3 ms·

It's similar to when folks say "big corporations" or "oil companies" are responsible for climate change. No Karen, you are the reason those companies can and do

It's similar to when folks say "big corporations" or "oil companies" are responsible for climate change. No Karen, you are the reason those companies can and do sell their products. It's a method of diverting personal responsibility, IMHO.

impossiblefork 2y ago
No, it is the oil companies and that oil is permitted to be used. When something is permitted, it becomes mandatory to somebody, and oil is used widely. Personally choosing to avoid products that used oil in their manufacturing would basically relegate you to having to farm your own food by hand. That is not feasible in a society with competition.
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  And equally, not permitting oil to be used would create a multi-continental scale famine with hundreds of millions dying.
  - weweweoo 2y ago
    Obviously the transition away from oil should be gradual, and the sectors which are hardest to transition could be given more time to do so. But there's no fundamental need for large scale use of oil, it's just the current infrastructure and limited tech that's the problem. Hundreds of millions will die due to climate change if we don't act.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    I'm sure it would, but it could also be avoided without any major problems. The problem I think, is that oil would still be mandatory because of competition between countries. Especially if there were wars.
secretsatan 2y ago
I don't buy that, making it a personal responsibility problem was an implemented strategy by those responsible to avoid having to pay the price of doing anything about it. We literally have no choice but to make small insignificant changes that does not harm the bottom line of those responsible too much.
weweweoo 2y ago
No, things should be regulated so that individuals have no choice but to do the right thing. It's governments responsibility to steer Karen towards more sustainable consumption choices. Either tax unsustainable business to make it unprofitable, or tax purchase of their services so that it's not rational for Karen to buy their product / services. The ecological choice should be made the cheapest. Universally in this world people live most ecologically in parts of the world where they are too poor to act otherwise, not where they are most climate or environment conscious. Voluntary personal responsibility gets you nowhere when it comes to solving large-scale problems.
- elcritch 2y ago
  > Either tax unsustainable business to make it unprofitable, or tax purchase of their services so that it's not rational for Karen to buy their product / services. The ecological choice should be made the cheapest. That sounds great and all until your granny can’t afford heat in the winter or there’s no food in the stores, etc. Then people will vote out the politicians making the policies or revolt. That’s what I’m talking about personal responsibility. Not regarding individual actions per se, but accepting that most of us in the developed world are as complicit as the big oil companies. That said, technology is improving to where the cheapest option is the ecological one for power. A fair bit of that has been due to individual actions of many folks wanting and paying for solar power and electric vehicles, etc. Ironically to me, the individual preferences of the Green Party members also put lots of political pressure to shutdown nuclear power in Germany. That caused Germany to fallback to coal and natural gas.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Hey don’t get me wrong, we kinda suck in first world countries, but oil companies are run by people with full awareness of what they’re doing and the agency to stop who choose not to stop singly because they’re too interested in raking in money they will never even find a use for.
- snikeris 2y ago
  > No, things should be regulated so that individuals have no choice but to do the right thing. Good luck clawing back the 10% of SNAP benefits spent on soda.
watwut 2y ago
It is other way round. Good half "personality responsibility" claims are all about corporate acts being blamed on people who cant influence them.
consteval 2y ago
Ultimately the end consumer has little to no control, or knowledge, to enact this. Yes everyone should be ethical in their consumption. If I gave you an arbitrary product and asked you to tell me if its ethically sourced, there's a high chance you can't. Even if I give you the internet and a week to research. So, that's one problem. Another problem is that even if you could tell what is/isn't ethical you can't necessarily switch away. Sometimes the more ethical choices aren't available, or are too expensive, or are outlandish. I'm sure everyone in the US would love to eat grass fed pasture raised beef. Meredith, who works two shifts at the town Dairy Queen, who's trying to give her son some protein, so his tiny muscles don't atrophy, doesn't have the funds for that. Cars and oil are perhaps the most clear-cut example of this. People don't drive because they want to, they do it because they have to. It's literally life or death. A car in the US isn't just a box on wheels, it's a lifeline.
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
Is it Karen’s fault when she is told by her media for thirty years that climate change is bs? Is it her fault that she tries to recycle, but most of the plastic she puts in the bin is misleadingly labeled and has to be sorted out? Is it Karen’s fault she drives a gas car to work because public transit is underdeveloped and electric cars are too expensive? Framing climate change as a matter of personal responsibility is extremely counterproductive IMHO.

