• Apathy Tree
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    The whole individual carbon footprint thing is designed to make normal people feel bad and personally responsible, and forget that changes an individual can realistically make absolutely pale in comparison to changes made by companies.

    Additionally, the footprint of the individual would be smaller if companies polluted less, but it entirely glosses over that aspect, and makes us feel personally accountable for the damage because we indulge in something now and then. Something created by a company which has all the power, but none of the will, to reduce the impact.

    It’s not like we have much actual choice about where our energy comes from, or how our products are made. Nor should we be expected to forgo pleasures in life because the people running companies are evil greedy [removed], and fight against any and all attempts to reign their polluting in…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think it has to be a bit of both. If we ever want to reach any co2 goal, it’ll have to be with both less consumption and less pollution in production. Or a drastic reduction in the population, but let’s hope that won’t happen.

      I do feel like the carbon footprint is a campaign similar to the other green washing campaigns.

      I don’t think there is any other option than a global co2 tax. It’s not like the economic system is going to change any time soon and ‘evil greedy basters’ are good at minimizing costs so this will have an impact. And this tax will cause polluting product to just cost more so either there use will go down or the tax can be used for other reductions.

      There have even been companies that ask for it. They can’t justify heavy investments to pollute less if their competitors don’t have to.