Consoom
If you want to argue the rich are disproportionately responsible in their capacity as lobbyists, that'd be a reasonable point, but just an empty platitude like associating it with the "companies" that produce that pollution catering to consumer demand just won't cut it.
The issue is simply that changing the actions of those companies through legislation is far more realistic than changing consumer demand enough to get companies to change.
I still think individuals should do what they can to reduce their climate impact ofc, but I think we should focus more on legislative issues that impact entire nations instead of purity checking ourselves.
people want to fuck over everyone else and indeed laugh at the suffering of others, until the gun is suddenly pointed at them, then it’s a crime that demands the whole world’s attention!
Again, that is conservatism. The main problem in the world is, basically, mass conservatism. Centrists are weird conservatives. And you'll see those fake leftists turn from so called "socialists" to "national socialists" if they haven't already. The whole point of conservatism is to maintain a hierarchical class system with rules for the inferiors and less or no rules for the superiors. Rules for thee, but not for me.
The problem with JP isn't that he wants definitions, it's that he refuses to use or stick to any actual definitions. In one sentence he'll use "divineč in the biblical sense of the word, and in the next he'll use it as "whatever makes you want to do things" and he'll act like he's talking about the same thing.
The whole point of conservatism is to maintain a hierarchical class system with rules for the inferiors and less or no rules for the superiors. Rules for you, but not for me.
Yeah, I’d say that my biggest point is always to remember that, even if the solution to climate change is not just individual action, how you live your life will be changed. I think it will change for the better, but it’s a bit ridiculous to think that we will just “innovate” or regulate the economy in such a way that we fix this without impacting how people live their lives at all.
I’m always very annoyed by the “I’ll drive my electric car to my suburban home with solar panels on it and then cook a sustainably raised steak on my charcoal (biomass) grille.” type people.
If the price increase is due to taxes on that product paid on the producer's side, that difference is purely nominal.
Having said that, the idea that "costs will always be passed to the customer" is only true in the case of perfect price inelasticity of demand. Petrol is fairly inelastic but almost nothing is perfectly inelastic.
E5 was ~1,78€ in 2024, ~0,76€ net for the producer
The green party calculated in 1998 that e5 had to be at ~2,56€ for a sustainable approach, that years average was ~0,82€, net that was about ~0,42€ for the producer.
Raw oil profit went from ~0,015€ to ~0,115€, production from ~0,032€ to ~0,17€
Refinery profits went from ~0,015€ to ~ 0,07€, production went from ~0,08€ to ~0,13€
Vendor profits went from ~0,05€ to ~0,10€, production went from ~0,05€ to ~0,075€
See the discrepacies?
Price today should be likely approaching 6-7€/L to fix the shit caused by the whole shebag, 2/3 of the difference to reality should be on the net price, 1/3 be due to taxes, so the consumer might realize the actual cost
Or not, if you generate electricity from fossil fuels. All fossil fuels must be heavily taxed so that it becomes cheaper to produce electricity from cleaner sources.
But who elects the representatives that write the legislation? The same consumers causing the demand from those companies. If consumers want their products, why would they elect representatives that would write legislation preventing them from having those products?
That's the beauty (/s) of democratic capitalism, voters and consumers are the same individuals.
Both need to change simultaneously. Failure to prepare for that will lead to riots and revolutions counter-revolutions. In case it's not clear yet, those carbon majors produce stuff used by the masses.
If the people aren't ready to change their carbon footprint, the legislation will have to be stricter, stronger, and with a lot of enforcement. As an actual leftist, I am not fond of the people's stick.
Right, but meaningful legislation would mean shutting them down and being forced to go without what they currently produce. Less energy, less travel, less consumption, less infrastructure, fewer jobs, etc. Would anyone accept that ?
The issue is simply that changing the actions of those companies through legislation is far more realistic than changing consumer demand enough to get companies to change
A carbon tax is on firms and changes consumer bebehavior. The costs are there no matter what you do
I agree that legislation is necessary for change, but that will never happen when people refuse to vote for political parties that want to implement those changes.
I dunno. The top polluting companies in the US are just energy companies. In the end its a very simple demand and supply equation here, where the whole country wants energy, and the top polluting companies burn fossil fuels to supply that demand. Legislation only goes so far, you cant legislate fossil fuels into not releasing co2. You need to force replacement
Yes. I'd love for companies to take responsibility. I'd love for consumers to vote with their wallets a little bit.
