Are we shifting the blame from corporations and governments onto individual people?
I don't think quality of human life needed or even still needs to decrese that nuch to deal with climate change, it itself is wholly unnecessary political problem and could have been prevented altogether if we prioritised people instead of pure profits, certainly with a far higher quality of life too.
Not disagreeing with you in whole because most pollution is done by corporations, but there are a few things done largely by individuals. I'm mostly thinking of a demand for meat and car tires being the largest source of microplastics. Other than those two things, in my opinion, there isn't a lot that individuals contribute to pollution.
Cars are a very good example of how it is beyond individual control or choice, it is not we who choose to born into a city made by urban planners lobbied for by automobile corporations attempting to turn cities into concrete hells whwre it as painful as possible to sustain oneself without a car for whatever purpose or distance, cities that properly implement city planning and public transport naturally make people select those superior options.
except that in a LOT of places people can literally just stop driving to work tomorrow and barely notice a difference, my dad switched to e-bike and simply never drove again after his first ride.
just imagine if all the local workers in a town of 20k stop driving at once, what a massive impact that would have on things.
Yes boycott cars and advocate for better infrastructure, imagine if those 20k people also showed up at the government and demanded buses, bus only lanes, bike lanes, car free zones instead of just personally taking action, that would have a domino effect far far larger on everybody's quality of life improving from better infrastructure, cars reducing significantly and even unaffiliated people switching to better transpirations methods, after all most people do not have the free time or even determination to care about such problems and just take the path of least resistance.
Of course it has helped. It may not have reduced the global meat consumption, because sadly there is still an increase through other people, but it has definitely reduced the current overall meat consumption in comparison to the scenario of this person having continued to eat meat.
Who knows how many of the people who have contributed to this consumption increase have considered reducing but decided that their actions don't matter anyway?
If product isn't purchased, that demand is not there. Supply increases alongside it, and prices drop with profits. Eventually the supply gets lowered by manufacturers to increase market value.
Literally word for word what you said. Basic math disproves this. 100 people in the world, 10 are vegetarian, meat industry needs to feed 90 meat eaters. Each person has 2 kids, all children of vegetarians are magically vegetarians. Now there are 300 people. Let's say 50 of those meat eaters go vegetarian (way more percentage wise than in reality) The meat industry has to provide food for 220 meat eaters. Meat industry get bigger.
This is a strawman
You have no idea what that means, apparently. Something you don't like hearing doesn't make it a straw man.
There are a thousand problems with the meat industry, most of the world could and should be vegetarian. I am one. Throwing one liners around that is blatantly incorrect doesn't help the cause. It actively hurts it when people see through the bullshit and think then the idea behind it is bad.
you seem to understand that being vegetarian hasn't actually reduced the amount of meat produced, and you haven't disputed that the environmental issues are from the production. you're just angrily agreeing with me.
I agree that people should be willing to change their lifestyle to reduce pollution....
That being said, you actually can get pretty far in improving pollution without changing people's lifestyles.
Of course, I understand the comic says, "ban", which would obviously be impossible without consequences for their lifestyle. For example, you could only ban releasing CO2 into the atmosphere by stopping people from breathing into the atmosphere. Quite a lifestyle shift.
As if the consumer side of things is a meaningful amount compared to corporations and goverments.
Is someone counting how much pollution the stupid war in Iran and the Gaza genocide is producing? No? Obviously not, they only care that I eat cheap steak every once in a while and drive my combustion car under 7k km a year.
Switching to EV's is impractical for everybody that either can't afford it or can't install a home charger, and a billion other cases. Your statements are ridiculous.
Sure switch the new production cars to EV's, whatever, but until I see a 2000 euro EV available to buy that isn't more of a shitbox than my 2001 car, I'm not switching anyrhing.
And that fantasy is never happening. An EV that costs as much as my car will never exist and not be a POS. Even if I factor in fuel savings.
EV's are good but you all gotta stop getting so wet for them as if the whole green EV talk isn't ultimately just pushed by automakers that sell them easier because of the constant guilt tripping of ICE car owners.
If I gotta explain how that is a deal breaker for many people there's no point in talking.
There's this guy I found on yt that did a video of what the cold does to his ev. It's abysmal. All the extra usage of electricity in the winter drops his range from 128KM to 100KM just by having HVAC on at 40% battery. That's ridiculous. At 100% he gets somewhere around 240km I'd guess.
Then later on in the video he shows that he used 5% battery to drive 4km because of the battery protections.
Then, he says it took around 35 minutes in between, and his battery % went from 36 to 46.
