon tax, including as international tariff would sidestep that question, make the emitter pay and let the consumer choose.

brightball 2y ago

When it comes to regulations, production. Stricter laws in the US just lead to shipping production overseas to locations with less strict regulation.

itishappy 2y ago
Regulate trade. Carbon taxes on production and shipping disincentivize this.
- brightball 2y ago
  That gets very messy very quickly. You could have just as easily taken that step on labor conditions years ago.

have_faith 2y ago

Consumption isn't a perfect knowledge game (although people are more educated now than they used to be). Individuals are never going to be perfectly equipped to evaluate the ramifications of every purchase they make. Regulations on production and the impact of delivering certain goods are the only real solutions. Because production itself can induce demand, it has to take at least part of the responsibility.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
We are well past being equipped to know the ramifications of using energy to move mass long distances. Using more space, traveling further distances, and moving more mass is all it comes down to. In order of impact, it means detached homes, individual huge car and air transport, animal food products, and shipping things across oceans (aka things stamped with made in China). Approximately no one is willing to give up these luxuries on a nation scale.
- dgacmu 2y ago
  You're placing the blame on the wrong thing - The embodied energy of producing most of the things we consume is much higher than the energy of shipping. Shipping on a massive container ship is really impressively efficient. (Shipping by air is a very different matter, of course) You can see the same thing if you look at the energy cost of food shipping: perishable goods like asparagus are shipped in refrigerated planes, and the added energy of shipping is huge, whereas bananas are shipped on cargo ships. https://ourworldindata.org/food-transport-by-mode https://ourworldindata.org/food-transport-by-mode For example
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    True, I should have replaced shipping with the mass of everything else we consume.

card_zero 2y ago

The people in control of emissions policies. 1. Governments. 2. In functioning democracies, voters. And yes, production.