Corporations could’ve been growing bamboo and making straws out of them for decades, they chose plastic because it was cheaper. They very much has a significant role to play in this.

I agree with you wholeheartedly but some people roll their eyes when they hear that.

I would say the problem is rules and regulations, and it’s corporations fault for mucking around with government rules to make more profit.

Right so what’s the problem with decomposable stuff again? How is that not just solving the issue?

Must be different in sweden then, here there’s a pretty significant issue with garbage on the countryside since people will buy stuff like mcdonalds and just toss the trash out the car window.

Making those things out of paper has vastly improved things, people still insist on littering but at least now the trash turns to slush after a rainshower so it doesn’t continue building up indefinitely. (I will also give props to fast food places, they have made most things from paper for as long as i can remember, it seems we just needed to give them a firm boot in the ass to make them change the more difficult stuff too)

Next i wish we could improve the packaging for things like chocolate bars, that’s by far the most common type of trash to see caught up in shrubs near where people spend a lot of time in cities.

Ok so i decided to look into it and I did an “america bad” type of meme. Given that US and EU only account for 1/9 th of the world but make up about 40% of the waste is still huge. Ill provide a source below.

Source1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/916749/global-generation-of-municipal-solid-waste-by-country/

Source2: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstreams/92a50475-3878-5984-829e-0a09a6a9badc/download

Sustainable practises, especially energy generation are way cheaper than non renewable sources, so why would corporations try to make energy cost more for themselves? And it’s definitely cheaper to wash and reuse glass bottles than it is to fabricate entirely new disposable plastic ones. But the general public preferred not having to return their glass bottles for some change back and would rather have the convenience of the plastic bottle and aluminium can.

Buildings use concrete because it’s cheap and strong, and people want to live in well built, sturdy and most importantly cheap buildings. Obviously, corporations could make their buildings out of more expensive sustainable materials and they don’t because publicly traded companies have a legal duty to make profit and clearly there is not enough of a push from the consumer to make the change to more sustainable buildings worth it.

If you want to change companies you need to show them that with your money, and of course you can always vote for a representative who has environmental interests at heart and they can directly show companies what the consumer wants.

But the truth is, not enough people care enough about the environment to prioritise choosing sustainable companies over consuming endless products.

And you can blame companies for marketing useless or cheap products to the world, which will obviously cause consumers to want it (if the marketing is any good), and this time the main blame is on the government for not putting the environment first and not forcing adverts for unsustainable products to have warnings about their environmental impact. But the government is installed by people (in democracies) and the people clearly don’t care.

Me and you might care, I suspect we both do care deeply. But not everyone cares, and that’s the problem.

I’m not saying it’s entirely the consumers fault. But the mindset of, oh well all these companies produce all these emissions or China increases their emissions every year greater than the total output ever for some European countries. It’s just not taking any responsibility for your own actions. If you have ever used one of those online calculators that tells you how many earths we would need to be able to sustain consumerism at your level , it’s frightening really, you can put in some pretty average western statistics and it will say some absurd number like 3 or 4 earths. And you can reduce that. If you do one of those calculators and its more than 1.5, realistically you can make changes to your lifestyle to lower it hugely.

If everyone on earth took up a plant based diet, we would almost eliminate the emissions from animal farming which makes up a huge proportion of emissions. Deforestation in the amazon would stop since there is no one left to buy the cows they would raise there.

Think about what one person can do to help the environment everyday, one little action, and times that by 8 billion. And that’s huge. Of course you can blame corporations, and you should. I’m not arguing to not. But at the end of the day, it’s everyone’s problem, and we should all try our best to solve it.

This is right. Of course we should take individual action. I have a set of things I regularly do. That doesn’t change the fact that overall, people will choose the course of least resistance: the wasteful goods and services provided by corporations. At the same time, corporations will generally not self correct. They’ll always choose the course of highest profit. Bottom line: if we are concerned for the future of our home, we must demand changes in corporate behavior through policy and regulation.

Unless you go live in a forest and grow your own food, your money will always end up in the hands of one of a dozen or two people.

So let’s keep buying shit we don’t need? Using the straw example: You don’t need straws. They give a minor increase in convenience, while making the world a worse place. We don’t need them, but we buy them in mass making the world a worse place, then when some try to get rid of them we kick and scream because “it’s the corporation’s fault!”.

You’re not as clever or edgy as you think you are, you are literally licking the boot that is standing on your neck and think it’s a treat.