Not only that as explained by him and others, the car lies to you about what % battery it's at. Just like phones.
If I had that car where I live, in an apartment, where the nearest charger is at a kaufland parking lot 2km away that I have to leave after charging, I'd lose my goddamn mind. And there's more people in my situation than rich cunts living in houses that can afford a charger and a garage.
You take care of an EV. A combustion car takes care of you. Hell, buy a hybrid if you really want to feel like a climate hero in a world that is literally burning because of corporate greed, but not a damn EV.
Banning leaded gas requires pretty big changes to both cars engines and the gasoline mix, and that drove up prices.
It was a good move, but let's not pretend it was free. Lead was added for a reason, removing it had a cost as well, even though that was more than worth ut.
Lead was added because it made exxon's shareholders a shitton of money because they could make the same profit while spending less on oil refining infrastructure and gm didn't have to invest in better valve/head manufacturing.
The price of gas and engines are set as high as the market is able to bear. The public did not benefit from cheaper engines or cheaper gasoline, only exxon and their shareholders, who used that wealth to further stall progress, nor do products become cheaper when the manufacturer switches to from biodegradable wax paper to single-use polyurethane-coated plastic.
45 Comments
jtrek@startrek.website · 33 pts · 7d
"it would be more expensive!"
"The real costs are externalized. Someone pays for the pollution now, it's just not on the receipt"
"..."
boonhet@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 6d
Mostly it's us in the future paying for it. The big costs have yet to hit. What we've got now in terms of storms and crop failure is mid.
DeLancre@piefed.social · 22 pts · 7d
redparadise@lemmy.ml · 20 pts · 7d
Are we shifting the blame from corporations and governments onto individual people?
I don't think quality of human life needed or even still needs to decrese that nuch to deal with climate change, it itself is wholly unnecessary political problem and could have been prevented altogether if we prioritised people instead of pure profits, certainly with a far higher quality of life too.
ExperimentalGuy@programming.dev · 7 pts · 6d
Not disagreeing with you in whole because most pollution is done by corporations, but there are a few things done largely by individuals. I'm mostly thinking of a demand for meat and car tires being the largest source of microplastics. Other than those two things, in my opinion, there isn't a lot that individuals contribute to pollution.
redparadise@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 6d
Cars are a very good example of how it is beyond individual control or choice, it is not we who choose to born into a city made by urban planners lobbied for by automobile corporations attempting to turn cities into concrete hells whwre it as painful as possible to sustain oneself without a car for whatever purpose or distance, cities that properly implement city planning and public transport naturally make people select those superior options.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 5d
except that in a LOT of places people can literally just stop driving to work tomorrow and barely notice a difference, my dad switched to e-bike and simply never drove again after his first ride.
just imagine if all the local workers in a town of 20k stop driving at once, what a massive impact that would have on things.
redparadise@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 5d
Yes boycott cars and advocate for better infrastructure, imagine if those 20k people also showed up at the government and demanded buses, bus only lanes, bike lanes, car free zones instead of just personally taking action, that would have a domino effect far far larger on everybody's quality of life improving from better infrastructure, cars reducing significantly and even unaffiliated people switching to better transpirations methods, after all most people do not have the free time or even determination to care about such problems and just take the path of least resistance.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
Cars are a requirement for participation in society in a large amount of the world.
threeonefour@piefed.ca · 14 pts · 7d
If you really want to upset people, tell them becoming a vegetarian is one of the most effective ways to reduce your contribution to climate change.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 5d
you don't even have to go vegan, just dropping beef is great and if you also drop pork you've nuked a whole lot of emissions
hans@feddit.org · 1 pts · 5d
lots of people have done this. meat production continues to increase
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 5d
Yeah, because most people refuse to do this and would rather die than be even slightly inconvenienced.
hans@feddit.org · 1 pts · 5d
regardless of your excuse, just choosing not to eat meat hasn't actually helped save the planet.
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 5d
Sure, individual choices don't matter. My choice to wear a mask couldn't stop COVID either.
What matters are collective choices, made as a society. If everyone stopped eating meat, it would help.
But they won't. They'd rather die.
Kratzkopf@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 4d
Of course it has helped. It may not have reduced the global meat consumption, because sadly there is still an increase through other people, but it has definitely reduced the current overall meat consumption in comparison to the scenario of this person having continued to eat meat.
Who knows how many of the people who have contributed to this consumption increase have considered reducing but decided that their actions don't matter anyway?
hans@feddit.org · 0 pts · 3d
this can't be proven. what makes you think more meat could possibly have been produced?
