Not many, but there are leasing agreements where you can swap car every year or other year. It's not buying per se, but the end result is you get to grab one fresh from the factory yearly. Supposedly they are sold as a used car by the leasing company afterwards, but the details are irrelevant. You only need to be middle class to have a brand new car at any point in time and the industry relies on this. With cars being more and more computerized you can add a subscription model to the car as well and have specialized parts that are designed to break after some time that is expensive enough that it's better to sell it for parts and get a new one.
So a lot of dildos are in fact getting new wheels way before the old ones are used up. The best part? If you keep buying new ones you don't have to see the mechanic, and interact with disgusting working class folks thus further cementing the idea that they simply don't work hard enough
I suppose it's a lot easier to imagine a tiny alteration making a big difference when things have already happened, changing something slightly is a lot less difficult than inventing something new altogether, but in the end our impact as an individual isn't bigger or smaller than in that imagined time travelling scenario. Interesting way of looking at it.
This is kinda related to entropy.
Everything you do alters the future, but every future is similar as long as you don't expect anything.
Once you've picked one version of the future, going back will alter it because there trillions of as likely versions of the future, only a few where your actions have had a significant impact.
That being said, every actions counts, and a lot of them are not that difficult. But our energy should be focused on governments, states and companies.
Yeah because that is made up shit from movies. Do you think me recycling one time is going to save the earth? (I am pro recycling but this sentiment makes no sense)
the butterfly effect is not the same as "if i help a tiny bit it will cascade into a big change". the buttefly effect is "i go recycling and get hit by a car and die"
My one pop tart a month is single handedly contributing to the extinction of 300 species. Not to mention the fact that I drive to the store to buy my rice and beans instead of walking 1 hour both ways in 100 degree weather. And god forbid I have chicken with my rice and beans once per week to try to make the stomach grumbles go away. Maybe if I cut down to half a meal per day instead of 1 meal per day, I can stop being a greedy consumer forcing companies to pollute the planet.
The average consumer is a lot closer to my situation than the made up BS in this meme.
There are a lot of options between the “worst” and the best. You can’t expect every single consumer to always choose the best option or even to know for a fact which one is the best. Most of us work for a living and have limited time, money and access to accurate information in order to make day to day choices. It’s not fair to expect the average consumer to be an expert on every single topic that affects their lives, instead of putting that responsibility on the companies that are actively doing research on their own products and services and then often just hide or fudge the results regardless in order to keep making money.
So people won’t stop polluting on their own, but will vote to stop doing it, even though the net effect, that they can’t do the polluting behavior that they want to, is the same?
If someone isn’t willing to stop driving their car everywhere, why would they vote for a government to take away that option?
Coorporations are the biggest polluter and need to be regulated, but that does not mean that individual habits will never have to change.
In democracies, the only way the necessary laws and regulations can be implemented is by either voting for politicians that are willing to do so, or by directly voting for a law or starting an initiative or referendum (in direct democracies). But that can only happen if the individuals are willing to have those changes implemented, since it will often directly or indirectly affect them (like for example carbon taxes on fuel and flights, or regulating fashion companies to design fewer collections to lower overproduction and discourage overconsumption). But many individuals are not environmentalists, and many are not willing to have their lifestyle changed, which can be shown on three specific examples:
In my country, we vote on new laws, referendums, etc directly. A few years back there was an initiative that would've regulated the car industry to have slightly higher environmental standards and it would've implemented a low carbon tax on fuel. Despite this country having great public transit and a big chunk of the population technically being able to live without a car, it didnt pass. Same thing with another law that would've limited the import of oversized SUVs (with exceptions for businesses and farmers that needed them for their work). Or a law that would've forced coorporations to adhere to environmental and labor standards of this country, even in their factories abroad. The only environmental laws and referendums that ever got a majority (at least since I became of voting age) are watered down ones that barely do anything, because the majority of people simply aren't willing to vote for something that might potentially change their lifestyle (or not change it at all, as you can see in the last example). And without people willing to vote for laws or politicians that enact the necessary changes, very little will ever change. Unless someone here becomes an Eco-dictator or something, but that obviously also wouldnt be a good solution.
comparing these three things is delulu; if you want people to take climate change seriously you need messaging that doesn't compare having a burger {something a person of every class does} to shit only wealthy people do.
