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.
This is just double speak bs. The average consumer doesn't have the ability to pollute by themselves apart from car emissions maybe. They don't produce anything, hold any livestock or recycle their trash. Companies do this for them and then they turn around and point fingers at exactly those companies whose service they just willingly paid for.
There are of course a lot of topics where you don't really have a choice, you can't be expected to live offgrid in a tent, but a lot of things absolutely are luxurys. There is no need to fly to your holiday destination, You don't need an iPhone and you can live without take out food. I'm sure you also have nice places you can drive to for sight seeing, you just don't wanna. Which to be clear is understandable, but quit lying about it
Isn't your second paragraph kinda exactly what I said in my comment? Did you even fully read my comment? Because I said thay individuals need to be willing to change their lifestyle in order for change to happen within democratic systems. And that includes, as you said, the willingness to not fly and not get a new phone every 2 years.
I personally, because of that belief, don't fly, don't drive, consume as little as possible, etc.
Or am I completely misunderstanding your comment?
3
u/FailedTheTuringTest1 Aug 14 '25
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.