You didn’t. My point was more that voting isn’t enough. Just because there are worse people, that doesn’t mean that we are free of blame. The entire west is living very unsustainable lifestyles. So we both need to stop the big polluters by voting and we also need to do our own part to strive towards reaching sustainability.
If everyone suddenly changed their lifestyle to be more sustainable, world would still go to shit. Because again, individuals combined contribute minimally compared to corporations individually.
Not to mention, “carbon footprint” is a myth made by british petroleum and spread by big oil. It is made exactly to scare people like you, making them think responsible for problems not caused by individuals.
Only way to combat climate change is systematic, not individual. You can do you and be more sustainable if you want, but don’t spread lies made by the ones actually responsible.
If everyone changed their lifestyle the we would solve the climate crisis. It’s not like the big corporations release co2e because it’s fun, they do it because the people want the products (and they want them at a cheap price). Corporations are no angels by any means but they are directly downstream from the people.
It’s obviously more complicated than that but the idea that big corporations have the sole responsibility is just shifting the blame. You are still responsible for the portion that you put into the atmosphere.
@Anemia@TheBlue22
It’s not quite as simple as that. There are the carbon emissions we actively produce such as fuel in motor vehicles. Then there are passive emissions from transporting items such as foodstuffs which we are not directly responsible for. So changing lifestyle can only achieve so much. Feedback mechanisms such as carbon sequestation through planting trees needs balancing against additional gasses from melting permafrost etc. A global government level effort is what is needed
I absolutely agree that a global political effort is required to force companies and people to make the required changes. Even if the transportation is an indirect emission I would still say that the consumer is largely responsible. Like if I buy an avocado that is flown from South America to Sweden then I ought to take that emission into account when considering the purchase.
The only emissions that i would fully ascribe to the companies are the hidden emissions that the consumer cant be expected to know of. An example would be a big swedish meat company selling meat as “swedish meat” but in reality they took swedish raised animals, transporting them to poland for slaughter and then back to save a bit of money.
@Anemia
I agree that there is a lot consumers can do through personal action, companies and corporations too. It needs a big all round effort. But many people on low incomes have difficulty in making environmental choices through no fault of their own. This is in part why I feel it is better to focus on Governmental action while encouraging personal action.
Sure, it absolutely varies from person to person. A poorer person probably isn’t flying around on vacations and eating lots of steak so they aren’t producing that much co2e anyway. So for some people it could be that the only action of any significang impact would be to vote and push the government to force everyone else to stop being so selfish.
@Anemia I agree that generally people on lower incomes will produce less greenhouse gases.
I have faith that we can still do enough to get on top of the climate crisis. But people find changing difficult, so it’s unlikely to happen as quickly as we’d like.
In what way did I insinuate, even hint on not voting?
You didn’t. My point was more that voting isn’t enough. Just because there are worse people, that doesn’t mean that we are free of blame. The entire west is living very unsustainable lifestyles. So we both need to stop the big polluters by voting and we also need to do our own part to strive towards reaching sustainability.
If everyone suddenly changed their lifestyle to be more sustainable, world would still go to shit. Because again, individuals combined contribute minimally compared to corporations individually.
Not to mention, “carbon footprint” is a myth made by british petroleum and spread by big oil. It is made exactly to scare people like you, making them think responsible for problems not caused by individuals.
Only way to combat climate change is systematic, not individual. You can do you and be more sustainable if you want, but don’t spread lies made by the ones actually responsible.
If everyone changed their lifestyle the we would solve the climate crisis. It’s not like the big corporations release co2e because it’s fun, they do it because the people want the products (and they want them at a cheap price). Corporations are no angels by any means but they are directly downstream from the people.
It’s obviously more complicated than that but the idea that big corporations have the sole responsibility is just shifting the blame. You are still responsible for the portion that you put into the atmosphere.
@Anemia @TheBlue22
It’s not quite as simple as that. There are the carbon emissions we actively produce such as fuel in motor vehicles. Then there are passive emissions from transporting items such as foodstuffs which we are not directly responsible for. So changing lifestyle can only achieve so much. Feedback mechanisms such as carbon sequestation through planting trees needs balancing against additional gasses from melting permafrost etc. A global government level effort is what is needed
I absolutely agree that a global political effort is required to force companies and people to make the required changes. Even if the transportation is an indirect emission I would still say that the consumer is largely responsible. Like if I buy an avocado that is flown from South America to Sweden then I ought to take that emission into account when considering the purchase.
The only emissions that i would fully ascribe to the companies are the hidden emissions that the consumer cant be expected to know of. An example would be a big swedish meat company selling meat as “swedish meat” but in reality they took swedish raised animals, transporting them to poland for slaughter and then back to save a bit of money.
@Anemia
I agree that there is a lot consumers can do through personal action, companies and corporations too. It needs a big all round effort. But many people on low incomes have difficulty in making environmental choices through no fault of their own. This is in part why I feel it is better to focus on Governmental action while encouraging personal action.
Sure, it absolutely varies from person to person. A poorer person probably isn’t flying around on vacations and eating lots of steak so they aren’t producing that much co2e anyway. So for some people it could be that the only action of any significang impact would be to vote and push the government to force everyone else to stop being so selfish.
@Anemia I agree that generally people on lower incomes will produce less greenhouse gases.
I have faith that we can still do enough to get on top of the climate crisis. But people find changing difficult, so it’s unlikely to happen as quickly as we’d like.