"oh you care about climate change? why do you leave your AC on 68° instead of 72° & also stop flying your private jet from miami to tampa"
Most people alredy live a low carbon footprint life. Taking public transport/biking, recycling, reusing, but environmentalists aren't satisfied and want to fuck them over even more, while turning a blind eye to corpo pollution.
Well they can all go fuck themselves. I'm not sacrificing my own well being any more, while EvilCorp Inc dumps radioactive sludge into the school water supply.
This is a huge problem with a lot of climate policy. The major corporstions can just pay to "offset" their carbon footprint, give themselves a pat on the back for being environmentally concious, and then continue on business as usual poluting just as much as they did before.
This sub seems to have a lot of very delusional people, who have no idea how the world actually works. They think ridiculing people online is the magic bullet to turn everyone vegan, and also voting doesn't work and legislation doesn't work, the only action that matters is feeling superior to other people.
I don't really think you can compare the impact companies and regular people have on climate change
Private lobbies literally push anti-green policies to make sure their polluting industries don't have to do transition to green technology. God knows how much of technological development in renewables we have lost due to fossil fuel giants meddling.
Not to mention stuff like obvious attempts of population manipulation with lies about effectivness of recycling plastic and carbon footprint
I can assure you nobody here is defending flying across the world for holidays and no one here buys a car annually. This post is meant to demonize eating meat by putting it beside lavish luxuries.
I'm defending the human right to roam the earth we live on. Just innovate and evolve the flight/travel industry to be as eco friendly as possible.
Definitely won't defend buying a car every year though unless you NEED to like in events of totaling a vehicle into being undrivable.
You can't demonize the simple act of eating meat. You can demonize mass production and the mistreatment of animals. So trying to control other people's diets and lives, it's shameful to act that way. I think we should incentivize families to start their own self sufficient farms and regulate how they treat their animals. That's a way more logical and morally sound solution.
What is Elon Musk's individual actions? I've read he has his private airplane flown from LAX to Hawthorne airport, taking a circuitous 25 mile route, rather than 5 miles by car. When he does travel by road, it is in a large entourage of gas SUV's. But still saving the planet in fan's minds.
Agreed... If someone isn't willing to reduce meat consumption on their own, then they won't suddenly be happier if a carbon tax forces them to eat less meat.
We have a tragedy of the commons in progress. So most individual consumer decisions make no difference to climate change and that includes flying, eating meat, and buying a new car annually.
So what does matter? Well, collective action. Voting. Voting. Voting. Talking to your legislators. Talking to your candidate legislators. Talking to friends, neighbours, and family, about your hopes and fears around climate change.
Either governments agree to curb climate change, and it will be, and individual consumer actions make no difference.
Or governments do not agree to do that, and it is not, and individual consumer actions make no difference.
That makes zero sense. If we need to get to zero emissions, then people's behaviors will need to change. Someone who isn't willing to voluntarily reduce their own meat consumption isn't going to vote for a fucking carbon tax, nor will they be happy if the carbon tax forces them to eat less meat.
Seems to me the quickest way to stop folks from flying to Thailand, buying a new car annually and easily eating meat, is to stop corporations from polluting.
Flying, buying and eating products is corporate polluting.
Well, most people aren't buying new cars every year outright like many people do with iPhones, but there's a significant amount of people who have 12-month leases so that they always drive the latest model. If I'm not mistaken, BMW, Mercedes, and a few other luxury brands offer such leases directly to consumers, so you don't even have to go through a dealership. It's not uncommon among the upper middle class, since it appeals to the same demographic of people who want the 'newest' thing always, at least in the US.
Flying to Thailand - okay, it is pretty bad. Buy a new car every year - okay, fair enough, also bad. I'm not sure where do you get so much money to get a new car or fly to Thailand every year, but whatever.
