If only we had recycled harder
Humans self describe as intelligent. That always stuck with me.
Humans are so naturally stupid that they almost make AI seem intelligent.
Certainly that goes a long way to explain why so many think LLMs are actually intelligent.
This always gets me. They are producing stuff that we the people buy. They aren’t out there just for the fun of things. Inb4 Lemmy’s famous misreadings, yes it is an issue, yes we need regulation (which we will have to start again from scratch, hopefully in 4 years), yes we need renewables. But this simplistic “it’s just 100 companies” is misleading AF.
Have you somehow missed just how car-centric just about everything is? I mean, most public space out there is taken by roads and public transport is generally insufficient.
Granted, there are much better countries in this than others.
Ditto on other things imposed on people such as planed obsolence: Can you still buy a fridge that will last you a lifetime? Does your 15 year old original iPhone still work well? How many of the electronics out there are not repairable?
Then there’s all the pressure to make people consume, using techniques from Psychology (you can go read all about how the nephew of Freud introduced into Marketing techniques from Psychology back in the 50s). Absolutelly, people should be stronger and wiser than that, but most are not and just claiming that “it’s people’s fault” when others take adavantage of natural human weaknesses is just victim blaming.
Absolutelly, Consumerism is a big part of the problem and it’s a lot down to individuals to do less of it, but lets not deceive ourselves that the environment we’re all in not only promotes it massivelly and relentlessly, but plenty of decisions which were taken for us by others mean individuals often don’t even have a choice not to buy new junk or ride a personal-polution-device, and in Capitalism those decisions were taken mainly by large Companies directly or by the politicians they bought.
As you said, plenty of countries are better in terms of public transportation, but most people still insist on driving cars even in places with good public transportation coverage.
And the biggest counter to the “it’s not a personal issue, it’s companies who don’t give options” is diet: eating meat is far worse for the environment as well as more expensive than a plant based diet; but people hate the idea of eating less meat and they love to mock vegans.
Meat eating is actually a very cultural thing.
In India, for example, there is an area where most people are vegetarian and have been so for centuries.
My point about how people are psychologically pushed to consume also applies here.
Further, excessive meat eating (and the average meat consumption in most Western countries is at those levels) is actually bad for one’s health and life expectancy, so even from a pure individual selfishness point of view people aren’t doing what’s best for themselves, which would indicate there’s more to it than merelly individuals being selfish.
That said, I agree that people should eat less meat, it’s just the expectation that they’re informed enough (at various levels) to do it that I find unrealistic.
It’s another of those things which in order to change needs to be pushed as education to all of society, while what we really have is massive economic interests pushing in the very opposite direction.
The average person spends most of their time at work where they don’t control how environmentally friendly they are.
Except you’re wrong. In case your next reach is “It’s not the billionaires fault.” These companies could be easily be made more efficient if the billionaire class were forced to change but the government is too weak and corrupt to allow that to happen. We have wealth disparity that has surpassed American’s last gilded age. The billionaires don’t care about climate change because they already won they’re richer then us who cares if humanity goes extinct, they beat us.
Can we stop buying from them please?
That’s the best part! You can’t!
Thanks to the consolidation and vertical integration of the largest multinationals, as long as you choose to live — no matter how careful and conscious your purchases — a significant proportion of it will still funnel to most of these corporations.
Meat is one of the bigger polutters. Meat industry is subsidized by the state. Plant based diets are still cheaper. The vast majority of people still choose to eat meat and actively mock vegans. Just go look at beef (worse meat for the environment) consumption stats in the US.
That’s just one example.
People say they want change but won’t take it where they can, because deep down it’s a lie and they just want someone to fix the problem without them having to do anything.
being vegan doesn’t stop the growth of the meat industry. it certainly doesn’t shrink it.
How so? Meat factories exist to feed the people who buy meat. The more people go vegan, the less meat those factories produce, until they shut down. There is no “green version” for the meat industry, it just has to die, and the alternatives already exist and are cheaper. The power is all on people’s hands. The government won’t do anything about (not even cut the large meat industry subsidies) as long as people keep eating tons of meat, because they know that would mean protests and losing elections.
I don’t know if I could prove this, but I would bet there are more vegans now than any time in history, and I know there is more meat produced than any time in history. being vegan doesn’t stop the growth of the meat industry.
