Also think about how many of those products you personally buy that produce those greenhouse emissions. I mean, it's not like the responsibility ends with making the stuff.
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
1044 points (97.1% liked)
solarpunk memes
3763 readers
1275 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Of course by keeping your lights on you're contributing to these companies emissions because they're fossil fuel and power companies lol
Don’t forget the O&G lobbyists bribing the government to not fund public transit, build roads over rail infrastructure, push for the creation of suburbia and the American dream which are known as the single biggest wastes of resources in modern civilization, dismantle or repeal any green initiatives, destroy any environmental legislature, force pro O&G curriculums in schools, pay for pro O&G advertising and marketing targeting children, fund pro pollution disinformation campaigns, bribe pro pollution scientists to hide or discredit real science, etc etc etc
Stop blaming ignorant consumers for the actions of irresponsible suppliers.
This is about as insightful as "you say you don't want to support capitalism, yet you're alive, curious".
Yeah, I turned on the light. No I didn't select the power source or the million regulations, payoffs, bribes, and research that determine where it comes from.
They didn't say "turned on the light" they said "keeping your lights on". If you have to change somebody's words it means you got nuthin'.
So if I don’t walk to work I don’t have to turn the lights off
My city just sent out a notice telling people to turn off their lights, meanwhile the city does nothing about the hundreds of office and corporate buildings with all the lights on all night. All the notices do is piss me and reminds me that we have two sets of rules
Glass building with giant A/C units, like cooling a greenhouse
"Turn off the light when you leave a room." has always struck me as very misguided. You probably should still do that to save on your electricity bill. But I am a night owl and I like going outside to bike or walk. The number of businesses I walk or bike past that leave their lights on all night is just ridiculous.
Where I live they usually have little hook things outside to turn on/off these lights that you're supposed to reach with some perch you keep inside. When I was younger, jumping and climbing to reach these and turn off all the useless business lights in an entire street was great fun when walking back from the bar with friends
There's a massive shopping centre in Norway (Kvadrat in Sandnes) where the main outdoor lights was (not sure now, haven't been there for 6 years) a light switch you could reach!
Why can't we make laws requiring noffices to turn off their lights after office hours? Can't be that hard
Daily reminder that evil corporations polute for fun and because of evil, and not because of people's insatiable desire for more junk.
Daily reminder that these same corporations pump obscene amounts of money into funding what is essentially highly sophisticated, precisely targeted and near constant psychological warfare to deliberately induce feelings of insecurity, fear, addiction, isolation, inadequacy and emptiness in billions of people and then convince them that buying their product is what will relieve these feelings. Simultaneously, they set wages so low that junk that breaks easily and can’t be repaired is all that many people can afford. They create the junk, the desire for it and ultimately the necessity for purchasing it. There are entire industries built around sparking and maximising that desire and necessity.
You aren’t wrong, but it also isn’t the whole picture.
The hyper consumerist marketing driven rat race has been getting worse over time and it feels like governments have been helpless to stop it. I honestly don't know what is to be done about it.
Well that desire is partially artificially created.
Yes humans are stupid and buy shit, but many things are made intended to be bought amd break or not needed at all but advertised differently.
For example you don't need an AI. But companies shove it down your throat so that you have to use the power hungry monstrosity of a shitty software.
I'd argue that the desire is almost entirely artificially created.
I'd like to see governments try to do something about the constant affronts to our psychology that is the marketing industry.
Visiting Paris rn coming from a Car dependent city in Canada.
We shouldn't need cars. We should build our cities to encourage walking and reliable public transport to go farther.
Literally all the major structure in Paris are within short walk + bus ride away from each other. If you got good legs you could probably walk to most of these places. The Louvre, the Eiffel tower, the River, Alexander III bridge, etc.
All with little shops, cafés, and bakeries everywhere if you need a bite to eat.
Oh, you should stop by Amsterdam.
Oh Amsterdam looks incredible. There's a number of European cities I want to visit including Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen, London etc.
Unfortunately, our plan just includes Paris, then a train ride to Zürich where we'll stay a couple more days before heading home from there. We were planning to have a day trip in Brussels but sadly that didn't go through.
Hey, this moustache isn't going to twirl itself
load more comments
(1 replies)
Lot of people in this thread with "There's no point in trying to do something about the companies selling DDT because consumers want their gardens pest-free so we should just talk more about personal responsibility instead" energy.
Sure, companies are providing things that people want, but the way and quantity in which they produce those things is atrocious, and ultimately those companies are the source of the vast amount of the pollution.
We can and should tell people to eat less meat, but telling people to exercise that level of self-control while at the same time leaving systems in place that make the meat economy otherwise the same isn't going to do a damn thing. Conversely, you could tell end consumers virtually nothing while at the same time passing and enforcing actual environmental regulations that slightly increased the cost of a hamburger, and you'd see a real decline in demand.
You've got to focus your efforts on where they can do the most good, and focusing on forcing a handful of companies to change is more likely to show results than politely asking billions of people to change their lifestyles.
Individual responsibility for the environment is a myth invented by lobbyists.
