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?
Pay attention to the response that you are getting
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. 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?
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.
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?
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. 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?