Mind if I add a bit more details to the title? It's a bit sparse, IMO. edit: Changed it, please let me know if you think it's appropriate or should be something different.
Mind if I add a bit more details to the title? It's a bit sparse, IMO.
edit: Changed it, please let me know if you think it's appropriate or should be something different.
what do you think about this meme that corporations are the largest polluters and blaming individuals is misguided? should that be ignored since corporations respond to consumer demand? and trust...
what do you think about this meme that corporations are the largest polluters and blaming individuals is misguided?
should that be ignored since corporations respond to consumer demand? and trust that if individuals change their preferences and demand for products, then corporations will follow?
or are some corporations beyond being influenced by the consumer? this post shows the top 10 polluters are all energy companies, which is largely dictated by politicians at the national level, not individual consumer demand. maybe it's more impactful to voice your opinions to elected representatives or otherwise lobby for energy policy change?
this reddit post calls bullshit on blaming corporations, pointing to transportation and agriculture as major sources of pollution, which are in large part based on individual demand for cars and meat.
Making changes on an individual level does help because these corporations exist because of individuals. They are not polluting just because they feel like it. They pollute in order to profit....
Exemplary
Making changes on an individual level does help because these corporations exist because of individuals. They are not polluting just because they feel like it. They pollute in order to profit. Their profit comes from demand. If demand lowers, they will lower their output as well.
I also believe that we need larger political solutions as well! We can use laws and regulations to force corporations to use more climate-friendly solutions. Government can force corporations' hands in ways that individuals cannot.
In short - I believe in a holistic solution. We should both make individual changes to consume less and generate political will to change corporations.
Regarding the specific tactics - one of my favorite groups working on a holistic solution is Project Drawdown. They feature good research on specific ways we can drawdown emissions. You'd be surprised the various ways we can individually & politically improve the situation.
I think the more people that make individual changes, the more invested the individual becomes in the system changing. Sort of like, "I am doing my part, why aren't you doing your part." It's...
I think the more people that make individual changes, the more invested the individual becomes in the system changing. Sort of like, "I am doing my part, why aren't you doing your part." It's possible that when you have larger communities interested in doing their part, their representatives will put more pressure on industry to make changes. Just a thought.
Starting off with a disclosure: I just started a new medication that is making me bonkers foggy. I will do my best to proofread my post to make sure it makes sense, but if I fail please ask any...
Starting off with a disclosure: I just started a new medication that is making me bonkers foggy. I will do my best to proofread my post to make sure it makes sense, but if I fail please ask any clarifying questions and I'm sorry in advance.
Summary: Yes, we need to put pressure on corporations because they create a lot of pollution. But consumerism and individual pollution are still things to consider with corporate pollution levels, and also there are still environmental issues affected by individual lifestyle choices that also deserve focus.
I have a few thoughts about the corporation/individuals argument in climate change and more generally environmentalism as a whole.
(1) Corporations are major polluters, but we can only reduce their numbers so far: Yeah, corporations are the largest producers and so any climate change battle MUST include and have as its foundation strong reforms on how we deal with pollution from corporations. That said, I think it is a very easy and convenient thing to say "Well corporations make up most the pollution so it doesn't matter what I do" as if (a) Coporations don't respond to public pressure at all (b) Demand doesn't play any factor in how corporations operate, and (c) As if that 30% from non-corporations doesn't matter because we can lower corporate pollution levels SO MUCH that we can solve the climate crisis without individuals needing to change. It just feels insanely lazy to me. Corporations need to be a focus, but we can only lower their pollution emission a finite amount. At a certain point they are unable to create any more meaningful change. It's not like we can drop corporate pollution to 0% and avoid all climate crisis. They are still going to have pollution emission, that is just a fact of producing. And if we can't lower corporate emissions enough, individual emissions are going to need to decrease too. Why not work on that now?
(2) Corporations follow demand: As the reddit post you linked argues, there are some industries that create a lot of pollution and its because people want them. Individual changes will change the demand of industries, which lower corporate emissions. THIS NEXT STATEMENT IS AN EXTREME HYPOTHETICAL THAT I KNOW WILL NEVER HAPPEN Lets say for the sake of argument that we convince everyone in the world to be vegetarian, the meat industry is going to react accordingly. If everyone starts biking and pushing for public transportation and stops driving cars (even less likely than my last statement), auto manufacturers would react accordingly. People using less plastic is going to change the market accordingly. Corporations do respond to trends. And if the trends place high value on environmental impact, then corporations will begin to value environmental impact in order to help their bottom line.
(3) Who cares! This is my personal and most controversial (I guess?) point. Which is, who cares if corporations make up most pollution. There are more environmental issues other than climate change. Not to say climate change isn't a huge problem, but to say that even if we avoid climate disaster, there aren't suddenly going to be no more environmental issues. The complete destruction of ecosystems, especially in our oceans, is still going to exist. Reforestation is still going to be a major thing we have to deal with. There are still a lot of issues that exist outside of climate change that individual pollution affect that people can make small changes to help minimize.
I believe the intent of this website is great, but they push recycling a lot, which a recent thorough article has caused me to doubt how effective recycling really is.
I believe the intent of this website is great, but they push recycling a lot, which a recent thorough article has caused me to doubt how effective recycling really is.