Yeah, because there’s more people in total. That doesn’t mean people going vegan doesn’t stop the growth of the meat industry.
Say 50% of people eat meat, and the other 50% are vegan. Then say the world population doubles. Now there will twice as many vegans, but there will also be twice as many meat eaters, and so meat production will double. But there’s still only half the meat production that there would be if 100% of people ate meat. And if you could get that value to 0% percent, there would be no meat industry.
if you could get that value to 0% percent, there would be no meat industry.
meat production happened before trade. there is no reason to assume it will ever end.
Yeah, because there’s more people in total.
make any excuse you want
That doesn’t mean people going vegan doesn’t stop the growth of the meat industry.
all the evidence is to the contrary
there’s still only half the meat production that there would be if 100% of people ate meat.
production determines availability. there is no reason to assume we could produce more meat than we do, given land and technology constraints.
Plant based diets are still cheaper
for some people
Can you elaborate on this? Maybe give me some examples?
Because for the vast majority of people in western countries (which have by far the most emissions per capita), it is much cheaper to eat a plant based diet. Rice, beans, and lentils are much cheaper and much healthier than eating beef every day of the week.
for the vast majority of people in western countries (which have by far the most emissions per capita), it is much cheaper to eat a plant based diet
I don’t think this is true
In 2021 Americans ate about 37.81kg of beef per capita per year in 2021, that’s about 0.73kg per week, or 1.6lbs.
Cheapest beef in Walmart that I can find, 1 pound for $5.93; so, for 1.6lbs, it comes out to $9.49 per week, for the cheapest Walmart beef. Keep in mind, 1.6lbs = 25.6 oz.
Beans (didn’t go for the cheapest): Can of black beans (15oz) for $1.42, another can of butter beans(16oz) for $1.54.
Lentils (not the cheapest): Iberia Lentils 12 oz for $2.59.
Mushrooms (16oz) for $4.34.
So a total of $9.89 for varied and healthy food, vs $9.49 for Walmart’s cheapest beef (which realistically would cost $11.86, because you can’t just buy 0.6lbs of that beef).
you’re beans don’t have the same nutrient composition on a per pound basis
you’re not accounting for availability of convenient calories. it’s cheaper to stop at Burger King than to buy beans and spend my time soaking and cooking. the availability of similarly priced convenient calories simply isn’t there if you insist on avoiding animal products.
further, even when people are preparing their own food, if they raise their own, or hunt, fish or trap it, or if it’s subsidized or free, then throwing away those foods to buy beans is more expensive than eating what they have.
You could buy from other company. But if you are buying the same product the pollution fingerprint would be similar on most cases.
You could just not buy the products. But if you buy things is to improve your quality of life.
So the best course of action is not to make people have less quality of life. Instead push for less people on the planet so they can afford more pollution per person.
This meme is not true and missleading. I know it fits the narrative of “companies bad”. But it’s not based on fact.
It’s based on an article by the guardian.
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
The article is based on the Carbon Major Report.
It describes itself like this:
Carbon Majors is a database of historical production data from 122 of the world’s largest oil, gas, coal, and cement producers. This data is used to quantify the direct operational emissions and emissions from the combustion of marketed products that can be attributed to these entities.
As you can see, they speak about “entities”, not companies. Who are said entities?
75 Investor-owned Companies, 36 State-owned Companies, 11 Nation States, 82 Oil Producing Entities, 81 Gas Entities, 49 Coal Entities, 6 Cement Entities
As one might realize, only 75 are Companies. Most of them are either States, or producers of Oil, Gas, Coal and Cement.
The 71 % is not at all about global emissions. This is wrong.
72% of Global Fossil Fuel & Cement CO2 Emissions
So it’s 100 entities that are responsible for 72 % of the world’s fossil and cement Co2 emission.
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/05dfb9e1-ace2-4072-9fc5-7ed6f6eddfb2.png
Looking at them you can see how the top emitter are very much not companies. Also, it’s historical Co2, a fact made prominent by the former Soviet union beeing the top emitter.