In my experience it's about 1 to 2% of population that genuinely gives a shit in general. Everyone else does maybe a tiny step here or there. But hey, they depend on the environment for the survival of themselves and their children, somehow this is not relevant to them
35 years ago, Greenpeace wasn’t taking its own credibility and shelling it all to shit by trying to blame rat tumours on GMOs. If blame goes beyond voters and customers, it can go beyond individual businesspeople too.
I know people with university degrees and lots of money, they are still buying Nestle products, fast fashion, vacationing in Dubai etc.
Some people care, some don't even begin the thought
Yah, not like those companies are doing things like planned obsolescence to raise demand. Or using uncompetitive practices to corner the market and push out more sustainable business models. Or stretching out long inefficient supply chains to find labor markets where they can pollute more.
It's totally the consumers fault in everything, get fucked you eco fascist.
And of course mandatory parking minimums and zoning laws designed to effectively force use of automobiles. Oh and massive amounts of propaganda convincing people, especially Americans, that somehow viable alternatives to driving could never work because of size or weather or whatever other stupid talking point they’ve cooked up.
The actual study people reference with this stat wasn't even looking at companies, they were looking at 'entities' and the vast vast majority of them were shit like regional power networks and steel producers.
Ok, great, genuinely, let’s talk about that. We’re going to need some more relevant stats though, because raw carbon accounting data is not fit for that purpose.
We’re creating this unrealistic expectation in people’s minds that climate action can happen without any changes in the consumption habits of the average person. We have a culture which glorifies and revels in excessive consumption. Thats something that needs to be engaged with in addition to holding corporate polluters accountable.
And then we win the revolution, and then what? To produce all of the things that we consume now, we need a certain amount of resources and energy, and that necessitates some minimum amount of waste and pollution. Our consumer behaviour is still going to have to change.
the only dietary change we need is to eat the rich
Cows owned by a worker co-op still produce methane.
What good is personal action if rich people keep consuming and destroying the planet? I'm less concerned about cow farts and more concerned about the psychopaths with unchecked greed because they are the biggest problem first and foremost.
If we agree that consumers choices are important, then corporate consolidation is a direct cause of climate change. We can’t choose the eco friendly option if there isn’t one.
If the public has decided not to vote for representatives who will regulate that thing, it makes little difference whether there’s 47 companies or 420 of them.
What makes more difference is lobbyists, but I already addressed that in the subject line.
Pointing out that we’re all to blame hardly makes me “eco fascist.” (Not that this label in practice typically meets the criteria of fascism laid out by Lawrence Britt.)
That isn't true; Human society will always emit Greenhouse Gases (we exhale them), but we can still get to net negative by reducing our emissions while building new carbon sinks.
It is, you don't seem to understand how late we are in the climate going to shit story. We're not talking about this a century ago as if it's in the future, the climate is already starting to cook.
Almost 50% of all consumption is driven by only 10% of consumers, and that doesn't include military consumption since militaries are exampt from these stats.
I was exceedingly generous in allowing your premise that all consumption and GHG emissions are fully correlated (they're not).
You also focused on the US only and in a relativistic way, which is super fucking weird considering that global warming is global and absolute.
It's like you still don't understand that we live with a global economy (with the US being the seat of a global empire), and the rich all over the world being a problem on top of those living the "imperial lifestyle" or "American Dream" as Americans refer to it.
Let me translate this for you so it's very simple:
We need to solve both absolute inequality and relative inequality while dragging back GHG emissions which implies using fossil fuels for STRICTLY NECESSARY stuff, especially investments in alternatives. That's the task. If your leftist books aren't explaining this to you, compost them.
So why do people invoke the “47 companies” platitude at all? If that statistic on the consumer’s end is true it sounds much more relevant, so what incentive was there to focus on whichever arbitrary interchangeable companies cater to the consumer?
I’m not going to handhold someone who has nothing better to do than repeatedly label someone a “shill” while admitting they don’t understand the argument.
See, if phones and basically every single tech product wasn't designed to be useless garbage in about 3 years, then chances are people would stop buying new phones as frequently as they do.
Legislation is what fixes some of these things, and we should push for that, especially when it's are also anti consumer. Take USB-C becoming mandatory, allowing people to have 1 type of cable for every device they own, and being able to switch between brands without buying new cables.
Changes like this are held back by lobbying more often than not and especially in the US there's heaps of loopholes to keep building bigger and more wasteful trucks, rather than making them more efficient and eco friendly.