Not a myth, but a distraction. Personal responsibility is good for the environment, but stopping companies from employing environmentally unsafe practices comes first.
They are polluting on our behalf. Saying it's entirely their fault is like blaming China for plastic pollution. They are producing that plastic for the world.
on our behalf
Show me where they give us OUR part of the profits, if not I'm going with greed.
If you don't personally benefit from pollution, then junk your ICE, never eat meat again, and stop buying plastic crap.
(You should do all those things anyway, but I'm making a point here)
"and yet you participate in society, hm, curious". You're doing the meme, my man. You're doing the entire meme that is also making a point.
You should move to a mixed use walkable neighbourhood.
You should learn more vegan recipes.
You should buy durable goods and learn how to maintain them.
Doing these things will make your life better in many ways. And you're going to have to do them anyway after the revolution comes and bans oil and habitat destruction.
And I don't want to hear the poverty argument. Rice, beans, pasta, bread, and potatoes are the cheapest foods. Not meat. Get your protein from legumes and your B12 from tablets, it's cheaper. I bought a sewing kit for 3 dollars and hair scissors for 7. Now I buy less clothes and no haircuts.
The lifestyle of fast cars, red meat, and cheap junk is convenient and fun, it's not responsible. Choose responsibility. Don't pay oil barons thousands of dollars for garbage you don't need.
load more comments
(10 replies)
My other comment is beside the point. The person I'm replying to is literally arguing that they don't participate in society.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The companies spend money to make consumers believe that the consumers are the problem. That propaganda works to suppress as many environmental standards as is cost-efficient for their stockholders. Regulations need to address the cause/solutions to the damage being done to life.
Corporations benefit if people think climate change can be solved with individual action, because they won't organise.
Corporations benefit if people think climate change can be solved without individual impact, because they won't change society.
We all need to work together and we're all gonna make sacrifices. It has to be both. One or the other are both corpo propaganda.
they didn't ask me
Source for those numbers?
The data comes from here I believe:
https://carbonmajors.org/briefing/The-Carbon-Majors-Database-26913
You can download the data after free registration.
Probably, yes. Which means, this post is quite misleading.
Carbon majors is about fossil fuel producers. Drilling oil, mining coal. This is the first misleadioning: Big and popular companies like Apple are not covered. They also count whole national sectors as one producer, like "China (coal)". Not what the average reader might think when reading "company". Misleading.
Further, the report includes IIRC 3rd phase emissions. Meaning emissions caused by end consumers using the product. Meaning you burning coal to use electricity, or fuel to run your car.
That doesn't mean these companies (producers, sectors) are guilt-free. But we should hate them for the right reasons, of which there are plenty.
For sure it’s a little misleading but that is where the number comes from for the “57 companies produce 80% of the greenhouse gases” quote comes from. Whether it’s accurate or not, up for debate like you said.
A debate between people who read the source and others who project preconceived narratives onto facts. Before this sadly popular meme, I thought the latter was a misdeed of climate "skeptics". It's quite painful to see how long-lived this meme is. It makes us look as bad and post-factual as the opposition. What do we do about this? Accept it as human nature? In consequence, stop blaming "skeptics", and people who rather believe what they want and don't look up, because we do exactly the same? I think we can and should do better, hence my effort here.
The core point people make and take away from this meme is "It's not us, it's them!". Meaning, consumer emissions don't matter, because corporate emissions are so much bigger.
And in exactly this core point, this meme is misleading. Because "our" emissions are included in "their" emissions (that's what ~~phase~~ scope 3 is about). It's like a child blaming their parents that they spend so much on food, while living off their purchases.
I think if we remove humans from the planet (preferably send them to the sun), the problem will correct itself and misinformation will also disappear with them.
I somewhat dislike using stats like this. Like sure climate change isn't a problem solvable by individual actions such as those but those companies aren't just evil nonsense either. You look them up and a lot of them are mega companies that produce much of the things people use daily so climate change isn't solvable without restructuring our world order and relationship to consumption and nature. Just people sometimes seem to use this stat as a talking point on how daily life and current world order doesn't need to be changed drastically just get rid of these handful of mega polluters and emitters when its not that simple.
The companies are not good or evil, they're neutral. They only care about making money.
If burning more oil generates more profit, they'll do that. If burning less oil generates more profit, they'll do that. And, they'll stop operations as soon as people stop buying their products/services.
On the other hand, they're not honest. They use marketing to create a demand for their products and services. They lobby politicians to be exempt from regulations. They lie about how environmentally friendly they are.
You can't 100% blame these companies for climate change because they're just selling things that people want to buy. But, you also can't 100% blame people for buying those things because they're not doing it with full informed consent about what's happening with the money they hand over.
In the end, we need to completely change the way western civilization lives if we want to slow climate change down, and part of that process will involve punishing companies that don't prioritize doing things in an environmentally friendly way.
They would not sell (nor profit) something that people refuse to buy.
We are the ones doing this.
Much easier to control and regulate the actions of 57 than 7billion - that’s the point
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›