this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
3394 points (100.0% liked)

196

16552 readers
2432 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] whoami@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The average person isn’t wrecking the environment for no reason either, and yet they always appear to be the target for “environmental sustainability” snipes presented by mainstream media as fact. There are an innumerable number of practices that large industries can practice to limit their carbon footprint, but it is never a priority.

[–] Flaky_Fish69@kbin.social 35 points 1 year ago

I like the whole "save water" bullshit. like in california. Or anywhere else being fed by lake mead. Like, "You need to take shorter showers! conserve water". the ten minute shower they're berating consumers for... is literally nothing compared to the water straight up wasted for California's agriculture. (and by wasted, I mean water lost before it even gets to the plants.)

Most of Lake Mead and the Colorado River aren't used by people. it's used by corporations that don't give two shits because nobody gives a damn about them wasting water- can't harm the jobs, now.

[–] Todd_Padre@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Private companies aren’t going to do the right thing just for the sake of it, because any moral sacrifice on their part will give ground to other companies that won’t do the right thing. It has to be fixed through regulation, ushered in through representatives elected by average people.

But most average people don’t care. They want lower taxes and cheaper gas.

[–] bestdude@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

yes i think this goes both ways, both producers and consumers should be responsible. but we shouldn't forget shell wouldn't continue selling gas and instead shift their operations if gas wasn't in such a demand.
also if you're littering you can't blame corporations for that lmao

[–] whoami@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Public transport probably isn’t a viable option in some cases, so I’m hoping EVs do catch on for this reason. Reducing or eliminating meat consumption, or at least finding more sustainable ways to provide it (i.e. lab-grown meat) also would definitely play a significant role. I am not advocating for eliminating all responsibility from the consumer side

[–] 33KK@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is a viable option in about 90% of cases.

[–] kittyrunningnoise@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

your statement is highly dependent on where someone lives. I wonder what percent of people live within about ten minutes' walking distance from useful public transportation. I bet it's not 90% or even anywhere close. most people on Earth do live in cities now though, so maybe it's ~50%...?

[–] 33KK@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

I meant in general, not just with the current infrastructure, sorry for a late reply

[–] ExtraMedicated@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

The thing about big companies like oil companies is that they'll do anything they can to prevent alternatives from taking hold. Often it involves lobbying or spreading disinformation to fight against renewable energy for example. Car makers also fight public transportation.

I mean yeah for a whole host of reason we should shut down animal agriculture. But until we can make that happen people shouldn't support it. People don't support it for no reason but they do almost always support it for bad reasons like habit/tradition and sensory pleasure