When I was in elementary school, the cafeteria switched to disposable plastic trays because the paper ones hurt trees. Stupid, I know… but are today’s initiatives any better?
A lot of the initiatives are ineffective by design because the real goal is to give the consumers agency over the problem. Corporations have known that individual effort is a drop in the bucket but by framing the problem as not not a “corporate” problem but a “society” problem, they can keep not fixing it, for profit.
A corporate problem and a societal problem are two sides of the same coin. Corporations don’t make money in isolation, they make money because they sell things that (directly or ultimately) are bought by consumers.
You could choose to imagine a scenario where the CEOs of Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, etc just voluntarily decide to stop extracting oil overnight, and think that would be more impactful than billions of individual consumers slashing their demand for carbon-intensive products and fuels. But if the consumers don’t change their behaviour and continue to demand this stuff, other companies would just step in to fill the gap, takeover the old oil fields, etc.
The sustainable way to change corporate behaviour is through changing their end-consumers’ behaviour - i.e. if end-consumers stop directly buying carbon-intensive products and stop buying from carbon-intensive companies.
The MOST sustainable way to change corporate behavior is to make it prohibitively expensive for them to engage in behavior that is bad for the environment by levying major financial penalties and taxes on the offending corporations.
Corps frame it as an individualist problem because they don’t want regulation, which is really the only viable way to attack the problem (and regulations needs to be backed by treaties with teeth since it is a global problem).
You can’t expect every consumer to research every product and service they buy to make sure these products were made with an acceptable footprint. And if low-footprint products/services are more expensive or somehow not quite as good, there will be a financial incentive to use higher footprint products (if individuals acted “rationally,” this is what they would do).
Consumers are also voters. Corporations are not. Whether through the products we purchase at the shops or the politicians we elect at the ballot box, it will be the behaviour of individuals that creates the incentive set within which corporations profit-maximise.
Telling ourselves that this is a corporate problem and our individual behaviour doesn’t matter is a comforting fairy tale but it will accomplish little.
Corporations are financial supporters of politicians, though, and they do a good job of making sure any viable political choice is on their side.
It’s false choices all of the way down.
Capital has already shifted toward green energy and renewable systems. Capitalism is way ahead of any other process in terms of fighting climate change
https://www.strategy-business.com/article/A-rising-tide-of-green-capital
BP created the concept of a carbon footprint to make customers feel responsible for climate change. The reality is that consumer choices make no difference in the face of China building a dozen new giant coal power plants each year. This needs to be tackled diplomatically, and nations need to be willing to negotiate with much more force. China emits more than double the CO2 of the U.S. That’s just CO2. There’s PFAS, methane, plastics, and hundreds of others pollutants. They’re destroying whole oceans with their huge bottom-trawling fishing fleets. It’s time we get serious about tackling the major polluters first.
Those companies pollute to produce goods and services that individuals buy.
What does holding corporations accountable look like if not refusing to give them our money while advocating for regulation?
Throwing your hands in the air, doing nothing to change your destructive habits and just saying “but corporations” isn’t gonna help anything.
This is a frustrating kind of defeatist attitiude I’m finding is getting more and more common.
It comes from a place of unwillingness for personal and habitual change. It’s hard to accept that we all have to change our lifestyles and accept that how we’re living is going to have to change. That there is exists some scenario whereby we all continue living exactly how we’re doing now with the same consumer behaviour and expect a bit of regulations to change everything. Or delay changing until after these regulations are in place, when in reality BOTH needs to happen.
What’s the point in sitting on your ass complaining about the behaviours of other individuals and organisations when the only thing you have direct control over is your life.
What’s the point in sitting on your ass complaining about the behaviours of other individuals and organisations when the only thing you have direct control over is your life.
I’m not challenging you on the “sitting on your ass” part because that is true. But I promise you the Earth getting hotter and more polluted is going to exert “direct control …over your life.” And the only real way we can change this is through some kind of political process.
Where did I say it shouldn’t be a political process? It isn’t an either-or. How many people online who are saying “oh why should I consume less when corporations emit the most CO2, there’s no point I’m not going to bother” is politically active outside of voting? As in, physically - attend climate rallies or petition their local representative. I’d wager it’s a slim minority. Signing an online petition or tweeting does not count.
If people honestly cared so much that they’re doing these things anyway, then changing themselves and their consumption habits should be dead easy. So why don’t more people do it?
