So, holding companies responsible for the product they make and try to downplay the effects of isn’t right because there are more steps after them to create the emissions? While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products? Yeah that’s absolutely nonsense.
Why? State companies are just as accountable. They’ve known about this since the 1960s. The goal is to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Time is of the essence, so we need to put our efforts where it matters the most.
To all stop existing? No, as of yet they are still necessary for some chemical processes and back-up power generators for vital infrastructure like hospitals. But we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land. So they will need to drastically change their operations away from oil and gas. They can go into green hydrogen production or focus on EV charging stations. And yes, it helps to hit them where it makes a difference. Put emission taxes on every molecule of carbon they pump out of the earth. Because the only way it doesn’t end up in the air is to leave it there.
Your reductio ad absurdum is ridiculous. Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them? The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes. Countries can accelerate the transition to green energy through their state-owned energy companies. We can sanction countries who don’t do their part.
While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products
This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
State companies are just as accountable
My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land
This is exactly my point – how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them
What I’m pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like “taking on” the big bad 57 companies doesn’t actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes.
100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
I don’t think we’ve disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement’s veracity, do you think saying “80% of emissions come from megacorporations” drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?
Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
Nobody can fix the emissions of the past, and deterring the next coverup is the only thing we can do. But I do think some reparations are in order, especially to poorer nations who are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
Obviously, the change will have to come from the country’s government. But we can still sanction the countries and the oil companies.
how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.
vague inflammatory language
Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.
Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
What inaction? It will cost us all a lot of effort to move away from fossil fuels. You’re just protecting the worst offenders who have made the consumers the scapegoat for decades.
Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
Why would it have to be? I already said start at the top and work your way down.
Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
A lot of people simply don’t care about their own personal responsibility, finger-wagging or hand-waving. They don’t care.
It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem than go a snip off every twig individually. I mean, that conservative uncle of yours will never get no god damn ee-vee now will he?
how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.
You’ve answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point – the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.
Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.
And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Pay attention to the response that you are getting – people aren’t about to take action; they are going to internally fester.
What inaction?
The inaction of useless discussion. Oh, here’s a meme blaming “corporations” for everything; I can see emissions dropping already.
Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
Why would it have to be?
It wouldn’t. That’s my point. The list doesn’t matter.
I already said start at the top and work your way down.
As you just pointed out, there is no need for that; we can address the whole problem at once.
A lot of people simply don’t care
Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?
It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem
It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards organization and action instead of blame.
We’ve already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let’s work toward that.
You’ve answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point – the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.
Nope. There are more ways to make a company change their operations. Think of the EU making USB-C the standard charging port.
And of course you can make companies pay for the carbon they dig out of the earth.
And it is often counter-productive, even fatal.
Uh… no it’s not. Do you know what’s going on inside your own body? Do you know how many viruses and bacteria are fought off through inflammatory reactions that you hardly even notice?
And I’m just getting that response from you. Otherwise I got a bunch of upvotes for the comment.
The inaction of useless discussion.
Like this one? The point is that propaganda works. This was propaganda and I called it out. Most people reacted positively to that. And that will never be useless.
It wouldn’t. That’s my point. The list doesn’t matter.
These things do not follow each other logically.
Let me try to explain this to you: let’s say you’re on a tight budget and you can cut your costs by 15% by not buying anymore Dubai chocolate crap… or you can save 1% on buying fewer tomatoes, another 0.5% on buying less canned beans, another 2% by switching to a different brand of dairy products etc… where would you start your cost-cutting?
Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?
What on earth are you talking about? It’s not like I go around telling people to take as many flights as they can. Of course you try to get people to do stuff on a smaller scale as well. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reduce the emissions of the megacorporations as well.
We’ve already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let’s work toward that.
The point is who is going to be paying them? The companies who knowingly lied to the consumers and hid the facts or the consumers who were systematically made more reliant on the product these companies sold?
So, holding companies responsible for the product they make and try to downplay the effects of isn’t right because there are more steps after them to create the emissions? While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products? Yeah that’s absolutely nonsense.
Your reductio ad absurdum is ridiculous. Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them? The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes. Countries can accelerate the transition to green energy through their state-owned energy companies. We can sanction countries who don’t do their part.
This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
This is exactly my point – how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
What I’m pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like “taking on” the big bad 57 companies doesn’t actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
I don’t think we’ve disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement’s veracity, do you think saying “80% of emissions come from megacorporations” drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?
Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
Nobody can fix the emissions of the past, and deterring the next coverup is the only thing we can do. But I do think some reparations are in order, especially to poorer nations who are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
Obviously, the change will have to come from the country’s government. But we can still sanction the countries and the oil companies.
Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.
Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.
What inaction? It will cost us all a lot of effort to move away from fossil fuels. You’re just protecting the worst offenders who have made the consumers the scapegoat for decades.
Why would it have to be? I already said start at the top and work your way down.
A lot of people simply don’t care about their own personal responsibility, finger-wagging or hand-waving. They don’t care. It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem than go a snip off every twig individually. I mean, that conservative uncle of yours will never get no god damn ee-vee now will he?
You’ve answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point – the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.
And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Pay attention to the response that you are getting – people aren’t about to take action; they are going to internally fester.
The inaction of useless discussion. Oh, here’s a meme blaming “corporations” for everything; I can see emissions dropping already.
It wouldn’t. That’s my point. The list doesn’t matter.
As you just pointed out, there is no need for that; we can address the whole problem at once.
Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?
It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards organization and action instead of blame.
We’ve already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let’s work toward that.
Nope. There are more ways to make a company change their operations. Think of the EU making USB-C the standard charging port. And of course you can make companies pay for the carbon they dig out of the earth.
And I’m just getting that response from you. Otherwise I got a bunch of upvotes for the comment.
Like this one? The point is that propaganda works. This was propaganda and I called it out. Most people reacted positively to that. And that will never be useless.
These things do not follow each other logically. Let me try to explain this to you: let’s say you’re on a tight budget and you can cut your costs by 15% by not buying anymore Dubai chocolate crap… or you can save 1% on buying fewer tomatoes, another 0.5% on buying less canned beans, another 2% by switching to a different brand of dairy products etc… where would you start your cost-cutting?
What on earth are you talking about? It’s not like I go around telling people to take as many flights as they can. Of course you try to get people to do stuff on a smaller scale as well. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reduce the emissions of the megacorporations as well.
The point is who is going to be paying them? The companies who knowingly lied to the consumers and hid the facts or the consumers who were systematically made more reliant on the product these companies sold?