Comment

Let me just buy some locally grown bananas, in the north…

That’s my point. You can’t. If you want to not be responsible for those CO2 emissions you have to eat something else.

It is totally up to the governments to regulate emissions, with regulations.

Sure, but you also have personal agency. You can choose to eat beets instead of bananas. You can choose to pay to have an old monitor fixed by a local repair shop instead of buying a new one. Instead, people use the lack of government rules as an excuse to continue to live the way they want to live. They choose to blame corporations for polluting instead of their own choices as consumers.

If I want a banana, I’ll get a banana. I will have no idea or information whether it’s shipped with the shittiest fuel burning ship, or an electric locomotive.

Yes, because you don’t want to know. You will never do that research. Admittedly, the research is hard to do. It’s hard to do a complete calculation of all the CO2 costs of the entire chain of events that results in a banana on sale at a local supermarket vs. a locally grown beet.

People could choose to try to do that research, but they don’t. It’s hard, and it’s depressing. Instead they’ll feel good about recycling an aluminum can, and never think about the environmental impact of driving around the city in a car.

And will people vote for stricter emissions laws and/or carbon taxes? Some people will, many people will vote against it. Many of the supporters will also not make it a priority. And, if the party that promised carbon taxes and/or stricter emissions wins but then gets lobbied and doesn’t enact those new laws, very few people are going to go out and protest.

The government’s lack of action and the idea that corporations are really to blame for CO2 emissions is a convenient way for people to continue to live their massive energy footprint lives, while shifting the blame to someone else.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Kratzkopf@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
To add to your last two paragraphs: even if the elected parties enact the more environmentally friendly policies, many voters will be unsatisfied with that because they imagined a solution would pop up where they themselves would not be required to make sacrifices. I imagine memes like this could be a reason for that as they imply that corporations emit greenhouse gases totally decoupled from the people’s consumption. I fully demand that corporations take more actions to reduce emissions although it will lower their profits, but I also ask (mainly) the privileged people who live in the global north to accept necessary reductions in lifestyle and consumption as a necessary consequence.

source
- merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  they imagined a solution would pop up where they themselves would not be required to make sacrifices
  
  Exactly what’s happening in Canada with the carbon tax. If you emit more CO2 than the average you pay a tax. If you emit less you get a rebate. But, now people who emit more than the average think that their case is special and they shouldn’t have to make a sacrifice because they’re not the real problem.
  
  they imply that corporations emit greenhouse gases totally decoupled from the people’s consumption
  
  Yes! Or, they think that corporations are maliciously burning fossil fuels for the hell of it. While corporations might not care about the environment, they do care about profits. They will burn oil to make profits, but if they can find a way to burn less oil and use that to make more profits, they’ll do that too. Now, sure they’ll also burn more oil if they can make a business case to do it. But, unless you’re talking entertainment companies like Las Vegas casinos, corporations are generally not burning oil just for the hell of it.
  
  source
Prandom_returns@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It seems to me like you are saying this from a point of privilege where you hve infinite choice and no regard for the cost.

By that logic, I should only eat what’s local, because everything else is certainly more emissions. If I live in a rural territory, where they only grow pigs and onions, that’s what I should eat to ‘reduce’ CO2? That’s just strictly false, and absolutely detrimental to your health.

People need a large variety of food for good nutrition and most rural certainly do not profuce such variety. If you live in a large city, “locally” produced stuff comes in from hundreds of miles, which have to be travelled somehow.

You can try your best as an individual to reduce your CO2, but that will only a miniscule amount of what makes the cogs turn in the economy. The only actually impactful, sweeping change is through regulation. Everything else is pretty much high-horsing and virtue signalling.

The best thing an individual can do to reduce emissions, is to vote accordingly.

source
- DrRatso@lemmy.ml ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  People need variety in their diet, but they almost certainly do not need things like bananas, you can, in most places around the world, get nutritionally complete diets from locally grown sources, which will often be of higher quality, tastier and usually cheaper. I certainly can’t think of anything that I need, that couldn’t be bought at a farmers market. Now I can imagine some dietary restrictions and choices will have those needs, but restrictions can’t be helped and choices are probably more environmentally conscious anyway (vegetarians, vegans).
  
  Local does not have to be in your rural community. Something that is trucked to your local store a hundred(s) miles is certainly better than something that was trucked to a port, shipped halfway across the globe, and trucked again.
  
  “Doing something that Joe isn’t doing is not worth it” is a bad mindset, especially since Joe might not be doing it for the same reason. You can’t expect everyone to start doing it the same day. The more people buy local, the cheaper it becomes to buy locally and less profitable to import.
  
  Regulations would be great, but Id prefer living in a society that can self regulate.
  
  Locally grown produce
  
  source