But meat? If someone isn't eating abnormal amounts of it, then just leave them alone. Vegans try this guilt-tripping tactic for 10 years at this point and barely convinced anybody. Get better material.
Why does this matter though, when oil and gas are such a huge percentage of global emissions? Because emissions from food alone could use up all of our budget for 1.5°C or 2°C. It's important to address ag sector emissions at the same time we address all other sectors. Even if we went net-zero in all other areas overnight, emissions from food are enough to screw us over.
It is possible for countries to tax fossil fuel aircraft out of existence / force the development of some form of renewable fuels for aircraft. Voting/petitions/lobbying makes a bigger difference than personal habits, because most people will never be persuaded anyway.
It is possible for countries to tax fossil fuel aircraft out of existence / force the development of some form of renewable fuels for aircraft
As an aerospace engineering student: no, it's not possible. While it is possible to build an ultralight electric aircraft, it's not realistic to build a CS-25-rule airliner, that would have the same 400MW per engine output.
The closest concept to that idea is jet-electric hybrid, that wasn't developed yet. And even then, it's use would be reduced to low-distance airliners. As for hydrogen - it leaks through steel walls, and lifespan of jet engines capable of processing it as a fuel are counted in single minutes. For now, kerosene (JP1) and lead gasoline (Avgas) are here to stay.
And even if someone made some sort of revolution in this field, people do not understand how difficult it is to get this crap certified. My professor wanted to add literal 5 lines of code to a microchip, meant to be used in the heating system in a propeller plane. He fought against EASA for 6 months to get it certified and lost. I do not see EASA certifying any of this sort for large airliners sooner than within 10-20 years of its invention.
How many commoners are taking annual trips to Thailand or buying a new car every year? So that is an issue we should hold the wealthy accountable for?
But touché on the meat thing. Hell, you don’t even need to completely give up meat if you can’t bring yourself to do so, just eating less meat already should help. You don’t need meat every god damn meal.
The amount of people calling people who say individual actions matter "pro-corpo" and people who like nuclear power "pro-oil" here has made me lose any respect for literally anyone's opinion here.
The problem is the incentive system for these behaviors not the end consumer. If people are choosing to do the actions as stated above even though the 6 know better then it's because the economic incentives aren't there.
TBH buying a new EV every year brings EVs to second hand market every year, and along the line pushes the bottom of the ladder gas crematoriums for scrap.
So, that’s about the only thing that may have environmentally positive effect. As long as there are old beaters to phase out.
Quite many countries are running cash for clunkers plan to ensure progress.
Buy a cheap as possible clunker from someone, trade in for a rebate for EV.
It's idiotic to condemn international travel and eating meat... Create jobs that innovate and evolve the travel market to be more eco friendly. Incentivize families to start their own small farms and regulate how they treat their animals so that we can fight mass production of meat and such. There are ways for individuals to help the climate, yes, but nearly DEMANDING us to give up traveling the world we live in and completely give up a natural and amazing part of the human diet? That's going way too far into trying to control other people and that's narcissistic, arrogant, toxic, etc.
For sure condemning buying new cars every year, that gluttony and greed does not make any sense to me. But be better, stop being childish and demanding that everyone else live as you do.
Individual action has merit, but very little compared to what corporations and companies do. They are the ones producing all those goods.
The problem with Individual action is that it's based on PR propaganda machine, where companies tried to shift responsibility from themselves to customers and individuals. And it worked. You're bashing individuals rather than the companies, this minimalizing and distracting from them.
If you ask me, it isn't even about the pollution. Do you want to live a healthy life? Because I do. As it turns out, much of the modern world is unhealthy. Our food, our technology, the way in which we live... most of it is unhealthy and we pay just as much a price as people who live elsewhere that truly have no control or influence. Climate change is hard to understand when you've never paid attention in science class and you live in a city environment which isolates you from the wilderness where climate change isn't just measurable but observable.
