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.
Sustainable practises, especially energy generation are way cheaper than non renewable sources, so why would corporations try to make energy cost more for themselves?
Sadly, that’s not the whole story. I don’t share all of his takes on how to move forward (he’s a tankie, I lean towards anarchism), but Second Thought summarized very well what the weak point in your argument about cost is: https://youtu.be/3gSzzuY1Yw0
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.
Sadly, you’re also wrong here. For the USA it has been shown that the opinion of average citizens on proposals of individual policies has no significant impact on the probability of the policies being implemented. It is only the position of lobbyists that have an impact. Lobbyists also include environmentalist groups, of course, but more often than not corporate lobbyists all take similar stances whereas non-corporate groups are very often single-issue groups who only make themselves heard on relatively few occasions, making them less impactful overall.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
I don’t know of a similar study for EU countries. My guess is that the multi-party systems here work in favor of more voices being heard but also against implementation of new actually useful policies because of the need for compromise and coalitions.
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.
Sadly, that’s not the whole story. I don’t share all of his takes on how to move forward (he’s a tankie, I lean towards anarchism), but Second Thought summarized very well what the weak point in your argument about cost is: https://youtu.be/3gSzzuY1Yw0
Sadly, you’re also wrong here. For the USA it has been shown that the opinion of average citizens on proposals of individual policies has no significant impact on the probability of the policies being implemented. It is only the position of lobbyists that have an impact. Lobbyists also include environmentalist groups, of course, but more often than not corporate lobbyists all take similar stances whereas non-corporate groups are very often single-issue groups who only make themselves heard on relatively few occasions, making them less impactful overall. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
I don’t know of a similar study for EU countries. My guess is that the multi-party systems here work in favor of more voices being heard but also against implementation of new actually useful policies because of the need for compromise and coalitions.
Interesting links son of odysseus. Thanks for sharing