Let’s look at some more findings:
The Carbon Majors database finds that most state- and investor-owned companies have expanded their production operations since the Paris Agreement. 58 out of the 100 companies were linked to higher emissions in the seven years after the Paris Agreement than in the same period before. This increase is most pronounced in Asia, where 13 out of 15 (87%) assessed companies are connected to higher emissions in 2016–2022 than in 2009–2015, and in the Middle East, where this number is 7 out of 10 companies (70%). In Europe, 13 of 23 companies (57%), in South America, 3 of 5 (60%) companies, and in Australia, 3 out of 4 (75%) companies were linked to increased emissions, as were 3 of 6 (50%) African companies. North America is the only region where a minority of companies, 16 of 37 (43%), were linked to rising emissions.
Here the report mixes state and private companies. The rise is most prominent in countries with state owned companies. Privote companies, as seen in Europe and North America, haven’t increased that much.
So, all in all: The idea that 100 companies are responsible for the destruction of earth is plain wrong.
I know the ideas that companies are responsible and to blaim for the current state of affairs fits our world view (it fits mine!!), but please don’t run into the trap of believing everything you read just because it does.
Wow, talk about a failure of journalism from a decent source
Okay, brass in the us military can line up for the guillotine alongside the c suites at Exxon mobile and royal dutch shell
And maybe we can have a long hard conversation about concrete.
Looking at the numbers you should maybe include Chinas Coal Industry in there, since it is responsible for about 25 % of global emissions alone, according to the up to date report.
And the people at Gazprom also deserve a prominent spot in that line.
Yes. And all the politicians who made it harder to fix this.
I just have a particar grudge against western oil companies for proliferating cars. I’m in train gang pretty hard, and the whole battery patent thing that killed electric cars in the 90s honestly deserved a very active gallows.
Well clearly it’s the fault of everyone noticing the problems because like 100 years ago no one noticed the problems and so clearly they weren’t happening because no one noticed and if they were happening someone would have noticed so if people just hadn’t noticed they never would have happened and then no one would have noticed them which of course then means they double wouldn’t have happened
It’s just common sense if you think about it from that perspective
Rugged individualism strikes again.
This but sort of unironically.
Those 100 companies dig up coal, oil and gas. It’s us that apparently can’t break ourselves from it.
It’s all very well us going out and going “oh, you little poor brown people that don’t know any better: you shouldn’t be using this stuff, it’s killing the planet” when we’ve spent 150 years enriching ourselves off the back of it, and can’t even stop using it ourselves. The USA’s main export and import is still oil.
We’re completely fucked, and it’s very convenient blaming China when we’ve moved all our manufacturing there, but we were all responsible and we did precisely fuck all when it mattered. If a political party promised to stop using it all, they wouldn’t get in. We wouldn’t vote for them because we know we rely on it and costs of everything would go up in the short term.
I’m all for getting rid of fossil fuels, but I’m acutely aware that it’s just so I can breathe slightly cleaner air while the planet boils. Globally we’re still fucked.
People having 6 children that pollute their whole lives on a overpopulated earth.
“How could insert external factor to avoid personal responsibility do this to me?”
The most polluting thing a human could do is having children.
Even the homeless are polluting above sustainable levels. More humans just makes it happen faster. Until we make a sustainable lifestyle possible, you’re directing your anger exactly where big oil wants you to.
You are making my point.
People pollute.
That sustainable level that you talk about is primitivism or utopia. I don’t want either.
Only solution is LESS people.
Why people have such a hard time understanding that we cannot grow infinitely (in numbers) in a world of limited resources?
I know, that the core of this is the dogma. The left removed the overpopulation problem of their dogma decades ago to gain support on certain communities and now we are paying with lots of people actively supporting the destruction of our planet and our quality of life just to squeeze a few more votes
But I don’t buy dogmas. I think by myself. And I see that with that many people there’s not any economical system that could work to provide a good life to every human on earth, it’s impossible, there are not enough resources.
Edit: big oil wants people to feel guilty for wanting to live good. That is what people who supports uncontrolled overbreeding are, consciously or not, defending. I support that people should be able to live good, and consume without feeling guilt. Again, only way to do that is if we had less people around.
Forgetting where on social media you heard about antinatalism is not avoiding dogma, or smarter.
My only social media is lemmy and Mastodon.
Overpopulation was a big issue on the left agenda in the late 90 early 00’s.
It just shifted away in favour of glorification of poverty.
I suppose it’s easier to tell people that showering with cold water is the best instead of putting up the work so everyone can have hot water.