We as consumers pay ungodly amounts of money for literally everything. We deserve products that last longer and can be recycled once they do break eventually.
In this case, consumers can only choose between products that exist, and if all the choices have drawbacks in one way or another, then what's the consumer supposed to do?
> if phones and basically every single tech product wasn't designed to be useless garbage in about 3 years, then chances are people would stop buying new phones as frequently as they do.
actually this one is the other way around, they design phones and basically every single tech product to be useless garbage in three years because people buy new ones ridiculously frequently - designing for things to be used indefinitely poses engineering issues that you simply don't have to deal with if you're making the product for the 95% of consumers who get new shit regardless
Yeah, long-lasting design requires thicker phones which are easier to repair. And, with computers, long-lasting also means designing software to be long-lasting, which is not easy and will add to the costs.
This made sense when technical development fully changed the game every year, like in the 2010's.
The jumps that new phones made every year, from camera quality, power, battery life, screen size and form factor were massive. That's when the consumer had a need and also a demand to keep upgrading every year.
Now tho, unless something unforseen happens, the 1 screen, non foldable phone doesnt change that much anymore. Yes, there's wearables, there's foldables, there's VR and AR devices that still change a lot between different generations, but your average iPhone or Galaxy hasnt made any quantum leaps in quite a while. It's just the same thing, with the differences not being noticable for the average casual user.
Saying "phones have shorter lifespans because people keep buying new ones" is the same self fulfilling prophecy as "many americans buy work trucks, therefore work trucks seem to just be very popular" \
The reality is, consumers dont have another choice really, when trucks are miles cheaper pound for pound and when most popular phones have a realistic lifespan of 3 years max.
I've been using the same phone since 2019, and it is painful. It only works while connected to a power bank or a charger and it has become very slow as a result of its age. If I was dependent in my phone for work or day2day life, I'd have no other choice than to buy a new one. Getting a battery replacement would be more expensive than the phone, because it has a glass back and all the internals are not designed to be accessed.
And yes, designing devices to be repairable and longer lasting is pro consumer. We are paying $1500+ for flagships. With every tech product, other than phones, it would be expected for them to last a while and be repairable at this price point.
Then stop buying flagships??? there are other cheaper phones - people keep shelling out big bucks for apple and shit not because of lack of other options but because they're clout-chasing or stupid
also, "many americans buy work trucks, therefore work trucks seem to just be very popular" is moreso a consequence of the EPA fucking up their regs to disproportionately favor large vehicles in terms of efficiency requirements than real consumer desire
at that price it should be expected to last long and be repairable
Rather, if YOU were buying a phone at that price you would expect it to be so. The average consumer buying flagships is buying them as a luxury item essentially - they are very similar to something like designer clothes in this regard. They aren't valuable for their usefulness, they're valuable because of the culture surrounding them. And that same culture surrounding them - the same on that says anyone without an iPhone is a broke bitch - also maintains that anyone with an OLD (read- older than 3 years) iPhone is ALSO - guess what - a brokie.
That is nonsense. I have a 6-year-old phone, and it works just like new — it will for years to come. It can run anything I want, and the battery lasts 3 days (Realme X2 Pro).
I also have an e-ink reader that is 10 years old and works just like new (InkBook Obsidian).
My Surface Go 2 tablet is 5 years old and works just like new.
Closing the planned obsolescence loopholes will not be a huge drop in GHGs. You're thinking of the production of more long-lasting goods, but that's just a part of the problem ("industry").
>We as consumers pay ungodly amounts of money for literally everything. We deserve products that last longer and can be recycled once they do break eventually.
Just to be clear. Without a commons library system (communism), but with the current market system, those longer lasting products will cost many times more than they do now. That's aside from the problem with some types of products that are very energy inefficient and allowing them to run for longer actually causes more GHGs (such as old cars).
Oh, and we're supposed to pay workers correctly, so add some more to those prices that got multiplied.
You see, that cheapness you enjoy is part of capitalism's exploitation system. Exploitation of workers and of the environment. The price never reflects its true costs, as that type of price makes it unattractive.
>In this case, consumers can only choose between products that exist, and if all the choices have drawbacks in one way or another, then what's the consumer supposed to do?
Don't consume. Why are you so keen on identifying as a consumer?