My point is this isn’t an excuse to not take any actions locally within your life, which is something you can do RIGHT NOW.
I assume that folks are just looking for a way to keep their comfort zone the same. Finding an excuse is simple, even without blatant logic errors.
It is textbook cognitive dissonance.
I gave up hope when I learned that the blue and green recycle bins in my area are really only there to make the consumer feel better about how much we waste as a society. A lot of the stuff we put in those bins still just winds up in a landfill.
One thing not working like it should doesn’t make your destructive habits less destructive.
Today’s initiatives are theater.
100 companies are responsible for 71% of the worlds emissions. The rest is also mainly companies. The idea of a carbon footprint is propaganda invented by BP (this sounds like a conspiracy but I swear it’s true, look it up). Before anything you personally can accomplish can make any difference, we would first have to significantly change society.
Those companies pollute to produce goods and services that individuals buy.
What does holding corporations accountable look like if not refusing to give them our money while advocating for regulation?
Individual change is changing society.
Throwing your hands in the air, doing nothing to change your destructive habits and just saying “but corporations” isn’t gonna help anything.
If Captain Planet was real, he would be extremely disappointed with all of us.
On a note, what the heck was up with “heart”? You got these 4 badass elemental powers coming together to form this awesome super hero and then just…heart? Never sat right with me when I was a kid.
Only to realise it’s the most busted ability of the bunch when you grow up.
Mind control beats everyone
If a large percentage of people can’t even utilize resuable bags for their groceries we’re already screwed. So much apathy and people not really committed to take even the smallest of steps to help our environment.
I’d say that blaming individuals for fundamental architecture of our society is the essence of the problem we have.
Fundamental architecture? Being adverse to making environmentally conscious decisions is a choice. When other solutions are available fundamental architecture sounds more like a cop out to me.
By fundamental architecture, I mean things like suburban development. Suburban development enforces commuting by personal motor vehicle which is far less efficient, from a pollution perspective, than public transit like intra-city rail. Another example could be planned obsolesence. This is part of the fundamental architecture which imposes a cycle of pollution into the replacement of consumer goods. These aren’t individuals’ choices, they’re the fabric of western society.
It’s systemic.
I’ve learned that we’re doing an even poor job of handling recyclables, the very thing we’re beaten over the head with to be responsible about.
Ha, look at this optimist who thinks there’ll be people in the future.
Yes, go vegan and stop driving if you actually want to change your impact.
And if not vegan then at least not beef
Beef is 10x more carbon intensive than pork
Going fully vegan isn’t hard tho :)
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Most people simply arent going to go vegan, and many need to take baby steps toward it. Cutting out beef is a great first step.
But let’s also not make it seem more difficult than it is, it’s very easy to avoid animal products.
Shouting “BUT YOU DON’T HAVE TO DO IT ALL THE WAY” every time veganism is brought up is a bit silly.
It’s really not these days, but it is much easier if people start at least reducing. It is also much more approachable to people still used to animal products. It is a natural transition and still helps.
The average British person emits 76 times more CO2 than the offset of one person going vegan for life. Even if everyone on the planet went vegan today, forever, their sacrifice would be undone by the number of new babies born in a single year, globally. Veganism isn’t going to solve climate change. It’s not even going to make a dent. We should be focusing on practical, real measures to reduce global CO2 output. For example, the move from coal to LNG halves CO2 output. This transition alone is an order of magnitude more impactful than the entire world going vegan for life. If you care about climate change you’ll invest your limited time and energy where it counts.
You can easily be vegan while advocating for other change like less coal.
You can easily be vegan while advocating for other change like less coal.
Sorry, but major lifestyle changes are not “easy.” It’s “easy” to lose weight, and yet two thirds of Americans can’t do it. I like eating meat but would be willing to give it up if the juice were worth the squeeze. It’s not. Instead of spending your time telling people to make major lifestyle changes with almost zero impact to the climate, why aren’t you focusing on real, sustainable solutions?
FYI the top four metrics in the image you linked are for agriculture, not meat production alone. Agriculture includes the production of plants, fruits, and grains. It’s all food production.
It really isn’t hard, buying the plant based products instead of the animal ones is easy.
I find it very difficult. It appears that what you find easy and what others find easy are not the same.
What’s hard about choosing the plant based option in the grocery store or restaurant?
It’s literally just buying a different product.I like meat a lot. Not eating meat will significantly degrade my standard of living.
