Not my OC but what I’ve believed for years: there’s no conflict between reducing your own environmental impact and holding corporations responsible. We hold corps responsible for the environment by creating a societal ethos of environmental responsibility that forces corporations to serve the people’s needs or go bankrupt or be outlawed. And anyone who feels that kind of ethos will reduce their own environmental impact because it’s the right thing to do.

Thoughts?

  • aelwero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    People don’t vote with their wallets for the best option, they vote with their wallets for what they can afford.

    Everyone would like a Tesla model geewiz with zero emissions, but what they can afford is a 30 year old shitbox that burns as much oil as it does gas. They’d love to buy your supergreen organic carbon neutral groceries, but they can afford pb&j and ramen. They’d love to buy widgets made by fat happy employees that earn a living wage in a 100% renewable powered factory, but they can afford chinesium widgets made in a smelly ass factory that dumps it’s waste out the back door full of workers paid a dollar a week…

    People can’t afford for their needs to dictate how society is structured. The structure of society dictates the needs of a huge majority of people. The exact inverse of what you’re suggesting is what the simple reality is.

    • Kichae@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup.

      The flip side of this, is, of course, that voting with your wallet means that people with bigger wallets get more votes, and that results in the rich always getting their way.

    • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Everyone would like a Tesla model geewiz with zero emissions

      But that’s exactly the problem! That right there is illustrative of the whole problem! Cars are not the solution, electrical or otherwise (electrical cars are still bad for the environment for a myriad of reasons)! And yet, instead of wanting more walkable and bikable cities, with more public transports, most people just want electrical vehicles; a “solution” that doesn’t require them to change anything about their lives, or requires any actual systematic change.

      And as for “supergreen organic carbon neutral groceries”:

      Anywhere I know of, most greens are cheaper than meat, and yet 2 things are true in a lot of the developed world:

      • A very large (often more than half) percent of the population is overweight
      • People eat a crap ton of meat

      It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that most people could eat less meat than they do - especially red meat, which is worse - but they don’t. They actively chose to keep consuming, and overconsuming, even when they don’t have to. If they can walk, they’ll make excuses to take the car. If they can take public transport, they’ll still make excuses to take the car. The philosophy of “I don’t have to do anything, it’s the corporations and government who have to act” just enables that behaviour, and also raises two questions:

      • What will those people do when policy comes in to place that requires actual change from them? Will they be OK with it, or will they end up taking the system down and electing someone who undoes everything?

      • If people truly care so much, why aren’t all countries around the world electing more environmentally aware parties that enact more effective change?

      I think convincing people pollution is morally wrong and to avoid it as much as possible in their own lives, will not only make the systematic change easier, it will also cause those people to actively fight for better and more effective changes when they realize they are being limited by the system itself. As opposed to now, where they just keep doing their thing, electing the same people, and just hope someone sorts it out without bothering them.

      • cinnamonTea@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Speaking from a US point of view, society is often structured in such a way that a lot of the solutions you offer are made significantly difficult for consumers, especially with lower income.

        • sure, it’d be healthiest and best for the planet to eat vegan and cook at home, but if you have half an hour a day to find food you’ll buy what’s right there
        • of course it’s be healthiest to walk and bike wherever you need to go, and best for the planet to use public transport when you can’t, but again, if you work two jobs far away, you do not have the luxury to consider these options. These people you can’t convince by giving them even more work to do in their already full and arduous days. You convince them by giving them better options and taking the rich people to task more, proportionally to their strain on society.

        People simply aren’t well-enough off to be able to look beyond their own experience and want to improve the world as well. I think that’s why we need to champion worker’s rights as a big part of the push towards all this, too

    • Spzi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also many people don’t know, don’t care or disagree. Even if everybody could, far from everybody would.

      • Navy@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think I agree with this, I know I became more aware and more empathetic after I was able to improve my financial situation. I believe that a lot more people do care or would care than you think, it’s just that their energy and focus is on survival and trying to live in a world where you’re told spending=happiness.

        Maybe it’s naive but I have a fair bit of faith in people doing the right thing when given a chance and a way to.