CaspianXIWill we look back at today's "go green" initiatives as stupid and inadequate?
BrikoXWhile they have close to no value from practical standpoint, they do allow to start the conversation about the seriousness of climate issues.
SeanI 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.
nivenkosAlso incineration as “energy recycling” - cleanenergywire.org/…/waste-energy-controversial-…
FYI this is actually a very green source of energy production. Virtually all pollutants are contained within the facility, and all that’s left are the constituent elements which are far easier and cleaner to dispose of than raw waste.
One thing not working like it should doesn't make your destructive habits less destructive.
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 🏆I think most people who want to do something about regulating climate change to prevent creating an uninhabitable world already think today’s measures are stupid and inadequate.
The paper/vs plastic thing sucks because both are bad. Paper needs trees to be cut down and single use plastics are horrible for the environment
At least paper can be produced through sustainable farming practices and any waste is almost entirely biodegradable.
But I do agree that the debate sucks. What we should really be doing is forcing corporations and governments to 1. Adhere to very strict sustainability levels and 2. Pay for clean up efforts out of the salaries of their board of directors. Any corporation that declares a profit or gives a bonus to someone in managment without meating their sustainability requirements results in large fines for the company as well as every individual member of the board of directors. And anyone who claims they can’t pay within 12 months is given jail time and stripped of all assets instead.
Sounds harsh, sure. But till we start holding them accountable, it’s not going to matter how many people are using reusable plastic shopping bags or soggy paper straws. It’s not going to make any difference
I mean, in theory, dumping paper into a landfill is a carbon sink
Which is essentially what happened to create coal in the first place, kinda sorta.
I think very soon we’ll look back on virtually everything we’ve done to help the planet/climate as stupid and inadequate sadly.
themoonisacheeseToday’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.
It’s just not true that we can’t make a difference though - it’s just easier for people to think that. Even if corporations, China, people on private jets etc. are damaging Earth and its inhabitants, our habits still make a difference also. You know, we can do what we can do personally at the same time as voting, campaigning and protesting for the change we can’t control.
JummitThere is no sustainable consumption under capitalism. Most have already cut down on their personal emissions, less meat, less flying. Good luck on trying to overcome the system by participating in it.
I don’t think enough people have made enough effort to cut down (or preferably stop) meat, and animal products, and still see incredible amounts of waste, SUVs etc. Admitedly it’s old data, but a minority of surveyed Americans were eating less meat in year 2020 - news.gallup.com/…/nearly-one-four-cut-back-eating…. - not sure if the outlook is any better.
I totally agree with direct action and democracy, though I do maintain that the number one change people can make is to go vegan, as the lead author of the biggest meta study of its type concludes ox.ac.uk/…/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmental…
Importantly, I still agree that you are spot on that voting, complaining to companies and advocacy is incredibly important, but I just also feel that it is people who can choose not to buy the most damaging products (e.g. animal products) from those companies to accelerate more sustainable markets.
You are right in that if the majority would change their consumption, the change would be massive. Seeing that as the best solution overlooks that companies put a lot of effort into marketing, advertisement and interfere in pro-consumer lawmaking. So a large-scale change becomes quite hard, especially for low-income households.
Also, speaking of effectiveness: not having children is one of the best choices an individual can make, followed by going vegan.
I do maintain that even if not everybody realises its benefits, is fooled by the terrible marketing etc., going vegan and lowering consumption is still a great solution for those who choose to refuse to be a part of the problem. I think it’s one of those challenges that we have to throw as much as we can at through every angle possible, even while it’s not going to be perfect. Perhaps we can buy some time for other solutions to join the fight.
Also, yes, definitely not having children is going to be the biggest change I expect (unless the child happens to help be a part of a bigger solution of course), but I’d certainly recommend veganism either as a great addition or for parents without time machines or those who have grown fond of their kids. Also, if nobody had kids, it would create other problems about who would look after the elderly etc., but that’s another debate!
Those companies pollute to produce goods and services that individual buy.
What does holding corporations accountable look like if not refusing to give them our money while advocating for regulation?
Those companies produce the goods WE buy. If we didn’t buy them, the emissions wouldn’t be accounted to that company that sells you the good. Oil, electricity or something else that you use.
Anyways, being fatalist about all that brings us nowhere.
Here’s what you need to do:
Or that would have been it if we still had time to prevent catastrophic climate change. We can still try but I’m fairly certain we missed the train and I wish nothing else but me being wrong. I’m still vegan tho and use bicycle.
