[buckie]

Welcome to climate change in the 21st century, where we'll be outraged/distracted by everything but how ~100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions[1]. Today we’ll be talking about evil terrorism enabling cryptocurrencies. Tomorrow we’ll be talking about individual choice and SUVs.

[1]:https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

[The_Beta]

I keep seeing this argument that companies are responsible for pollution. While yes it's true, why do you think those companies are polluting? It's not because they get up in the morning and say "better go pollute a bit more today!" They are creating products/services for people.

So if it bothers you that much then stop using those products/services. Not possible? Then vote to change laws. Not possible? Revolution

I get that putting the onus on consumers isn't going to fix the problem, but pointing to a factory that pollutes because you buy their products and want their product cheaply is equally inane

[what_is_orcas]

> It's not because they get up in the morning and say "better go pollute a bit more today!"

Of course not, but they do actively make decisions based on profit over sustainability.

> So if it bothers you that much then stop using those products/services. Not possible? Then vote to change laws. Not possible? Revolution

One voter voting on an issue doesn't change anything. These kinds of arguments must be made to convince others to vote with you on the issue. The same could be said of a revolution: a one person revolt doesn't go anywhere, we need more folks to embrace the revolution.

There's also been a concerted effort by corporations over the past few decades to shift blame from corporations & manufacturers responsible for pollution onto the consumers, which makes arguments like these necessary (because otherwise the only argument on the market is that we consumers are just buying plastics to spite the environment, to be hyperbolic about it).

[The_Beta]

> Of course not, but they do actively make decisions based on profit over sustainability.

and that's what they're supposed to do. Make the most profits while abiding by the law. As consumers start caring more about sustainable supply chains so will producers. When their profits get hurt because consumers choose a more sustainable product, then you'll see change. As long as consumers don't care and just want the cheapest thing (which unfortunately has been the great majority of people for the past 100 years) the producers won't care either

[fleddr]

Exactly. People are always quick to call for a ban on any externality they can blame whilst not spending a single thought cycle on their own behavior.

As soon as principles are really tested, it's crickets.

People have large TVs, ACs, high-end gaming PCs, a ton of devices, huge cars, eat lots of meat, use air travel, and drown themselves in cheap packages from China.

All of this life-style is our natural birth right, and none of its should be banned or taxed. Also, it doesn't contribute to the climate problem at all. It's all Bitcoin's fault. Or, the "industry".

[buckie]

> but pointing to a factory that pollutes because you buy their products and want their product cheaply is equally inane

Agreed, but I'm not pointing at the factories. Consumers _can't_ lobby congress or control the media narrative. Factories don't lobby congress nor spin a media narrative designed to distract attention from those profiting off dumping the externalities of the business models onto the world.

I'm pointing at the corporations (the sum actions of their boards & C-suites taken as a single entity) that own the factories and reap the rewards. I'm pointing at the people that have effectively "won" capitalism and then took it way too far by changing the law and controlling the narrative to make sure they stay in power no matter the costs.

I hope there's some resolution that doesn't require a revolution, though I suspect we'll just do _nothing_... then it'll be a mega-clusterfuck the likes of which we can barely imagine... and maybe after the first 10M-100M deaths due to famine/heat/fires/storms we may figure out that we need to do something... and it'll be too late and/or that something will be another major war.

But before that western society gets to decide how to handle storms/crop failures/droughts driving the largest human mass-migration EVER (Central America => USA, Africa/Middle East => Europe) during a period when resources are constraining.