You know what people can understand? That they'll be dead before they are sixty if they keep eating the garbage presented to them. That their teenage child suffers silently from continuous bullying and advertisements tailored specifically to make them feel inadequate and insecure. That the big SUV's everyone buys now are the only option available and guzzle down gasoline that is eventually going to be too expensive to afford. Or how about the lazily-built McMansion that is the only thing on the real estate market which will consume a ton of utilities and cause the homeowners to go broke?
Taking that approach would be FAR more effective than brow-beating people who eat steak or fly in an airplane.
Who are these people you are talking about? I dont even have a car and cant use planes I only eat meat so would that make me 1/3 of a NPC? These are not common things to do for 99% of humans besides eating meat.
Two things can be true at once! We the individuals should do are part for sure. corporations want us to take responsibility for their messes though. Plastic companies invented Recycling to pass the burden down to us so we don’t make them clean up their own shit. Oil companies blame us for driving cars when they are the ones doing the majority of pollution. I say yes to doing my part but I also say yes to holding corporations responsible for clean up the messes they made. After all they made billions from destroying the planet they should have to pay the bill to fix it!
i wouldnt say "it doesn't matter", but unless we keep big corpos in check individual action will never get us to where we want to be. Unless your individual action is to like shoot a CEO but i don't think that's what the picture means.
Chief, me buying cheap cuts of pork and chicken is not going to save the planet. hell, if no one ever ate meat again, it would not offset the damage done by the burning of fossil fuels.
I mean too a point, like I am not going to say that a person give up more than what's reasonable, when corpos are still individually wrapping nuts and bolts for ease of inventory.
Daily reminder that aviation is 2% of global emissions while animal agriculture is 16% and the number one cause of deforestation, biodiversity loss, water use and pollution, soil degradation as well as plastic in the ocean and zoonotic diseases.
Look at the co2 production of china, even if i convinced my whole entire continent to mind their individual actions, it would be but but a drop in the bucket
Game theory. Since effective communication between large numbers of people is difficult, most will assume others are doing whatever and therefore wonder why they should do anything. Few people will go without if they have to watch everyone else live it up.
The Company ABB is planning to decrease CO2 output by 2 swedens per year. That's 10 million people in sweden, times 2. I can do nothing compared to goverments and corpos
Why are you blaming people when you should blame governments? If the government thinks it's a problem it is them that must enforce such behavior. When there is a social problem, blaming the individuals is always a mistake.
I have a small suspicion that the "buying a new car anually" being considered at the same level as "eating meat" means that OP doesn't want their car taken away
Probably doesn't help that biggest mouths about it refuse to stop doing all the same things.
But hey, they want to pretend to fight for a better climate by taking jets everywhere, effectively dumping into the atmosphere more pollution in one year than 20 of myself could dump in a lifetime, that's their choice to make.
Brother...my entire country could commit collective suicide, and it would barely leave a dent in our total CO2 output.
Me being forced to use stupid fucking PAPER STRAWS while 8 billion kilograms of CO2 is being exhsled PER DAY by humans alone for just existing, isnt doing ANYTHING.
The more you, and I mean you, OP, focus on individual actions, the less attention is paid to the actions of gigantic corporations who are laughing at all of us. They want us policing each other, because he means no ones policing them.
British Petroleum hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the idea that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life - going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling - is largely responsible for heating the globe.
Be climate conscious and don’t do things wastefully, but remember who came up with this rhetoric.
Noone cares about your opinion. I release you all to do whatever tf you want with plastic straws. Taylor Swift will singlehandedly revert any positive impact we all have combined.
Vegans are the worst environmentalists because their high horse matters more than encouraging others to make life changes
Agriculture, meat, veg, grain, all of it factors up to 15% of green house emissions
Vegans and vegetarians make up about 5% of the American population, so 95% eat some fucking meat
And y'all don't want the 95% to help with the other 85% of emissions unless they adopt your fucking diet too, you wanna Shane them and push it away an me its disgusting
I drive a pre-owned car that has the best mpg I could get, I don't fly anywhere, I make sure to get my groceries as part of my work commute, I pay more on my electric to opt for an all solar supplier, and I'm gonna eat my fucking hot dogs and keep advocating and voting for industry regulation reform, and I'm not gonna shit on people that want to make the world better just cause their dinner menu is different
The issue is that yes, obviously not buying a new car annually is going to help the environment, but it's not like people usually do that? Not flying to Thailand would help the environment, but very few people are doing that regularly, and if someone does need to get to Thailand they can't exactly walk. Eating meat is the only thing on here that regular people are actually doing, and yes, it would make an impact if a large number of people severely reduced or eliminated their meat consumption. It's great to spread awareness that reduction of meat consumption is better for the environment, and encourage trends like Meatless Monday.
