746
submitted 1 day ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 20 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

and yes, more putting the onus on us, when all of our individual yearly pollution barely amounts to a day of pollution released by average industry.

You know it was industrial propaganda that started the whole personal responsibility thing to begin with right? to shift blame away from themselves and onto you and me.

I mean, yeah, you can make yourself feel good by reducing, but its doing fuckall compared to industrial release.

[-] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 15 points 7 hours ago

I understand the sentiment, but doesn't "the industry" essentially produce things that are for "us", even if indirectly?

Factories don't exist for their own sake, they exist to make an end product for people. So if you want to change that, we do need to consume less, like the parent you replied to said.

[-] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 hours ago

CEOs burning tons of fuel riding luxury jets does nothing for us. AI data centers clamoring for more electricity will do nothing for us.

[-] InputZero@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

I get what you're saying. It's a both are true type of thing in my opinion. Our impact pales in comparison to the ultra wealthy. What gets left out of the conversation is that the AI data centres, factories, and transport trucks exist because there is demand. Each and every one of us is part of that demand and by significantly changing our lifestyles we can change our demands.

Your argument is valid though, the wealthy need to be the first to reduce their demand and by the most. Also that they're not going to do that without the threat of state violence, just like we're obligated to be lawful on the threat of state violence. It's just that we're not absolve of our contribution to climate change because the ultra wealthy have contributed more.

[-] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

The point I poorly made, is that it's capitalists/capital interests, the uber rich and techno-fascists that are clamoring for AI. It's not "EVERYONE."

Demand for a thing doesn't mean that the poor and rich are demanding the thing equally.

The point I poorly made was the uber rich, and their greed are driving global warming far more than your average person.

I recycled like a good little soldier through the 80's, 90's, 2000's, 2010's and early 2020's, only to find out that much of our plastic waste was just sold to third world countries rather than ACTUALLY being recycled. I've eliminated plastic everywhere I can in my life, and reuse it until it degrades and it's got to be tossed.

I keep my thermostat set at 62 in the winter, and 78 in the summer to reduce my demand for electricity, even though these aren't comfortable temperatures, they are tolerable. I already eat a primarily vegetarian diet, not because I want to, but because I am being priced out of meat. I repair my shoes and clothes to get a second life out of them. I don't own a car and ride a bicycle. (Before I moved closer to work I'd average 45 miles a day between commute and errands on the way home.)

Corporate interests have actively hampered transitions to greener energy and public transportation, and bicycle infrastructure, (at least in the USA where I am.)

The point I am trying to make here is that the poor, and lower middle class don't have large footprints to begin with, and have reduced consumption due to inflation and shit pay. Corporate interests and the uber wealthy are the biggest drivers of climate change.

Frankly, I'm tired of the powers that be trying to make me feel shame for fucking breathing because they think it contributes to global warming.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I understand the sentiment, but doesn’t “the industry” essentially produce things that are for “us”, even if indirectly?

No. They produce for income. For brand imaging. To keep shelf space and maintain market presence.

And they do that by producing significantly more than the market requires. More than customers would ever want to buy.

They do it by making low quality slop products that they specifically engineer to be as unrepairable as possible, to fail as soon as they can get away with it, to force consumers to buy replacements more frequently than they would ever want to.

Do you go to the store and go "Wow, I wish this brand would generate more waste to take up shelf space so (competitor) cant have it?"

Do you look at a brand and go "I will only support this company if it fills the landfills every 3 months with perfectly usable products?"

Do you go "Wow, I wanna pay 500 dollars for this device thats gonna fail in 18 months and need to be replaced, because repairing it is gonna cost so much that its better just to get a new one again"?

Do you go "god, I like this product, I really hope entire communities lost their access to clean water to cool the AI's that generated the design?"

No?

Neither do I.

Because they don't serve the interest of the customer. They serve the market, which has taken a life of its own (which is especially apparently with the AI scam bubble, where companies keep making promises to buy future products from each other with the same imaginary trillion dollars that keeps getting passed around, generating endless imaginary value without producing anything.. and when the AI bubble pops, its going to crash harder than the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs)

If they served the interests of the customers, they'd keep prices low, and pay high, and produce quality goods that people would have the money to buy.

By putting the burden on the end consumer for climate change and pollution, they are escaping blame, and are allowed to continue to pollute and accelerate the decline of our climate. Its like blaming you for growing a tomato, while ignoring the industrial farm that mowed down 2 million acres of south american rainforest to produce alfalfa for saudi horses.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 hours ago

If people stop buying a thing, any company that wants money is going to stop making that thing.

They have no financial incentive to pay the cost of manufacturing if they can't sell their widget.

[-] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 2 points 5 hours ago

No. They produce for income

I never said they were altruistic. I'm saying: at the end of the line, there is a consumer buying the stuff they polluted for.

[-] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 hours ago

PREACH. Can I get a hallelujah!

[-] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I don't think you should think about it in terms of blame, I think that's a big part of the propaganda. Seeding of anger, frustration, and apathy. Rather than allowing empowerment, organizing, and hope.

Blame should only be reserved for those that act with careless disregard. And doing things that are good for the environment shouldn't be seen as 'paying back'. You are actively doing more than you should and letting your actions speak louder than your words. And those actions can (and should) be part of building the collective that will force those truly responsible from stopping.

That's my one wish for lists like OP posted. It should always contain that the only lasting change is organizing.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world -3 points 6 hours ago

This sounds like some empty corporate focus tested "Don't blame us, its not our fault" BS.

[-] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

~~Did you respond to the wrong person?~~ EDIT: Okay, you're responding elsewhere, so you're just not going to respond to leaving a nonsensical but also kind of vile comment? Crazy, considering I was mostly agreeing with you, other than saying you shouldn't accept the propagandized idea that people are or should be doing something to make up for some perceived guilt. Rather than doing it to empower themselves and foster collective action.

[-] mangobanana@discuss.online 2 points 6 hours ago

I was coming here to say this how does traveling less make a difference when a million (unknown if a true number but I didn't look up how many trucks are in the USA) semi trucks are on the road every day (and the rest of the world too). None of those things even significantly reduce anything until industry stops wasting so much. J just look at the food and retail products thrown away every day. Dumpsters full all across the country, all that pollution to produce some shit and they just throw it away

[-] Spooge@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)
[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Where did I even allude to that?

I very clearly laid out where the problem is that we have to deal with. Which is the actual drivers of climate change. Not you choosing to drive to work instead of walking 8 miles in the heat.

[-] Spooge@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I replied to the wrong comment. My bad, dude.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago
[-] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

industry doesn't need to pump out so much product if we consume less

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Industry doesnt need to overproduce so much product right now, but it does, and sends tons of it to landfill every quarter

So if its already doing it, what makes you think they'll stop doing it if sales reduce a few % points.

this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
746 points (98.8% liked)

World News

57371 readers
2226 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS