• Flygone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not immediately but they’ll stop producing if people stop buying. Just takes a lot of people to have any meaningful change. And that starts with every single one of us.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And that’ll never happen, because everyone else will ignore you and just buy the shit anyway.

      It NEEDS to be regulatory change. Shaming consumers into not consuming doesn’t work. Oil companies want you to think it works, that’s why THEY invented the concept of the carbon footprint. To make everyone ignore real solutions that could actually work.

      • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We can’t even get people to individually choose to wear a mask or stand a little bit away from each other when their immediate health depends on it. Nevermind asking people to… to do what? It’s not like there’s a choice. That’s what the monopoly phase of capitalism means.

        How can I choose not to use fossil fuels to get around? The buses don’t go where I’m going or when I need to go. How can I choose to avoid the food without the plastic packaging? Almost all the food except for some niche items is packed in plastic. I don’t even get the choice by picking fresh produce because it got to the store wrapped in plastic. How can I choose to use fewer resources? My devices, white goods, furniture, clothes, etc, are all built intentionally not to last – and if they do last, they get ‘updated’ to landfill mode.

        I’m agreeing with you, to be clear. I do wonder how regulation can help, considering politicians don’t regulate unless they’re forced to. Partly because they are or they represent the bourgeoisie and wouldn’t get anywhere near power if they wanted to do things differently. Political pressure can be built but the voices in some of the problematic comments in this thread are quite mainstream.

        I suppose what I’m saying, and I’m not necessarily looking for an answer, is: if we get to the stage where the public consciousness and it’s organisation are powerful enough to make politicians take climate action seriously, why would we leave it to those politicians to implement and why would we retain a system based on infinite growth? Why would we get to the point where we collectively decide to make the world a better place and then say, you know what, you can keep doing all the other extractivism, oppression, war, slum landlording, racist border controls, etc, just make sure you use recyclable packaging and transport it in electric vehicles?

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. The world around us has been engineered so that we’d all consume more. Either out of necessity, or for convenience. After all the hard work we put in, we feel like deserve convenience, don’t we?

          More and better public transit is 100x better for reducing transport carbon emissions than telling people to “just walk to work”. When the options are there, and they’re incentivized, people will use them. But public transit will also have to be way cheaper than driving, because let’s be honest, it’s kinda icky, if you’re used to driving your air conditioned private pod of utter comfort, and you’re being asked to share space with some hobo who couldn’t decide if he wanted to piss or shit himself so he did both.

          • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Agree with that. It’s been difficult since Covid, too, as it’s made it clear how different people’s views are on hygeine and health. I didn’t used to have a car. But I’m not sitting in an unventilated metal tube where nobody wears a mask and every third person coughs or sneezes without covering their face. That was disgusting before Covid. Now it’s potentially life-changing.

            They could be built with better ventilation and with more frequent services and more regular cleaning but that would eat into profits. In fact, during Covid, they reduced the number of lines, citing ‘safety’. How it’s safer to have busier carriages in an airborne pandemic, I’ll never know. They never re-introduced the old lines. So the trains and buses have been even more crammed than they were up to 2019. At least the shareholders are happy.

            • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ooooh the bullshit companies did “because covid” drives me up the wall. Closing early, because covid is scared of the dark. Longer hold times because covid? Bullshit. Forcing everyone to enter and exit through the same door, because that’s safer for some reason? Jesus

      • reverendz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Think globally, act locally” and other such clever slogans that seemed so logical and made so little impact.

        How about “round up the heads of oil companies and deliver them to a firing squad?”

        Not as much zing to it though.

    • bloodfart
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That can never work. You can’t boycott a business into not producing.