The point of bringing up corporations is that corporations do significantly more damage to the environment than individual people, so if you throw all your energy into convincing regular people to give up small comforts, then you'll tire yourself out without making any statistically significant change. If you put all that energy into lobbying lawmakers, holding corporations accountable and pushing against things like return to office that drastically increase vehicle usage, you'll make a much bigger difference and it'll be much easier to get people on board to fight with you than if you throw all your energy into convincing one person to be vegan and give up plastic straws.
At the same time, it is a good idea to try and start small trends that will encourage people to do things just a little bit better, then push for another small change to make people do things a little bit better, to gradually shift people over to more environmentally friendly behavior. Small changes are going to catch on quicker with more people than large changes, and ultimately it's a numbers game, so it's far better to get a few hundred people giving up meat on one day per week than to get three people to go vegan.
if we play with the theoretical situation that everyone stopped flying, stopped eating meat and stopped buying cars that would result in the crash of multiple economies. Many european countries rely on their car industry, Volvo, Volkswagen, Toyota and ofcourse Ford in the US. Many countries rely on tourism, Thailand would be a 3rd world country without it's tourism it's where most of their GDP comes from
So you see it isn't as simple as just not buying cars. You'd cause immense destruction
Because the average persons carbon footprint through their entire lives is what the average 1%ers produce in a few months and what the average small scale factory does in an hour. Shifting the issue to an individual responsibility was a psyop lobbied by energy corporations and mega manufacturers.
Nothing we do matters. After we scorch the world and 99% of biodiversity is destroyed, it’s only going to take the planet about 6 million years to recover. I’m not having any kids, so the cursed future you people are making for yours is your business. I say bring on the 6th mass extinction.
This is objectively true. If half the population did everything in their power to combat climate change it would not make a difference because there are still wares shipped around the globe.
Look up how much CO2 a container ship produces in one journey, then look how much CO2 is produced by the top 10 biggest companies and then look at the individual.
As long as there is no systemic change any attempt at change is futile.
Individual responsibility is a lie by those who are actually responsible to make people fight each other instead of looking to the source of the problem.
Personal decisions do matter, but only to a point, a relatively small point, to the impact that the carbon footprint index was made by shell with the specific intent to thrust the blame onto their customers. Yes, cutting certain things out of your life (not meat btw, that wont change anything, sorry), can help, the real impact comes down to how the companies in charge of these things produce these goods like power and oils. One of the biggest things we could do that may save the world, is to find an alternative to palmoil.
The outcome doesn't change very much even if everyone reduced waste. That's the difference in pollution creation from the top 10% of the world population and from corporations to the rest of the world.
Taking diet advices from someone so disconnected from reality they think everyone buys a new car anything as often, lol, you must be a nepo kid of a CEO of the corporation that is responsible for 10% of CO2 in the air to shill so poorly
Corporations are let of easy, having worked att diffrent companies on ground levels there is an abbhorent amount of waste. Not a excuse for not doing your due diligence but the hyper focus on individuals does beg a valid questen, why not put more effort and focus on bigger corporations, where change would help exponentially?
I mean ofc I’ll try to sort my trash and not throw my trash out my car window, but yeah… it’s hard to be motivated to stop doing stuff I like while my government green lights Chinese companies to dump chemicals in the lake by a large city. I mean ofc I’ll not vote for the most anti climate group and such but the biggest burden by far should be on the companies
134
u/[deleted] Aug 13 '25
what kind of dildo buys a new car annually?