747
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
747 points (90.5% liked)
The memes of the climate
1543 readers
1 users here now
The climate of the memes of the climate!
Planet is on fire!
mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.
rules:
-
no slurs, be polite
-
don't give an excuse to pollute
-
no climate denial
-
and of course: no racism, no homophobia, no antisemitism, no islamophobia, no transphobia
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Although I also think there is a correlatin between number of people and detrimental climate effects, it's wrong to reduce the causes to that. Despite the fact that "the richest 10 percent of people produce half of the planet’s individual-consumption-based fossil fuel emissions, while the poorest 50 percent — about 3.5 billion people — contribute only 10 percent", it is mainly due to our modern way of life and production. As you probably know, the climate started the downwards spiral since the industrialisation. If we werent producing so insanely much GHG-emitting stuff, it wouldn't be such a problem. (Regarding temperature alone. There are of course also other detrimental effects on our eco-systems due to things like overuse of fertilisers for example.)
You realise that the link you posted is full of shit, do you? The Oxfam shifts the blame from consumers to the owners of manufacturing and logistical facilities. It states that Bezos is responsible for all the associated costs of the shit YOU buy. But guess what? If you wouldn't buy that shit, Bezos won't be selling that shit and there would be no pollution.
Get your facts straight next time.
This is also covered in others, more recent findings. Want me to dig them out for you?
Which is part of what I meant by:
"it is mainly due to our modern way of life and production"
But not in such a condemning way as you.
The fact, that you were able to write your comment, shows, that even you felt the necessity to buy stuff. And I am 100 % sure that the device, you used for that, was not produced free of GHG emissions or under ecologically (or even socially) perfect conditions. As bad as this is, this is the case for most people. But did you have a choice? Can you live an average life in our current society without stuff like that? Do you even have the option to choose alternatives?
That's my point. This kind of "you buy, you choose" attribution of causal chains, is surely true to some degree. But imo it's an oversimplification to label it completely like that. I can't even buy fucking organically grown tomatoes in my closest supermarket. So I don't even have the option to choose the better alternative. This also applies to several other basic foods. Yet, I also need them. Most of the times such items are more expensive than the worse ones. The latter is a huge deal for people who really don't have that much money. So they literally can't buy the better options.
The market self-regulates that kind of stuff by itself to some degree. But not completely. And policies worldwide, especially in industry nations, fail to address these issues, thereby fueling the problem. Then of course there are further problems, like a lack of education and awareness about it and so on.
Another thing: how easy do you find it to see which product is the better one from an ecological perspective? How do you know it's not just greenwashing? Do you feel like it's an easy choice?
If so, congratz, you are a lucky one. But for most of the rest of us, that's really not made sufficiently transparent.
Again, something which needs to be regulated.
And then, Bezos and co. could make their whole business conpletely green. Do they want to? Nope. Bezos and co. also could decide not to take their private jets, or live in a private mansion, live lifestyles which cause so incredibly more emissions than the one of average Joes and Janes. And again, they decide against it. But yeah sure, go on making each customer and the whole of humanity responsible.
Not the amount of people are the problem, but their disregard for eco-systems, especially the failings of policies. Humanity managed to survive for thousands of years without fucking up the whole planet. Shit really started to spiral downwards since the industrial revolution.
And it is! In developed countries. Like here in Europe. I don't have issues buying "organic" tomatoes or "free range" eggs, because they all are (veg only while in season obviously, can't grow shit under snow).
The problem here is not Bezos, it's YOU who do not demand better. Most smaller delivery vehicles here in the UK are fully electric. Our grid is regularly 100% powered by renewables and the amount of hours keeps growing every year. BPA is banned in food packaging. A lot of pesticides and fertilisers used elsewhere are banned. Business parks like Stockley Park have insect hotels and bee hives, as well as dedicated waterbodies for amphibians, etc. Why? Because WE demand it! And you don't. Instead you ban contraception and abortions.
Insufficiently.
It must be a very different kind of Europe than the one I live in.
I live in Germany and regularly encounter such troubles to find ecologically optimal products. Most of the time because there aren't any available for me. Then there is a huge lack of transparency and sometimes of course the price. Although the latter is not really problematic for me, it is for a lot of other people. Those products, which are environmentally detrimental, are usually much cheaper than the ecologically better ones. You are being financially punished for choosing the better alternatives.
Despite the fact that a non-plant based diet is worse than a plant-based one in terms of ecological impact, the industry has been subject to a lot of critique due to insufficient regulations towards the treatment of egg-laying hens. Not only that, but also controls are often not conducted, even though it says so on paper.
Even if we neglect the ecological irresponsible business practises conducted by Bezos & friends, when it comes to individual ecological impact, wealthy people are usually causing a multitude of the damage which is caused by not-that-wealthy individuals. It seems to be a problem inherent to the lifesytle.
That's cool. However, there is more to electric vehicles which must be considered when we think about ecological impact. (Lifetime, resources, production, etc..) Even if that's given, this alone doesn't solve the climate crisis. Although it certainly seems to be a nice step in the right direction.
Regarding the remaining list: that's surely nice to hear. Still, there are still a plethora of unsolved problems. Even in your country.
How about you don't generalise a whole population?
You must have mistaken me with someone from another country. It might help to be less prejudiced.
Insufficiently.
It must be a very different kind of Europe than the one I live in.
I live in Germany and regularly encounter such troubles to find ecologically optimal products. Most of the time because there aren't any available for me. Then there is a huge lack of transparency and sometimes of course the price. Although the latter is not really problematic for me, it is for a lot of other people. Those products, which are environmentally detrimental, are usually much cheaper than the ecologically better ones. You are being financially punished for choosing the better alternatives.
Despite the fact that a non-plant based diet is worse than a plant-based one in terms of ecological impact, the industry has been subject to a lot of critique due to insufficient regulations towards the treatment of egg-laying hens. Not only that, but also controls are often not conducted, even though it says so on paper.
Even if we neglect the ecological irresponsible business practises conducted by Bezos & friends, when it comes to individual ecological impact, wealthy people are usually causing a multitude of the damage which is caused by not-that-wealthy individuals. It seems to be a problem inherent to the lifesytle.
That's cool. However, there is more to electric vehicles which must be considered when we think about ecological impact. (Lifetime, resources, production, etc..) Even if that's given, this alone doesn't solve the climate crisis. Although it certainly seems to be a nice step in the right direction.
Regarding the remaining list: that's surely nice to hear. Still, there are still a plethora of unsolved problems. Even in your country.
How about you don't generalise a whole population?
You must have mistaken me with someone from another country. It might help to be less prejudiced.