impossiblefork 2y ago

No, it is the oil companies and that oil is permitted to be used. When something is permitted, it becomes mandatory to somebody, and oil is used widely. Personally choosing to avoid products that used oil in their manufacturing would basically relegate you to having to farm your own food by hand. That is not feasible in a society with competition.

dukeyukey 2y ago
And equally, not permitting oil to be used would create a multi-continental scale famine with hundreds of millions dying.
- weweweoo 2y ago
  Obviously the transition away from oil should be gradual, and the sectors which are hardest to transition could be given more time to do so. But there's no fundamental need for large scale use of oil, it's just the current infrastructure and limited tech that's the problem. Hundreds of millions will die due to climate change if we don't act.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  I'm sure it would, but it could also be avoided without any major problems. The problem I think, is that oil would still be mandatory because of competition between countries. Especially if there were wars.

secretsatan 2y ago

I don't buy that, making it a personal responsibility problem was an implemented strategy by those responsible to avoid having to pay the price of doing anything about it. We literally have no choice but to make small insignificant changes that does not harm the bottom line of those responsible too much.

weweweoo 2y ago

No, things should be regulated so that individuals have no choice but to do the right thing. It's governments responsibility to steer Karen towards more sustainable consumption choices. Either tax unsustainable business to make it unprofitable, or tax purchase of their services so that it's not rational for Karen to buy their product / services. The ecological choice should be made the cheapest. Universally in this world people live most ecologically in parts of the world where they are too poor to act otherwise, not where they are most climate or environment conscious. Voluntary personal responsibility gets you nowhere when it comes to solving large-scale problems.

elcritch 2y ago
> Either tax unsustainable business to make it unprofitable, or tax purchase of their services so that it's not rational for Karen to buy their product / services. The ecological choice should be made the cheapest. That sounds great and all until your granny can’t afford heat in the winter or there’s no food in the stores, etc. Then people will vote out the politicians making the policies or revolt. That’s what I’m talking about personal responsibility. Not regarding individual actions per se, but accepting that most of us in the developed world are as complicit as the big oil companies. That said, technology is improving to where the cheapest option is the ecological one for power. A fair bit of that has been due to individual actions of many folks wanting and paying for solar power and electric vehicles, etc. Ironically to me, the individual preferences of the Green Party members also put lots of political pressure to shutdown nuclear power in Germany. That caused Germany to fallback to coal and natural gas.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  Hey don’t get me wrong, we kinda suck in first world countries, but oil companies are run by people with full awareness of what they’re doing and the agency to stop who choose not to stop singly because they’re too interested in raking in money they will never even find a use for.
snikeris 2y ago
> No, things should be regulated so that individuals have no choice but to do the right thing. Good luck clawing back the 10% of SNAP benefits spent on soda.

watwut 2y ago

It is other way round. Good half "personality responsibility" claims are all about corporate acts being blamed on people who cant influence them.

consteval 2y ago

Ultimately the end consumer has little to no control, or knowledge, to enact this. Yes everyone should be ethical in their consumption. If I gave you an arbitrary product and asked you to tell me if its ethically sourced, there's a high chance you can't. Even if I give you the internet and a week to research. So, that's one problem. Another problem is that even if you could tell what is/isn't ethical you can't necessarily switch away. Sometimes the more ethical choices aren't available, or are too expensive, or are outlandish. I'm sure everyone in the US would love to eat grass fed pasture raised beef. Meredith, who works two shifts at the town Dairy Queen, who's trying to give her son some protein, so his tiny muscles don't atrophy, doesn't have the funds for that. Cars and oil are perhaps the most clear-cut example of this. People don't drive because they want to, they do it because they have to. It's literally life or death. A car in the US isn't just a box on wheels, it's a lifeline.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago

Is it Karen’s fault when she is told by her media for thirty years that climate change is bs? Is it her fault that she tries to recycle, but most of the plastic she puts in the bin is misleadingly labeled and has to be sorted out? Is it Karen’s fault she drives a gas car to work because public transit is underdeveloped and electric cars are too expensive? Framing climate change as a matter of personal responsibility is extremely counterproductive IMHO.