You must log in or register to comment.
That’s a bit like saying “you think individuals consume a lot of food? Look at restaurants!”
Yeah it’s a shitty parsing of it, because my mind went there too.
But if the restaurant was using 1 entire cow to make 1 single 1/2lb burger, that’s on the restaurant to do better.
There’s a lot of that happening that corporations need to focus on.
Sure, but perhaps people could stop eating at that restaurant?
Because how some people currently are acting is that they continue to support these corporations, unwilling to switch to alternatives.
You need a car to get to work. How are you supposed to not buy oil? The point is the fossil fuel industry gave us no real alternative, you don’t have to eat at a restaurant to survive but you need a job to.
No I don’t. I don’t even have a driving license.
It’s also not just about cars. Oil is in other products people can try to avoid. Everyone can do something. Everything between voting for the right direction to changing your whole life around it. It doesn’t matter where, as an individual, you can exist on that spectrum. As long as people don’t just throw their hands to the air and deny all responsibility.
But 58 million Americans emit as much as shell
This is a false dichotomy, the way you shutdown O&G is through political action, making personal choices to limit your personal carbon output is a political action. It directly hurts O&G and directly helps the alternatives.
Making a personal choice helps drive political will which changes how people make personal decisions which drives political will. Arguing about which step to bootstrap the process seems pointless. If it’s easier for you to show up at Tuesday at 11am to city council meetings and yell for more bus routes do that. If it’s easier to increase your commute 20minutes and drive up ridership to give ammo to the council people, do that. If it’s easier to drop a big sum of money to lobby the government do that. Just do whatever you can that helps.
We are all drops of rain in an ocean, but without the rain the ocean would run dry.
You fell into the trap that this post is exposing. Of course personal action matters, everyone knows it and there’s no chance we’ll forget it, but the heavy polluting companies want to focus our attention on that alone, to keep it off of themselves. Please don’t assist them in doing so.
No they didn’t. They clearly stated that we need to take political action which is the only way to force the companies to align with our goals. Policies that drastic need a lot of backup in the society that legitimises these policies, which is what they meant by “we are all raindrops”
The only thing is that there are 9 billion people per shell
The only other thing is that the entire 9 billion wouldn’t all be emitting the same amount as each other.
And honestly more practical to deal with 1 rather than 9b
but the problem is that we need to do both. we’re not blameless, and throwing our hands up and doing nothing because they won’t either is incredibly not helpful.
just like when voting, individual action may feel pointless and hard, but it’s still necessary. we can still do things and make choices, but everyone is just giving up now because of this feeling…
of course corporations are polluting more, but so are we, and we can still force change through consumer action. just like conservatives are dumb for bitching about companies “catering to the left” when it’s actually just the same things they always have and always will do: cater to the average. if more of us would stop and think "huh, this product uses less packaging, maybe that should be a factor in my purchasing decision."these companies would start using less packaging. but no, most people just open something over packaged, and either don’t notice, or shake their heads for a moment and comment on the plastic waste before buying the same thing again next time…
we can’t be defeated by the inaction of others. if we do, then even their action won’t be meaningful if/when it comes. it’s going to take more than just one side…
what you are doing is called “Individualization of Responsibility” and it is a successfull tactic used by fossil-fuel-lobbies to shift blame away from themselves.
https://medium.com/@mitpress/individualization-plant-a-tree-buy-a-bike-save-the-world-ecb916df95e4
edit: don’t get me wrong. I don’t think you are doing this intentionally. But I do think, that by accident you are being useful to fossil-fuel companies
Not the person above, but Corporations are built around the idea of selling something. The biggest way to reduce your environmental impact is to not buy shit. Doesn’t matter if the shit is eco friendly, more shit means more emissions.
Corporations don’t pollute for shits and giggles. They pollute because they want to make stuff for us to buy. Shell doesn’t just make pollution, they pollute on the way to producing gas.
If we cut back on how much gas we use, Shell pollutes less because they have less gas to sell.
That doesn’t absolve Shell of their role in chasing profits over environmental protection, and there’s plenty of space for demanding better and holding them accountable, but acting like these corps pollute just cuz is disingenuous. They pollute because we want shit.
So I need food, but it’s all sold in plastic, should I starve? Or should I blame those who produce food?
You should blame them and still choose options with less plastic where possible? I don’t see where this idea of black and white, one or the other comes from
Where it’s feasible given your financial and geographical means, avoid food wrapped in plastics, foods shipped from far away, and meats. Not every single item in the store comes in plastic. It will require adjusting your habits, for sure.
No need to demonize anyone for not being able to if it doesn’t work, but every time you choose something better, it’s an incremental step forward.
At the same time, send an email or phone call to the grocery store manager. Write to your local politician and push for laws regarding stricter use of plastics, more comprehensive recycling programs, or funding and grants for local farmers.
Simply being angry online and not changing your own habits or lobbying for change isn’t actually improving anything.
Can’t buy what isn’t sold.
Forbid whatever shell is selling. Only except might be is if it saves life and there is no good alternative. Wait - did I just solve climate change?
They effectively sell all of our fuel. I’m doing my best to avoid them but I’m in a fortunate position where I’m wealthy enough to use the alternatives which are 20% or so more money.
I hope more do the same, then shell will die
Can’t kill a megacorp like that this easily, they have ample time to invest their ill-gotten earnings elsewhere even in the most optimistic scenario. Most energy companies are branching out into renewables nowadays.
That’s no excuse to not contribute towards greener alternatives
It’s not an excuse, it’s about managing expectations. Having unrealistic expectations is dangerous for any movement.
I mean I am going to play devils advocate but I wonder if they also include stuff like how much carbon emission does your online and non-local shopping habits are causing indirectly? Or your meat consumption? Or your airplane travels? Fuck big companies yes but also we have to change our consumerist mentality as humanity too.
Your argument boils down to suffer more because someone else is doing proportionately more damage to the point where your personal contribution is entirely negligible and we don’t know how to fix that.
still negligible if all the most consumerist countries populations are combined?
Can’t buy what isn’t sold. The bulk of society don’t have the financial capacity to change their purchasing habits, they’re already struggling for survival.
Most of the stuff most people buy on Amazon and the like is definitely optional.
This comparison makes no sense at all. But true, tax the rich, and imprison people profiting on the lifes of others
