815

submitted 10 months ago by hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

133 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I mean I am going to play devils advocate but I wonder if they also include stuff like how much carbon emission does your online and non-local shopping habits are causing indirectly? Or your meat consumption? Or your airplane travels? Fuck big companies yes but also we have to change our consumerist mentality as humanity too.

[-] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Your argument boils down to suffer more because someone else is doing proportionately more damage to the point where your personal contribution is entirely negligible and we don't know how to fix that.

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

still negligible if all the most consumerist countries populations are combined?

[-] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Can't buy what isn't sold. The bulk of society don't have the financial capacity to change their purchasing habits, they're already struggling for survival.

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

middle to upper class? I mean sure a handful of individuals have %50 percent of the whole wealth but it is not a handful of individuals who are consuming that amount of meat and using amazon (or the likes) daily to get ten useless junks shipped all the way from china every month. can't sell what is not being bought.

[-] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Lmao, you think the bulk of human society is middle to upper class? No wonder your perspective is warped. You'd ignore those who can't just because some can.

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Where did I say that the bulk of human society is middle to upper class? If you are poor enough that you can't eat meat, use airplanes, or use amazon to get junk shipped across the world you obviously don't contribute to over consumerism. The fact remains however that some hundred million to billion people are wealthy enough to contribute to over consumerism and they do. Without these people's spending habits these companies wouldn't be able to grow so much. Our consumption habits are the sugar that feeds the cancer. Stop feeding the cancer.

[-] LemmysMum@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Exactly, yet you would sit here and preach to the lesser influence and to those under the boot rather than the producers. Fix your priorities and stop attacking those trying to survive rather than those exploiting even the people you say are "wealthy enough to do better".

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] ichmagrum@feddit.de 2 points 10 months ago

Most of the stuff most people buy on Amazon and the like is definitely optional.

[-] Pantherina@feddit.de 7 points 10 months ago

This comparison makes no sense at all. But true, tax the rich, and imprison people profiting on the lifes of others

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 6 points 10 months ago

An average U.K. citizen emits 5 tonnes. Get in gear Americans!!

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Mio@feddit.nu 4 points 10 months ago

Forbid whatever shell is selling. Only except might be is if it saves life and there is no good alternative. Wait - did I just solve climate change?

[-] soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They effectively sell all of our fuel. I'm doing my best to avoid them but I'm in a fortunate position where I'm wealthy enough to use the alternatives which are 20% or so more money.

I hope more do the same, then shell will die

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] ji17br@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

I am not supporting shell here, just asking a question.

If I am correct in assuming that shell produces 928 million tons (58,000,000 * 16) that means if the average American reduced their CO2 output from 16 down to ~13.3 then that would offset the total output of shell?

Is that amount of reduction even possible for the average American without giving up too much?

Obviously every company should do everything they can do lower emissions, but per person changes can have effect too. The problem is the vast majority of the 340 million Americans simply don’t care.