yes, a corporations produce b percent of all emissions, so what? if there was only one corporations it would produce 100 % of all emissions, doesn’t change the situation whatsoever
the strategy to scaling down emissions doesn’t change depending on the distribution of emissions
this is a false dichotomy, of course many problems have to be fixed on the supply side, but a lot have to also be fixed on the consumer side, for example animal product consumption: no matter how you restructure corporations, earth simply doesn’t have enough resources in order sustain an omnivore diet for more than a few hundred million people
the 100 - 70 gotcha points out a valid problem, while also for some reason disregarding the other side of that problem 🤷♀️
Consumers wouldn’t be using single use plastics if corporations didn’t push it on everyone.
How about stuff like milk cartons that added a plastic cap to the cardboard? It always worked fine opening the cardboard top and I would always use it up long before it spoiled. The plastic added nothing to the shelf life and just created more waste. Now every carton like that has a plastic cap.
i agree, you listed problems that should be fixed on the supply side, this doesn’t mean there aren’t problems that should be fixed on the consumer side 🤷♀️
single use plastics isn’t a consumer responsibility, i’m simply pointing out that there exist things that are indeed a responsibility of consumers to fix
I don’t think that this is a false dichotomy at all, it’s clearly a matter of strategy and history showed that the wrong strategy was chosen.
For 40 years we are focusing on individual action as a mitigation strategy. This failed thoroughly.
The reason why we have not addressed global warming in any meaningful manner is that we failed to discuss the economic and financial incentives that keep the problem running. And we failed to discuss in meaningful ways the actions that are actually needed to mitigate climate change, namely wind down the fossil fuel industry.
Whenever that topic somewhat came up, the narrative immediately changed to what this would mean for the individual and what the individual can do to facilitate this change.
We failed to discuss the costs of winding down these industries, including how to assist workers in those industries to manage the change. We failed to address the financial impact of turning off capital intensive infrastructure that was built with the premise of someone making profits for 40-60 years off that asset. And we failed developing a large scale technology transition plan, that also shows how underdeveloped countries can improve their quality of life without going down fossil fuel way.
i’m not really sure what is this supposed to mean
yes, a corporations produce b percent of all emissions, so what? if there was only one corporations it would produce 100 % of all emissions, doesn’t change the situation whatsoever
the strategy to scaling down emissions doesn’t change depending on the distribution of emissions
Of course the strategy changes.
If one corporation would produce 100% of emissions you would be able to discuss how to wind it down. How to manage the impact of winding it down.
Instead we are talking about whether you, the singular you, wasted too much water having a shower.
This is absolutely absurd.
this is a false dichotomy, of course many problems have to be fixed on the supply side, but a lot have to also be fixed on the consumer side, for example animal product consumption: no matter how you restructure corporations, earth simply doesn’t have enough resources in order sustain an omnivore diet for more than a few hundred million people
the 100 - 70 gotcha points out a valid problem, while also for some reason disregarding the other side of that problem 🤷♀️
Consumers wouldn’t be using single use plastics if corporations didn’t push it on everyone.
How about stuff like milk cartons that added a plastic cap to the cardboard? It always worked fine opening the cardboard top and I would always use it up long before it spoiled. The plastic added nothing to the shelf life and just created more waste. Now every carton like that has a plastic cap.
i agree, you listed problems that should be fixed on the supply side, this doesn’t mean there aren’t problems that should be fixed on the consumer side 🤷♀️
Oh yeah because consumers can economically recycle plastics, right.
consumers can’t recycle plastics, nobody can, there are problems that cannot be fixed on the supply side, and single use plastics isn’t one of them
So how is it the consumers responsibility?
single use plastics isn’t a consumer responsibility, i’m simply pointing out that there exist things that are indeed a responsibility of consumers to fix
I don’t think that this is a false dichotomy at all, it’s clearly a matter of strategy and history showed that the wrong strategy was chosen.
For 40 years we are focusing on individual action as a mitigation strategy. This failed thoroughly.
The reason why we have not addressed global warming in any meaningful manner is that we failed to discuss the economic and financial incentives that keep the problem running. And we failed to discuss in meaningful ways the actions that are actually needed to mitigate climate change, namely wind down the fossil fuel industry.
Whenever that topic somewhat came up, the narrative immediately changed to what this would mean for the individual and what the individual can do to facilitate this change.
We failed to discuss the costs of winding down these industries, including how to assist workers in those industries to manage the change. We failed to address the financial impact of turning off capital intensive infrastructure that was built with the premise of someone making profits for 40-60 years off that asset. And we failed developing a large scale technology transition plan, that also shows how underdeveloped countries can improve their quality of life without going down fossil fuel way.