|
|
|
|
|
|
by aaronbeekay
1846 days ago
|
|
|
Firstly, I think there’s a pretty clear difference between enslavement, which is a practice that intentionally deprives human beings of their rights, often violently and often en masse, and beef, coffee, and chocolate, which are food products that are enjoyed by consumers around the world. Secondly, neither slavery nor the use of CO2-generating industrial processes were suddenly found to be objectionable overnight. Both have been the subject of intense attention across the globe and over decades. Nobody at Shell is surprised that carbon dioxide is a problem. They have made the choice to continue to invest in and defend their business model for many years. |
|
|
But which one is fossil fuels closer to? I think it's clear that fossil fuels is closer to beef, coffee, and chocolate than slavery.
>Secondly, neither slavery nor the use of CO2-generating industrial processes were suddenly found to be objectionable overnight. Both have been the subject of intense attention across the globe and over decades. Nobody at Shell is surprised that carbon dioxide is a problem. They have made the choice to continue to invest in and defend their business model for many years.
Should beef, coffee, and chocolate producers also watch their back? They all have issues as well. eg. beef: cow farts, deforestation for pastures/soy production, negative health effects of red meat.