you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 72 points 3 years ago (28 children)

Don't be too harsh on yourself, big corporations are the main cause of climate change. Unless we all collectively decide to give these companies a wake up call, I'm afraid there's very little you can do alone

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    Is there anything reasonable that we (those who have interest in living "like before" and won't die of age within 30 years) can achieve? I feel like many things are very out of reach, and the population is just too heterogeneous to agree on something. Older folks where I live just do not give a fuck, and elected someone whose major interest is in removing rights from people they actively hate. At least one big city where I live has been without water nor electricity for several hours (days?) because the heat has messed out the infrastructure, and I feel like even in my country barely anybody is talking about it... It's just very discouraging, I want to shift my perspective, but it's not easy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, there are things you can and should be doing.

    People blaming ‘corporations’ while not doing anything themselves are a huge part of the problem. Out of the 100 largest corporations contributing the most CO2, almost all of them are fuel and energy based.

    So, number one - drives less, or don’t drive at all. This might change where or how you live.

    Number 2, buy 100% green power or install your own PV.

    These 2 things alone can be contributing up to 50% of your own greenhouse emissions. This isn’t ‘corporations’, it’s us buying power and driving around.

    After that everyday consumption is huge. So don’t buy shit to just throw it away. Only buy what’s necessary. Spend more on fewer things, and things that will last.

    And finally, do these things because you care. If enough people make some changes. It starts to seem normal. Then others do it too. And vote.

    The number of smart, tech savvy people here who think some boats and random companies are the source of impending catastrophe are sadly mistaken. The actual information on what’s causing and contributing is well researched and easy to find. You’ll be able to find an online calculator for your country which will give an averaged breakdown of your own emissions. You can use that to keep drilling into what actions will have the biggest impacts.

    Everyone needs to make changes to the way we live. Some need to go first for others to follow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    @min0nim @IrrationalAndroid

    New Oxfam research finds that just 125 billionaires are each responsible for one million times more greenhouse gas emissions than the average person. from here https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/who-is-responsible-for-climate-change/

    When carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, flaring, and cement production are ranked by nation, "the US is by far the largest historical emitter, responsible for over 20% of all emissions, and the EU is close behind". from here https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/18/1063443/responsible-climate-change-charts/

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -18 points 3 years ago (21 children)

    Big companies only do what they do when they are paid to do it by consumers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    “Big companies only do what they do when the governments that they paid with bribes or “lobby” money look the other way while they fuck the planet up left and right like it’s a race to the end”

    Fixed it for you. Stop excusing the rich, and trying to place the blame on the consumers, friend. It’s disgusting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The blame is on everyone. But if consumers.... you know.... stopped consuming so much garbage food, electronics, packaging for their shitty food and shitty electronics, cars, gasoline, etc, maybe the large companies wouldn't produce so much of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    Such a bad argument again.

    My friend. The corporations have spent BILLIONS of dollars making sure all my options are as thin as possible.

    Tell me, friend. Where can I get the GOOD and HEALTHY food, the GOOD electronics? WHERE can I get these things WITHOUT spending the arm and leg that I DO NOT HAVE to spend? Enlighten me as to why you choose to blame the consumers whose options are LIMITED by the corporations….?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 11 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (16 children)
  • [+] -10 points 3 years ago (15 children)

    Or switch to a seafood-based diet, which has a much smaller CO2 footprint than land-based agriculture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    "just eat seafood". Brought to you by the comment thread on the article about the fact that the oceans are half way to literally fucking boiling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    We already massively overfish, is that really your solution? It'll mean more intense factory farming of seafood, creating huge amounts of water based pollution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Not all types of fish are overfished, some (like haddock) are sustainable. Just as some crops are farmed responsibly, and others (like California almonds) are not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    I see you noticed that mackerel had it's "sustainable" status removed. Sad times. ^^'

    I didn't think Haddock had gotten back on the sustainable side either, most things can be done sustainably up to a certain volume. If the entire population turns its eye on it then demand far outstrips supply and goodbye sustainability.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (7 children)

    Well, doesn't sound it helps CO2 when you live in a landlocked country like I do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (6 children)

    Does your country have rivers or lakes? Seafood isn't always found in a sea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Seafood is literally always found in sea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

    Seafood commonly includes freshwater species such as catfish, trout, and some salmon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Ah, Americans are redefining words again.

    Normal English:

    animals from the sea that can be eaten, especially fish or sea creatures with shells

    US English:

    fish or shellfish eaten as food

    I'm gonna go with the definition that makes sense and say that no, we don't have any local seafood, simply because we don't have any sea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    There are more native English speakers in my country than yours. So I'll continue to use the definition that they understand, which is also the definition used by Encyclopedia Britannica.

    But if I ever visit your landlocked English-speaking country (assuming such a place exists), then I'll try to keep in mind that local customs differ when eating at your restaurants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    There are more native English speakers in my country than yours

    That's for sure! My country's native language is not English, so you're again right that my landlocked country is not an English-speaking one.

    Continue using whatever you want, don't be surprised if your illogical words don't make sense to someone else.

    If you want to go by sheer numbers, I think in India there's more native English speakers than in US and they use a variation of British English and as far as I know, seafood there means what any sane person would assume. Hell, you don't have to go with English, my language's version (literally translated to English as "fruits of the sea") also means only fish/shellfish from the sea. And I guess most (if not all) countries use it the same way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    English words are neither logical nor illogical. The English language, more than most, depends heavily on context to confer meaning. Some English words can mean their own opposite, like "to dust", "to sanction", or "to cleave".

    Linguistics aside, even if your country is landlocked you will most likely find a variety of fish in your grocery store, including those from the sea. In fact, the fish in your grocery store most likely traveled less far than many of the fruits and vegetables.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    You're being downvoted, but why? Human greed also extends to consumers. We don't have to buy a thing because it was paraded around in front of us. I hate the "consumers have no agency, they have to buy stuff!" mentality. It's morally bankrupt and just results in more finger pointing and zero action. Stop buying crap.

  • source
  • parent