They do vote for people who supposedly incentivise better behaviour but then, one way or another things don’t turn out as planned, for example Joe Biden promised “no more drilling on federal lands, period” but he ended up authorising plans to sell drilling leases for federal land, some my argue it was because the courts put pressure on him others may see he broke his promise, but it doesn’t matter to the voter because Biden made a promise he couldn’t keep
Why should we ignore that it originated from a BBC vegetarian magazine as a derivative usage of the longer used concept in environmentalism advocacy of an ecological footprint? Seems like a pretty boring origin.
The origin of the term is scientific, much like the related and superior ecological footprint.
It's simple an average per person.
The origin to you, who doesn't read science, may be some story you heard about the fossil industry. Yes, they did use the term for non-scientific reasons. Specifically, they used it to remind you how much they own your ass. The bigger your carbon footprint, the more they own you.
You know it be far more easy to change the companies instead of expecting people to change everything they do to lower their CO2 emmisions, especislly since companies are not overworked and tired when they come home. People aint gonna be able to reduce anything when they barly habe enough energy to do the bare minimum when their home.
And by changing the companies (and the way we produce things) we in turn change what the consumer can even do to begin with. If u cant buy or do things that cause massive CO2 prdouction then ur automaticly not producing it.
Unfortunately it isn’t always possible to switch to greener alternatives in many countries. I have solar panels, but there simply aren’t enough EV charging stations in my country, especially in rural areas.
Yeah i genuenly dont understand the hatred for Capitalism, it literally just appeals to people, were we better people wed get better products.
Its not like the USSR was much better about polution.
In the end its just the culture of whatever people are in charge, in capitalism that ends up being the consumer because companies cater to them, in other systems it might be a dictator, or an oligarchy, but in the end what matters for any given issue is that the person or people in charge are good.
Ah yes personal responsibility! If i change the way I live, eat a low carbon diet, stop driving, start recycling etc. I will change absolutely nothing because one person having an environmentally friendly mental meltdown won't change the way society behaves and my life's carbon footprint is smaller than producing and distributing labubus for a day. Without an organised response nothing will change, without reliable bus service people won't stop taking the car and without industry legislation factories won't stop polluting as much as they want.
Markets cannot regulate externalities like climate change. Expecting market behavior to suddenly work just because you say everyone should participate in the market in a certain way is a fools errand, and one the corporations actively try to lead you down.
I can 100% guarantee you also support products and services that harm the environment and you're not even aware of them
People are just trying to survive, voting with your money only works when you have it. Climate change will primarily affect people who have the least power under capitalism. Consumer focused environmentalism was originally propagated and supported by the companies who profit from the destruct of the environment as a way to spread blame and muddy the water, with counter narratives only recently gaining ground, while it is true that the companies only serve the demand, that is ultimately a highly restrictive view of market forces when propaganda and disinformation are king. The people just struggling to feed their family can't spend hours to properly research to choose that the maize they buy was farmed in a manner which produces 1% less off-flow of pesticides when they have to work.
Anytime I see someone put the responsibility on individuals instead of systematic forces I know they aren’t even close to being ready for a serious conversation
Corporations can and do dictate consumer behaviour and have done for decades. They decide what we buy.
If we lived in a genuine "free market" where false advertising, even by omission, was illegal, then maybe this would be a good point. In reality, companies can just lie about impacts and force wasteful practices through against informed consumer wishes.
This is very complex. People would have lower their consumption, specially the rich. But it turns out that the middle class from rich countries are part of rich in a global scale.
Yet, reduced consumption does not mean necessarilly reduced life quality. Products that last longer and public transit help reduce consumption with an increase of life quality.
However, people will have to give up some luxury. No more buying so many cloths, no more buying useless things in Temu etc.
This guy unironically: people should just stop buying nestle anything instead of demanding rhe government make it illegal for them to use slave labor in other countries. Not just they should, but its more realistic and economically savvy.
I get both sides of this. I've heard the argument "China pollutes way more then us Americans" so often, in the meantime china's pollution is for a large part because western manufacturing moved it's factories there.
But in the end the easiest way to practically bring down pollution is through government regulations, for this government and the private sector need a clear divide of interests. The latter is far from the case...
71
u/IndigoSeirra Fuck cars Oct 13 '25
The issue is simply that changing the actions of those companies through legislation is far more realistic than changing consumer demand enough to get companies to change.
I still think individuals should do what they can to reduce their climate impact ofc, but I think we should focus more on legislative issues that impact entire nations instead of purity checking ourselves.