About footprints. William Rees wrote about ecological footprint in 1992 and carbon footprint was commonly used after 2000. journals.sagepub.com/doi/…/095624789200400212
Personally, we can save a bit of resources, provide tiny relieve spots for a wild animals, insects, etc. Its a fact. Physical reality. Just because its not enough by itself, does not mean, we should not do that.
Naturally, not doing anything on a personal level, because “its not enough” is a very much approved way of living by the corporations. Having unhappy, consuming population? Chief’s kiss.
However… its not a good thing, when tiniest acts in the right direction demotivate people to do more. “I am doing my part!” - yes, that is nice, but we need more.
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.
Those companies pollute to produce goods and services that individual 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.
Indeed
Claiming that oil companies are to blame for producing all that oil seems stupid. If you use less oil, they make less oil
667It’s borderline impossible to use less oil in increasingly car-centric infrastructure systems.
BalsshMaybe in US, but in Europe the trend is towards more public transportation.
The amount of profit and money in the oil industry will ensure that it's product remains relevant for as long as possible. If it's not through gasoline, it will be something else.
Meanwhile they'll be doing their best to sabotage and lobby against any competition to make it harder for individuals to even have the opportunity to do the right thing. The change has to come from the top (government mandates) in order for it to have any meaningful impact any time soon.
Both are true. The oil companies will lobby to maintain their position, yes. But you’ll also make the choice to drive places when maybe you could cycle
e-raticThis 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 will change everything.
DigitalprimateWhat’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 "why should I consume less when corporations emit the most CO2" is politically active outside of voting? As in, attend climate rallies or petition their local representative. I'd wager it's a slim minority.
If people honestly cared so much that their doing these things anyway, then changing themselves and their consumption habits should be dead easy. So why don't more people do it?
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 dissonace.
That's not really what OP is saying though? They're talking about corporate efforts to make it seems like the consumers are the problem, not them, and many are still falling for it. As long as the awareness of this is not raised and more people aren't pointing fingers at the corporates the whole don't buy their product is never going to be effective, same for advocating for regulations. You're assuming everyone knows the root of the problem already, but that's just not the case here.
People boycotting certain products only really works if an alternative is available and attainable, or the demand is elastic.
For example, if I go to any grocery store, all the pasta, rice, buckwheat, bread and other staples are packaged into single-use plastic, as are hygiene products like toothpaste and shampoo. I have no choice but to be part of the plastic waste problem since there is no alternative and the demand for food is not elastic—I literally can't go without food and basic hygiene.
But I can and will avoid buying problematic products like teflon cookware, fast fashion, ICE vehicles, tech products with severe privacy/ownership/repairability issues since there are alternatives available and if not, I can go without since eg Alexa smart speakers are not essential for life.
Hence, we need to hold companies, whose products are problematic while not having alternatives and that are essential for life, responsible and force them to change to less problematic practices. In short, eg single-use plastics should be regulated out of existence wherever possible.
And for products that have better alternatives, we need to raise awareness about them and raise their social acceptance/desirability (make them cool). Plus we need to increase their availability and attainability—what use of is an ethical alternative product if it's not easily available in my country or if the price is not affordable to everyone who can afford the "normal" version?
I think the point is not that the individual should abandon efforts to modify their own habits. The point is that we should also be focusing just as much if not more energy on efforts to regulate and/or change industries that are responsible for more emissions by orders of magnitude. Some small but significant subset of the population going vegan, buying electric cars, or biking to work isn't going to offset the biggest offenders.
The biggest offenders are fighting tooth and nail to be as profitable as possible at literally any cost. You can be damn sure that if what they produce becomes less desirable in one industry, they will try their hardest to get picked up in some other industry. They'll have scientists finding some way to be useful somewhere and demonstrating it with research and lobbyists that will then get the government to mandate/subsidize it so that they make as much money as possible.
I've personally tried to "vote with my wallet" but industries have found ways to green-wash their products to give the impression that choosing their products would be the responsible choice when in reality it is not. Ensuring that your spending only goes to companies making an honest effort to do all they can to be carbon neutral or environmentally friendly is more than a full time job at this point. The only way is to ensure that governing bodies dictate the behavior of these organizations and even individuals so that it is no longer up to the organization/individual to "do the right thing".
Without proactive, strong government intervention we will be well, well, well beyond the point of no return by the time "voting with our wallets" and "modifying our behaviors" changes industries and society enough to have a significant impact.
theinspectorstA 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.
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
That’s frankly idiotic, since lobbyists, corporate donors and pressure groups have far, far, far more power to effect policy than voters.
You're comparing the collective influence of lobbyists, donors and pressure groups with the individual influence of a single voter - no shit the former looks bigger.