The most polluting thing to do is to allow capitalism to exist, yet I don’t see you on the streets.
You haven’t been looking then.
I’ve spent quite a lot of time of my live trying to end capitalism.
For the average person, yes, but that’s nothing compared to what a single stroke of a CEO’s pen can do.
Companies supply products to people.
If there were not 8 billion people buying shit and going places the stroke of that CEO won’t do as much damage.
Also if 8 billion people want a car to go on vacation to the beach… it doesn’t matter if the pen of the car manufacturing company belong to a CEO or a People’s Delegate, world is going to shit regardless.
It’s kind of like asking whether the vital piece of a table is the tabletop or the legs, when you don’t have a functional table without either one. We don’t have a functional market system without supply and demand.
In a weird way, blaming the corporations is philosophically aligned with supply-side dogma, where the corporations (“job creators”) have an intrinsic motivation to produce. As if they just churn stuff out all day long, because that’s what they do when the government doesn’t get in their way, and it’s the duty of people to consume so the output doesn’t all just pile up in some great heap outside the factory.
There’s a reason some call that “voodoo economics.” Whatever their influence today, all corporations producing things evolved in a symbiotic relationship with consumer demand. We could guillotine all of the CEOs, and revoke every corporate charter, but it’d do jack for the environment, unless unless we also all change our lifestyle.
Blaming the corporations makes as much sense as them blaming us. It’s time to move past who’s to blame, and instead start fixing things.
We could guillotine all of the CEOs, and revoke every corporate charter, but it’d do jack for the environment, unless unless we also all change our lifestyle.
without those companies, the lifestyles would necessarily change.
If we don’t change our lifestyle, new companies would spring up to replace them. But yeah, that’s my point, no matter how it happens, our lifestyle has to change if we want a sustainable society. Production and consumption are two sides of the same coin.
Companies decide themselves what products to supply, how they are created, what materials are used, how they are packaged, how much they are transported, …
And all of those decisions only take money into consideration.
That is not on the consumer.
I don’t even know where to start.
If you want a car, a car has to be made. If you want to drive, energy needs to me used.
There’s a limited amount of damage reduction that can be done with a change in the economical system.
And I’m for ending capitalism. But it would be naive to thing that without capitalism everything will be fixed. Some things will be better, but most bad things will remain a problem.
No matter what economic system you try to make. There’s no place in the world for 8 billion cars. And I use car a an example, but every item or service we use needs some resources. Even if we are top efficient about how we made them… It’s still not enough with 8 billion people wanting the same.
Ok, that makes sense to me. So you would support government regulations on companies to prevent them from making the climate worse right?
Of course.
But the ideal course of action would be to also limit population worldwide.
So each human have a bigger pollution/resource consumption quota, thus being able to live a better life.
I think quality of life is going to decline worldwide because overpopulation (it probably already started in some countries) and the only government regulation that could prevent that is a regulation on the number of population.
I see where you are coming from, but I don’t buy it. I think we can sustain the our current level of population and pollute less in a sustainable manner.
Also, the laws required to reduce the population would really cut into happiness. And given the current political climate would probably be circumvented by the rich and used against the poor.
Overpopulation isn’t defined by how much people there are, but by the total amount of sustainably produced goods and services divided by the total population. Fewer people producing unsustainably would also be overpopulation. We need to transition to sustainability regardless of amount of people, reducing population only leads to slower decline, not to a stop of it.
We need both.
Sustainability is defined by the amount of resources that a population can take from the environment without permanently destroying it. For a bigger population that amount of resources that can be used before reaching that threshold is smaller by person.
Just imagine a tribe living of a fruit tree that gives 10 apples a year. Maybe a tribe of 10 individuals can live of that tree but a tribe. But what happen when the tribe grows and suddenly there’s 100 individuals trying to live of a 10 apple tree? It’s illogical to take population out of the equation, because it’s one of the biggest factors, the second biggest factor is quality of life (how many apples we eat a year), and the only factor that you are considering relevant is the one with the smallest impact that is how efficiently we recollect our apples. That last factor is the one with the smallest impact in the whole equation, and it’s the only you seem to consider to solve our problem. We, of course, need to be efficient because it cost nothing, but efficiency by itself is not solving the whole problem.
Your own equation and your own logic is supporting my argument that we NEED to reduce population.
The only thing left against it is the dogma.
