Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheJunklest t1_iub4wtn wrote

The supply chain is not the problem with environmentally unfriendly products. The demand chain is.

−5

Sansa_Culotte_ t1_iub6s1y wrote

What is that even supposed to mean?

7

ribnag t1_iubmj2b wrote

It means stop blaming Exxon for the fact that we all want to commute to work as the only occupant of a 2000lbs internal combustion vehicle and on our own schedule, rather than taking public transit or biking in the rain. Exxon wouldn't even exist if there wasn't a demand for their carbon-spewing poison.

CEOs are statistically sociopaths, but sociopaths aren't stupid. They don't clear-cut the rainforest with a pinky to their lips and cackle with glee; they do it because we thought that mahogany coffee table would perfectly compliment great grandma's quilt (framed and hanging on the wall rather than providing warmth as we crank the thermostat, of course).

14

Teedeeone t1_iuc2hva wrote

Yep - nobody wants to hear this, do they?

7

iinavpov t1_iucdke7 wrote

Crucially the bit about commuting. It make people predictably unhappy, but they still do it!

4

kilranian t1_iucg57y wrote

Because it isn't true.

2

ribnag t1_iucuipz wrote

Name just one product that's produced solely because some stereotypical archvillain CEO wants to destroy the planet faster, rather than because we are willing to throw money at him to make it.

1

Sansa_Culotte_ t1_iufeu7b wrote

Here is a challenge for the people at home:

Step 1. Count how many pieces of clothing you own that weren't produced in a sweatshop. To clarify: This rules out any pieces produced in developing countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia etc.

Step 2. Ask yourself whether you deliberately chose to buy all the sweatshop produced clothing you own.

Step 3. Try and come up with a reason that reconciles your alleged total freedom of choice with the idea that you don't actually want to wear sweatshop produced clothing.

1

Svenskensmat t1_iuchm7j wrote

Tell someone complaining about the deforestation in Amazons to vegan and you’re met with a long explanation as to why they must eat meat.

2

sw_faulty t1_iucwjjy wrote

"I went vegan for a week and I almost died!"

1

Sansa_Culotte_ t1_iufeh1v wrote

Good point, the problem will be solved once we forcefully veganize America and Europe.

0

kilranian t1_iucg08q wrote

Except you have it exactly backwards. We don't choose how the world is built or what is produced. "Voting with your dollar" as an idea is ludicrous.

And public transit? You have to be out of your head. Outside of dense cities, public transport in the US is an afterthought, at best.

3

nef36 t1_iucphdw wrote

Public transit is an afterthought in the US because the American automotive and oil industries lobby to keep it that way so people will buy more cars and gasoline.

4

kilranian t1_iuefcp3 wrote

Exactly. It has nothing to do with consumer choice.

0

worotan t1_iucs7ez wrote

Reduce demand, reduce supply, first law of economics.

The one thing that scares companies and governments is a well-organised boycott - it’s the one thing they can’t deal with, as has been long-demonstrated.

You just don’t want to give up your lifestyle, and have excuses that have been astroturfed for you to use.

Climate scientists disagree with you, and say that the only way to deal with climate change is for a significant reduction in peoples consumption. You’re just playing the game where you say that companies have to do it, so that they can say that consumers have to prompt them to do it, and you all carry on as though you’ve addressed the question, as the planet burns harder each year.

You’re the idiots people look back on in history and say, why didn’t they just stop doing the unnecessary social things that caused the disaster?

4

ribnag t1_iuctnse wrote

We are how the world is built and what is produced.

Look - I'll offer an olive branch here: You're right that POU is a tiny fraction of our total environmental footprint as a species (10-15% gets mentioned often). You'd be absolutely correct in saying that taking shorter showers is a drop in the bucket vs almond farming in the frickin' desert.

But all that overhead, from mining to manufacturing to shipping to that god-awful clamshell packaging (also made of oil)... Is still only because we demanded that iPhone, those almonds, that Hummer.

Not a single gigaton of supply-side emissions are because the evil manufacturing industry "wants" to make iPhones. They want to make money, and for our part, we can't throw it at them fast enough regardless of how awful their products are for the environment.

1

kilranian t1_iuefkeq wrote

You're rewriting history. No one demanded the iPhone.

What kind of backwards nonsense is it to claim consumers want plastic clamshell packaging? That's just profit motive. It's all supply side.

0

cptmcsexy t1_iudegm8 wrote

No one wants to spend a hr + driving one way to work what are you talking about? Theres a reason theres so much pushback about returning to office after lockdowns.

1

ribnag t1_iuirbnt wrote

Who's forcing you to drive to work? Ford? Exxon? Ammann & Apollo? And which of those is physically preventing you from biking there instead?

This has nothing to do with "want" - If you're buying the product, you're still contributing to the demand for it. Nobody "wants" to own a washing machine. Yet, virtually everyone that can afford one, does. Why? We want clean clothes - A washing machine is merely a convenient means to that end.

1

RAMAR713 t1_iuco8av wrote

This is once again placing the blame on the wrong people. The average person is powerless and already doing their best to sustain themselves in the harsh conditions our society imposes. Someone working minimum wage can't afford to eat a healthy vegetarian diet, they can't afford to buy products fabricated in places with fair working conditions, etc.

Companies don't care about the damage they're causing, and governments aren't doing enough to regulate them. The consumers can't put a stop to this when they're too busy trying to survive.

0

worotan t1_iucsefd wrote

Reduce demand, reduce supply, the first law of economics.

Companies and governments fear boycotts more than anything.

And your idea that the problem is poor people who have no choices is ridiculous.

Stop using the poorest as a human shield for the large sector of the population that is wealthy enough to consume irresponsibly. It’s obscene.

2

quyllur t1_iuciupg wrote

I want to assume possitive intent on this one. For me the issue is consumption vs regeneration rate. One software developer in California consumes as much as 40 farmers in Uganda (measured in carbon footprint). The software developer changes phones every year and has a milkshake and a burger every other day. The Ugandan farmer grows crops for food. Companies respond to demand. Natural resources need time to regenerate. When the demand and consumption rate outpaces the regeneration rate we have a problem. We don't tend to talk about consumption rates when talking about Deforestation and that's a big miss.

3