They're proposing the classic strategy of reduce, reuse, recycle. There's a reason it's in that order - reduce should be first and foremost, as it's most effective. Reduction gets emphasized more...
They're proposing the classic strategy of reduce, reuse, recycle. There's a reason it's in that order - reduce should be first and foremost, as it's most effective. Reduction gets emphasized more on the site than recycling, which should be relied on the least.
I agree that the state of recycling is a bit dire at the moment, which is why we should get on board with consuming less (or using more biodegradable materials)!
This website is packaged very well and great for sharing with people who want to get involved but don't know where to start.
Mind if I add a bit more details to the title? It's a bit sparse, IMO.
edit: Changed it, please let me know if you think it's appropriate or should be something different.
That's fine - I should've realized it wasn't enough info. Thanks!
what do you think about this meme that corporations are the largest polluters and blaming individuals is misguided?
should that be ignored since corporations respond to consumer demand? and trust that if individuals change their preferences and demand for products, then corporations will follow?
or are some corporations beyond being influenced by the consumer? this post shows the top 10 polluters are all energy companies, which is largely dictated by politicians at the national level, not individual consumer demand. maybe it's more impactful to voice your opinions to elected representatives or otherwise lobby for energy policy change?
this reddit post calls bullshit on blaming corporations, pointing to transportation and agriculture as major sources of pollution, which are in large part based on individual demand for cars and meat.
Making changes on an individual level does help because these corporations exist because of individuals. They are not polluting just because they feel like it. They pollute in order to profit. Their profit comes from demand. If demand lowers, they will lower their output as well.
I also believe that we need larger political solutions as well! We can use laws and regulations to force corporations to use more climate-friendly solutions. Government can force corporations' hands in ways that individuals cannot.
In short - I believe in a holistic solution. We should both make individual changes to consume less and generate political will to change corporations.
Regarding the specific tactics - one of my favorite groups working on a holistic solution is Project Drawdown. They feature good research on specific ways we can drawdown emissions. You'd be surprised the various ways we can individually & politically improve the situation.
I think the more people that make individual changes, the more invested the individual becomes in the system changing. Sort of like, "I am doing my part, why aren't you doing your part." It's possible that when you have larger communities interested in doing their part, their representatives will put more pressure on industry to make changes. Just a thought.
Starting off with a disclosure: I just started a new medication that is making me bonkers foggy. I will do my best to proofread my post to make sure it makes sense, but if I fail please ask any clarifying questions and I'm sorry in advance.
Summary: Yes, we need to put pressure on corporations because they create a lot of pollution. But consumerism and individual pollution are still things to consider with corporate pollution levels, and also there are still environmental issues affected by individual lifestyle choices that also deserve focus.
I have a few thoughts about the corporation/individuals argument in climate change and more generally environmentalism as a whole.
(1) Corporations are major polluters, but we can only reduce their numbers so far: Yeah, corporations are the largest producers and so any climate change battle MUST include and have as its foundation strong reforms on how we deal with pollution from corporations. That said, I think it is a very easy and convenient thing to say "Well corporations make up most the pollution so it doesn't matter what I do" as if (a) Coporations don't respond to public pressure at all (b) Demand doesn't play any factor in how corporations operate, and (c) As if that 30% from non-corporations doesn't matter because we can lower corporate pollution levels SO MUCH that we can solve the climate crisis without individuals needing to change. It just feels insanely lazy to me. Corporations need to be a focus, but we can only lower their pollution emission a finite amount. At a certain point they are unable to create any more meaningful change. It's not like we can drop corporate pollution to 0% and avoid all climate crisis. They are still going to have pollution emission, that is just a fact of producing. And if we can't lower corporate emissions enough, individual emissions are going to need to decrease too. Why not work on that now?
(2) Corporations follow demand: As the reddit post you linked argues, there are some industries that create a lot of pollution and its because people want them. Individual changes will change the demand of industries, which lower corporate emissions. THIS NEXT STATEMENT IS AN EXTREME HYPOTHETICAL THAT I KNOW WILL NEVER HAPPEN Lets say for the sake of argument that we convince everyone in the world to be vegetarian, the meat industry is going to react accordingly. If everyone starts biking and pushing for public transportation and stops driving cars (even less likely than my last statement), auto manufacturers would react accordingly. People using less plastic is going to change the market accordingly. Corporations do respond to trends. And if the trends place high value on environmental impact, then corporations will begin to value environmental impact in order to help their bottom line.
(3) Who cares! This is my personal and most controversial (I guess?) point. Which is, who cares if corporations make up most pollution. There are more environmental issues other than climate change. Not to say climate change isn't a huge problem, but to say that even if we avoid climate disaster, there aren't suddenly going to be no more environmental issues. The complete destruction of ecosystems, especially in our oceans, is still going to exist. Reforestation is still going to be a major thing we have to deal with. There are still a lot of issues that exist outside of climate change that individual pollution affect that people can make small changes to help minimize.
I believe the intent of this website is great, but they push recycling a lot, which a recent thorough article has caused me to doubt how effective recycling really is.
They're proposing the classic strategy of reduce, reuse, recycle. There's a reason it's in that order - reduce should be first and foremost, as it's most effective. Reduction gets emphasized more on the site than recycling, which should be relied on the least.
I agree that the state of recycling is a bit dire at the moment, which is why we should get on board with consuming less (or using more biodegradable materials)!