710
submitted 1 year ago by outhold@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] tasty4skin@lemmy.world 134 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The narrative that the average joe is to blame for this shit is so infuriating to me. Myself and 50,000 other people could start walking everywhere and it very likely wouldn’t come close to offsetting the emissions of Amazon’s fleet of trucks.

Yes individual consumption matters, but there’s a very small group of individuals called billionaires that contribute 1000x more than you or I ever could. BP invented the idea of the individual carbon footprint.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago

The average person is the reason Amazon exists, so... That's still on the average person.

This is what people miss in this false dichotomy. Businesses only exist because demand exists. Countries need to start passing unpopular things like Carbon Taxes to seal the deal against climate change by hitting consumer demand and raising prices

[-] steltek@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

Oddly enough, without changing buying habits or consumer demand, I think the Amazon truck is a superior option.

  • Instead of thousands of individual trips to the store for small things, a single vehicle delivers everything
  • Instead of many hyper-local stores packed with things that may or may not eventually be sold, only things that have been purchased are shipped and transported

The trick, as you said, is to change consumer behavior and people balk at doing that, especially when it will cost more and income inequality hits harder than ever. Tax the rich, level the playing field, and the rest gets much easier.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] wandermind@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

I'm not demanding products which harm the environment made using methods which harm the environment. Businesses make the choice to produce those things instead of carbon-neutral environmentally friendly products, so they are more at fault than the individual who buys the thing. It's extremely difficult for an individual to be able to uncover the environmental implications of everything you buy and do. The only real solution is to pass laws which properly account for the harmful externalities in the production cost, such as carbon tax. That will steer both businesses and consumers towards more sustainable decisions.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

If you want to kill BP, stop buying oil. The Amazon fleet is about 70,000 vehicles and they're transitioning to electric right now.

Consumers drive markets. Mega corporations aren't polluting for the fun of it. They do it because it's a byproduct of them taking our money. Stop giving them money and they stop polluting. Why else would they stop?

[-] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Voting with your dollar" is bullshit. Just stop buying oil? Ok, let me go to the no oil store and buy a new car that doesn't run on gas and isn't made with any plastic. Let me spend my entire 5 dollars worth of disposable income to buy a new vehicle. And then take that vehicle to the store that has 0 petroleum products. No cans lined with PFAS, no plastic bags, no plastic packaging, no products made entirely of plastic. Never fly again in your life, or take the bus. Don't you even think about eating out again. Live life as a hermit, make your own goods, provide your own services and maintinence to yourself to ensure an oil free existence. Better start soon too, the planets only getting hotter. Rinse and repeat x8,000,000,000.

Markets are driven by capital. Those with the most capital have the greatest influence. Your pittance of a wage isn't going to change a damn thing. 10% of the global population has 52% of the purchasing power. Even if the other 90% of us all united together at once, about a single thing, we still wouldn't have the purchasing power to overwhelm them. You can't reform a system that's made to perpetuate consumption and pollution. It's cheaper to pollute by design. Do you think it's a coincidence that bills meant to make polluting more expensive either don't get passed or are so rife with loopholes they're effectively useless? Pull your head out of your ass. If there was ever a time this shit show could be reformed, it's long gone.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] raltoid@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

While true that they're not polluting for fun, many corporations will try to avoid any anti-pollution measure that will lose them money. To the point where they spend billions of dollars every year to lobby governements, enviromental protection organizations, and drag out regulations with lawsuits. Because in the long run it's usually worth it for them to pollute, as long as the investors see enough profits in the short term.

[-] DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Of course they will. Corporations do not care. They will only do things that make them money. Either because governments threaten to take away their money. Or because markets change and they're no longer making money so they have to change.

We have seen this with so so so many industries over the centuries. Consumers change behaviours and businesses move to fit their needs. If everyone here started eating less meat there would be more investment in plant based ideas. Because they don't care about what the impacts of their company are. They care what you and I are buying.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] kromem@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

You existing is why those companies use that energy.

I agree that it's BS to put the blame on the average person's behavior.

But the blame is on us collectively.

We use a lot of energy.

[-] tasty4skin@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Those companies are the reason that energy isn’t produced with cleaner alternatives like nuclear, wind, or solar

[-] golamas1999@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Billionaires and corporations lobby governments and donate to superPACs(legal bribery) to have them promote their business interests and protect their capital.

Infinite growth is not sustainable on a finite planet. The billionaires aren’t going to save us. Buying stuff is not going to save us. Neoliberalism and Capitalism is not going to save us.

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Not to support Amazon, but those trucks on optimized delivery routes are likely better for the environment than individials each driving their own cars to box stores...

[-] tasty4skin@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

If only we had some nationalized way to deliver parcels on an optimized route…

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] norawibb@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

either way the average joe is gonna need to do something cuz the billionaires wont. lets just kill them

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] aeternum@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

you do realise that these companies do these things because customers buy them, right? If you didn't buy stuff on amazon, there wouldn't be any amazon trucks around.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] placq@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I think that billionaires are some kinde of problem but megacorps (big 9, Nestle, cocacola, fashion industry) are much worst :(

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Try shipping vessels. I think I read that 7 of them are responsible for an incredible high percentage of all emissions or something

[-] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Sulfate emissions.

Which are bad, but are not CO2 emissions.

The entire shipping industry is a small fraction of the US's automobile emissions.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] sshff@lemmy.sdf.org 57 points 1 year ago

I’m sure this will spur society to prioritise the future viability of our species survival and the state of the environment over short term quarterly profits right? … right?

[-] explodIng_lIme@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

This and other jokes you can tell yourself

[-] donut4ever@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

People won't care until it's in their backyard. A couple of ads from BP and they'll blame themselves a bit then start "recycling" their water bottles not knowing that recycling is bullshit.

[-] aeternum@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

most of australia's recycling ends up in Indonesia being melted down and thus polluting the environment anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] donut4ever@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Nope, they'll just crank the AC even higher and get back to watching some "neckflis".

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] sik0fewl@kbin.social 54 points 1 year ago

This month is the planet's hottest on record so far.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

This feels like people opining about mass shootings.

Yes it's a problem. No one cares enough to vote differently in order to change it, so there's nothing we can do but fend for ourselves.

[-] tasty4skin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Plenty people care enough to vote. Plenty of people also work very hard (and have been doing so for long before you or I were around) to disenfranchise and prevent the votes of those exact people.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Spzi@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

I feel I've seen this title-comment combination before.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheFrirish@jlai.lu 22 points 1 year ago

See you next year guys for a new record!

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] CynAq@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

I, too, agree with the scientists that we're all well and truly fucked.

[-] outhold@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

120k years ago was about the end of the Eemian interglacial period, which was a significantly warm period.

[-] Diarrhea_Eruptions@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

How do they estimate temps so long ago? What data do they use?

[-] outhold@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They have various methods. One of the common ones is analyzing ice core samples. The ice sheets are accumulated over the years so each layer on ice sheets is from a certain historical period (much like tree trunks.) By analyzing the chemical status of the ice core on each layer, they can extract data, such as temperature, about a certain period.

[-] shalva97@lemmy.sdfeu.org 12 points 1 year ago

I wonder what next year will be like

[-] 99nights@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

"The hottest on record"

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
710 points (97.8% liked)

World News

39347 readers
2727 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS