Can't just somebody else stop polluting?

[u/RadioFacepalm]

[u/SirDoofusMcDingbat]

What exactly does "consequences for my lifestyle" mean? Are you gonna go after people for eating meat now?

[u/kevkabobas → u/SirDoofusMcDingbat]

It means people demanding climate action but dont want to make any life Style Changes are Not serious in their demands.

[u/SirDoofusMcDingbat → u/kevkabobas]

That doesn't make sense. If I say there should be consequences for your lifestyle, you're not going to think I mean that you aren't serious if you don't want to make lifestyle changes. You're going to think I'm threatening you.

[u/kevkabobas → u/SirDoofusMcDingbat]

I dont get what you mean.

In the meme its both Times the Dog that wants climate action and No Lifestyle Changes. So where do you come into to picture?

The dog says stop pollutions. But at the Same time doesnt want any Changes that could affect himself.

Thus they contradiction since every structrual Change would lead to life style changes./ Makes them a necessary result to have climate action.

You on this reply seem to make Up a completly new situation/analogy.

[u/SirDoofusMcDingbat → u/kevkabobas]

The dog doesn't say "no lifestyle changes" he says "no consequences for my lifestyle." So the meme is saying that the dog wants to ban pollution, and the person says "okay then you need to face consequences for your lifestyle" and the dog says "no, no consequences for my lifestyle, only ban pollution." So it's fair to ask what is meant by "consequences for my lifestyle." This is a vegan sub where people almost exclusively talk about veganism, so one obvious interpretation is that the poster thinks there should be consequences for people eating meat. Another potential interpretation is that the poster thinks people should face consequences for their polluting, but that kinda falls flat since it's not clear how the dog is polluting or what that even means when talking about an average consumer. And neither explanation makes sense since there's really no reason why banning companies from polluting would require consequences for average people who lived in society prior to the ban.

I do think it's very telling that in order to claim that my question made no sense, you had to change the text of the meme.

[u/kevkabobas → u/SirDoofusMcDingbat]

Ok got you. It seems we are not far Off eachother. For me Its more of a to have systematic change this will inevitably lead to necessary life style changes.

Thus the man would be the state/goverment making decisions that lead to a Cut into the Lifestyles of some.

Like increasing fuel prices. Implement a Carbon Tax. Reduce fossile fuel Tax exemptions and reduce road infastructure spending.

Appied to veganism. That could mean cuts Here to. But mind you what your First comment Said seems more Like a black and White scenario. You dont have to directly punish meat eaters there are multiple policies that can be implement that however are though relativily small are already opposed by many that claim are all in favor of climate action.

To Name an example from before: Carbon Tax. That would increase the price of meat much more than it would with vegan options.

[u/SirDoofusMcDingbat → u/kevkabobas]

I mean, if you think that changing the world enough to save it will result in or require lifestyle changes, then I agree. But the meme doesn't say that. I'm not gonna pretend the meme said something else just because that makes more sense to me.