this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023

90 points (82.1% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

7,218 readers

230 active

1 user here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!

RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith

Related communities:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 7 years ago

moderators

theloneforager@lemmy.ml

Would You Rather Give Up Meat Or Flying For The Environment? (plantbasednews.org)

submitted 3 years ago by pizzaiolo@slrpnk.net to c/green@lemmy.ml

127 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Anemia@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago (3 children)

It's 100% personal responsibility, it's just that part of that responsibility is to vote/convince others for more systemic change. All the kids just blaming the "biggest 100 companies" while not voting and making no lifestyle changes are just as bad as the people they critizise.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] ebikefolder@feddit.de 2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

If you put it this way: sure. And those famous "biggest 100 companies", which are constantly used as a cheap excuse to not do anything on a personal level, are run by maybe 1,000 or so individuals. And employ a few 100,000 individuals.

All decisions are 100% personal responsibility, because entities like corporations or nations can't decide anything. It's always individual people.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Anemia@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago

Yeah I mean I agree with you. Most people who won't even take basic personal actions like not flying on vacation twice a yeah and not buying a stupid oversized car. If those people were put in the same position as these CEOs you can bet your left buttcheek that they would maximize profits in the exact same way. We need to both take individual action and also hold each other accountable by changing the law and applying social pressure.

parent

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

In what way did I insinuate, even hint on not voting?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Anemia@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

You didn't. My point was more that voting isn't enough. Just because there are worse people, that doesn't mean that we are free of blame. The entire west is living very unsustainable lifestyles. So we both need to stop the big polluters by voting and we also need to do our own part to strive towards reaching sustainability.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] TheBlue22@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

If everyone suddenly changed their lifestyle to be more sustainable, world would still go to shit. Because again, individuals combined contribute minimally compared to corporations individually.

Not to mention, "carbon footprint" is a myth made by british petroleum and spread by big oil. It is made exactly to scare people like you, making them think responsible for problems not caused by individuals.

Only way to combat climate change is systematic, not individual. You can do you and be more sustainable if you want, but don't spread lies made by the ones actually responsible.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Anemia@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

If everyone changed their lifestyle the we would solve the climate crisis. It's not like the big corporations release co2e because it's fun, they do it because the people want the products (and they want them at a cheap price). Corporations are no angels by any means but they are directly downstream from the people.

It's obviously more complicated than that but the idea that big corporations have the sole responsibility is just shifting the blame. You are still responsible for the portion that you put into the atmosphere.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] johnhowson@mastodon.social -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

@Anemia @TheBlue22
It's not quite as simple as that. There are the carbon emissions we actively produce such as fuel in motor vehicles. Then there are passive emissions from transporting items such as foodstuffs which we are not directly responsible for. So changing lifestyle can only achieve so much. Feedback mechanisms such as carbon sequestation through planting trees needs balancing against additional gasses from melting permafrost etc. A global government level effort is what is needed

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Anemia@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

I absolutely agree that a global political effort is required to force companies and people to make the required changes. Even if the transportation is an indirect emission I would still say that the consumer is largely responsible. Like if I buy an avocado that is flown from South America to Sweden then I ought to take that emission into account when considering the purchase.

The only emissions that i would fully ascribe to the companies are the hidden emissions that the consumer cant be expected to know of. An example would be a big swedish meat company selling meat as "swedish meat" but in reality they took swedish raised animals, transporting them to poland for slaughter and then back to save a bit of money.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] johnhowson@mastodon.social 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

@Anemia
I agree that there is a lot consumers can do through personal action, companies and corporations too. It needs a big all round effort. But many people on low incomes have difficulty in making environmental choices through no fault of their own. This is in part why I feel it is better to focus on Governmental action while encouraging personal action.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Anemia@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago

Sure, it absolutely varies from person to person. A poorer person probably isn't flying around on vacations and eating lots of steak so they aren't producing that much co2e anyway. So for some people it could be that the only action of any significang impact would be to vote and push the government to force everyone else to stop being so selfish.

parent

[+] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

What does voting for Capitalism have to do with helping the environment? They are 100% orthogonal to each other.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Anemia@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

I didn't even mention capitalism? Are you responding to the wrong person? My argument is that people ought to vote for the more environmental option.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

The fact that you don't even realize that capitalism is the problem and then you think voting for one of the two capitalist parties will fix anything, shows you don't care about the problem enough to think deeply about it at all.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Anemia@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

Even if I agreed with you, voting is still important. We need to do what we can in the current situation even if you don't think it is the full solution.

What type of action do you propose instead?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Targeted action against the c-suite of energy companies and board members.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Anemia@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Out of curiosity, what does that actually mean (political, personal, etc)? What kind of actions have you done in this category?

I agree that some forms of actions against companies could be valuable, but as a way to change public opinion.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -5 points 3 years ago

These actions shouldn't be discussed on public forums as they are the only actions that can threaten the status quo in anyway and thus are highly discouraged.

parent