Someone’s saying “don’t give money to corporations” and “let’s not interact with the system”, and you’re saying that and calling them lazy, all as an excuse to keep giving money to corporations. Look in the fucking mirror. Literally your entire comment is an excuse to participate in the system you claim need to have problems with. Take some damn responsibility, and stop saying you want things to change while not being whiling to change your way of life. The one who’s lazy, is the one sitting at home making excuses to keep mindlessly consuming and saying other people need to find solutions and stop feeding your addiction - which they should, but that still doesn’t change the fact you have an addiction.

I don’t feel like writing another whole comment about this, so I’ll just copy and paste something I wrote a while ago:

When people say it’s not “we” and it’s just a few people, or just companies, it always seems to me that they are - consciously or subconsciously - just making excuses for not having to actually do anything and hoping someone else will solve the problem for them. They want the problem to be solved, while not having to do anything or change their lifestyle.

There are some very obvious and clear examples of this; here’s two of them:

• Studies have shown most people are in favour of carbon taxes. But with carbon taxes, companies would just shift the extra cost onto the consumers by increasing prices. One thing affected by carbon tax, would be the price of gas itself. And when prices (especially gas prices) increase, that usually results in a lot of anger and protests. So why would any democratically elected politician ever implement a carbon tax? If they did, they would be voted out, and the next one to come in would just undo it.

• Another obvious example, is meat. We know one of the major protagonists in CO2 emissions is animal farming. Red meat especially is responsible for a huge source of those emissions. And yet most people don’t even wanna think about eating less meat, and they will still crack jokes about vegans and look at them sideways. And as for regulations regarding meat, the example from before still applies.

As you seem to be implying, what really needs to happen is a whole cultural shift. Trying to shift blame onto to a few people and hope they get the guillotine, won’t change anything as long as people keep demanding all the same things because then someone else will come in to fulfil that demand. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that it’s the sum of all our actions that will determine the future, and our actions can influence other people’s actions; therefore, one way or another, we are all responsible.

Not everything you buy has to be exceedingly sustainable, provided the product you choose is high quality and will therefore last a long time. It doesn’t matter if your socks aren’t 100% whatever sustainable material. As long as the ones you buy will last you a long time while still being comfortable, that will go a long way in helping the environment.

So at that point you said: I won’t try anymore? How about at least try wherever you can. That’s what people are saying. Not that you or anyone has to do everything 100 % perfect. That’s not possible and everybody knows that.

Good points, although quite a hard to read format. Companies do often narrow choices down substantially. Especially in terms of food, the amount of ultra processed foods available in the US is astounding, and it is a much easier choice for the family with no money to choose the unsustainable, unhealthy but easy and cheap meal. And for the people who can’t afford the luxury of real choice in where they source their food, they share much much less blame.

But it is a hard task to find someone who is willing to take the first step and reduce their environmental impact when those around them do not, when someone is told their actions have no impact, the choice and the effort and often the cost seem pointless. And maybe it is, maybe we should all give up and succumb to the climate and environmental disaster we are building up to. It will come either way now, we can’t stop it. But to take the stance that individual choices will not make a difference so why bother is selfish. We can all do our part to make the world a better place, you might not think so but it’s true. And it requires hard work and dedication. And it won’t be easy and we will face an environmental catastrophe. But we can still do our part to make this world better.

My original comment was in poor taste perhaps. I don’t mean to say that corporations take no blame, or that companies take less blame. But that we must also take some blame. Us, our parents, our grandparents all played a part in the world and we are all responsible for our own actions. Why not try and change your ways for the better, even if it is futile, at least you will have done your part.

No of course not, that’s where governments should step in. But most governments are reluctant to do anything that will get them voted out and so will not implement any policy that has even the slightest of chance for increasing the price of a product or service for the consumer. In general, on environmental issues, the larger population says one thing, but then is resistant to any change that it would take to implement solutions. If you add a carbon tax, very effective at getting companies to lower emissions. Then there are some industries where carbon will be emitted no matter what, especially big manufacturers. And that cost is passed down the line until a company decides to tank the increased cost (unlikely) or it gets to the consumer, at which point the end customer gets upset that their new item, be it a house, a car, or a coffee table now costs more, and the first people they blame are the ones in charge. And out they go. So any government who wants to make environmental change, real change, will have to willingly and knowingly sacrifice their own careers (and in most places, that of their party’s as well). And it isn’t something most will do, and that’s the problem. The government will not force the change we desperately need in order to save their own careers.