The collective influence of voters in choosing (say) Trump over Clinton, or Biden over Trump, or Macron over Le Pen, or voting for Brexit, has influenced the direction of these Western democracies in recent years dramatically more than any group of lobbyists could dream of.
You're telling yourself a comforting fairytale that society is directed by some powerful secret cabals pulling the strings so you as an individual are absolved from having to do your bit with how you spend your money and how you vote. If everyone thinks like you, nothing will improve. So fucking irresponsible.
Please don’t invent strawman arguments. I haven’t compared collective influence to individual influence, and I haven’t mentioned any hidden cabal or fairytale story. Everything is out in the open and I’m happy to provide my source: www.sciencedirect.com/…/S0261379421001256
Looks to me like your statements were the idiotic ones.
I think there is two important points that you haven’t considered:
-
Information asymmetry: in economics, this is the situation where one party has more/better information than the other. Of course a big corporation will have more information about a product I’m using that I would on every product I use, especially given that they can hire as many specialists as they want. Because of this, consumers should not be expected to take care of all societal change through their choices
-
You seem to imply that these companies only exist to satisfy a customer need. While this is partially true, this completely omits the fact that since 15 years, every company has a marketing department, whose sole purpose is to suscit this need in the consumer mind. Company are not just need-fulfilling machines, but also self feeding systems. You can’t talk about the fact that renewing your phone emits a lot of carbon without talking about the fact that every phone company spends millions at making you want to renew it
demesisxThe MOST sustainable way to change corporate behavior is to make it prohibitively expensive for them to use carbon intensive products by levying major financial penalties and taxes on the offending corporations.
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.
HypxPretty much. Only large scale solutions will have any chance of working. A lot of it implies stuff like recycling or figure out ways of turning waste into something non-harmful. So anything you see on an individual level is pretty much guaranteed to be pointless.
Literally everything that isn’t investing in Nuclear Fusion and electrification.
I find it astonishing that in 2023, when renewables are more ubiquitous and far cheaper than nuclear, there are still people who would advocate for an technological and societal inferior solution.
Eh, I think you're thinking about nuclear fission? The guy you replied to was talking about nuclear fusion.
I mean fusion. It is just like advocating for NG as a bridging solution, true in theory, but at least threec decades to late.
My interpretation of "today's initiatives" is they are something already on-going rather than started today, and nuclear fusion isn't really one of them. So, I don't think you guys are on a different page here?
I’m not opposed to renewables at all, the progress in solar power has been awesome.
But I think the scalability is hard, both in providing a reliable baseload, and also producing all of the solar panels for example. I don’t think it’s insurmountable though.
Ideally we use all of them - we need more electricity than ever. “Degrowth” is the real enemy.
I think the scalability, in production as well as in installation, is the biggest plus for pv. You can build 0.25 kW PV or 1 GW. Nuclear reactors that are not even in the construction phase are, in my opinion, a waste of money and resources that could be invested in building renewables.
Renewables will never replace stable energy production until the storage problem as been solved. At present there are no practical mass storage solutions available. So on days when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow, there isn’t sufficient energy generation without LNG/coal/nuclear. This will be true for decades. Nuclear is currently the best option of those three. Some places are lucky with hydro generation, but even this is subject to variable rainfall. Tidal generation has come a long way, but it’s still not ready for prime time, and it also suffers from variability.
Maybe spend some time reading about the actual market situation.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/12/23/global-solar-capacity-additions-hit-268-gw-in-2022-says-bnef/
I wrote, “renewables will never replace stable energy production until the storage problem as been solved.”
It appears you read, “renewables are currently not economically viable.”
That’s not my argument. I didn’t write that.
The first link about growing storage wasn't enough?
The storage problem is solved it's just not necessary
False. There is currently no technology which enables an economically viable solution for 100% renewable grids.
Just to give you an example, Denmark's wind generation just yesterday fluctuated Over the last year, wind generation has fluctuated across Europe by more than Europe currently produces around 6,480GWh per day. To buffer even half this during periods of low wind/low sunshine would require 60+ million Tesla batteries. For reference, Tesla has only ever produced three million batteries.
For now, power grids require reliable generation. Unless you want coal and LNG, it has to be nuclear.
False. There is currently no technology which enables an economically viable solution for 100% renewable grids.
Do you have any proof of this other than your own co clusions? Because a lot of experts see this very differently.
It seems Denmark is doing fine at the moment, so I don't really see your argument there.
By the way, the EU wants to develope hydrogen for long term storage.
If you want expensive, sure you can use nuclear.
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