Kratzkopf@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 3d
As I've talked of consumption, not production, it is basically self-evident.
FatVegan@leminal.space · 3 pts · 6d
You're not allowed to say that
hans@feddit.org · 1 pts · 5d
because it's not true, or because it misplaces the blame?
hans@feddit.org · -1 pts · 5d
eating meat doesn't contribute to climate change. all the environmental problems with meat are in the production, not it's consumption.
FatherPeanut@pawb.social · 3 pts · 5d
If product isn't purchased, that demand is not there. Supply increases alongside it, and prices drop with profits. Eventually the supply gets lowered by manufacturers to increase market value.
hans@feddit.org · -1 pts · 5d
lots of people avoid meat. meat production continues to increase every year. the problem isn't with eating
JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 5d
hans@feddit.org · 1 pts · 5d
this is a straw man. it's bad faith
JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 5d
Literally word for word what you said. Basic math disproves this. 100 people in the world, 10 are vegetarian, meat industry needs to feed 90 meat eaters. Each person has 2 kids, all children of vegetarians are magically vegetarians. Now there are 300 people. Let's say 50 of those meat eaters go vegetarian (way more percentage wise than in reality) The meat industry has to provide food for 220 meat eaters. Meat industry get bigger.
You have no idea what that means, apparently. Something you don't like hearing doesn't make it a straw man.
There are a thousand problems with the meat industry, most of the world could and should be vegetarian. I am one. Throwing one liners around that is blatantly incorrect doesn't help the cause. It actively hurts it when people see through the bullshit and think then the idea behind it is bad.
hans@feddit.org · 1 pts · 5d
this is a straw man. your restating my position in a silly my way to make it sound bad. it's the very definition.
hans@feddit.org · -1 pts · 5d
the meat industry doesn't need to provide anything. they choose to do that. eating meat doesn't cause more to be produced.
hans@feddit.org · -1 pts · 5d
you seem to understand that being vegetarian hasn't actually reduced the amount of meat produced, and you haven't disputed that the environmental issues are from the production. you're just angrily agreeing with me.
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 5d
Gibberish.
hans@feddit.org · 0 pts · 5d
illiteracy can be solved.
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 4d
By this logic, extracting oil doesn't contribute to climate change.
hans@feddit.org · 1 pts · 4d
but has it's own problems. deep water horizon, for instance.
BillyClark@piefed.social · 14 pts · 7d
I agree that people should be willing to change their lifestyle to reduce pollution....
That being said, you actually can get pretty far in improving pollution without changing people's lifestyles.
Of course, I understand the comic says, "ban", which would obviously be impossible without consequences for their lifestyle. For example, you could only ban releasing CO2 into the atmosphere by stopping people from breathing into the atmosphere. Quite a lifestyle shift.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 5d
thing is, people can't even tolerate 10km/h lower speed limits
87Six@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 5d
As if the consumer side of things is a meaningful amount compared to corporations and goverments.
Is someone counting how much pollution the stupid war in Iran and the Gaza genocide is producing? No? Obviously not, they only care that I eat cheap steak every once in a while and drive my combustion car under 7k km a year.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · -2 pts · 5d
Please stop this nonsense, corporations in particular are responding to our consumption habits:
Replacing 1m petrol cars with EVs could cut Australia’s reliance on foreign fuel by 1bn litres a year
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/mar/16/electric-vehicles-australia-reduce-reliance-on-foreign-fuel
And that's Australia alone, how many litres would we save by all countries switching to EV's?
Governments are held to the values of their constituents in most countries, if you elect an anti-renewables clown that's definitely on the people!
I like how Lemmy users can't go 5 minutes without bringing up Gaza but in terms of Iran yes!
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-fall-in-q2-2026-due-to-plummeting-oil-use
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/the-new-twin-fossil-shock/
It's very likely thanks to Dickfingers and Putin we are looking at peak oil
"Australia’s dramatic electric U-turn: “Everyone knows someone with an EV”"
https://thedriven.io/2026/09/08/australias-dramatic-electric-u-turn-everyone-knows-someone-with-an-ev/
87Six@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 4d
Switching to EV's is impractical for everybody that either can't afford it or can't install a home charger, and a billion other cases. Your statements are ridiculous.
Sure switch the new production cars to EV's, whatever, but until I see a 2000 euro EV available to buy that isn't more of a shitbox than my 2001 car, I'm not switching anyrhing.
And that fantasy is never happening. An EV that costs as much as my car will never exist and not be a POS. Even if I factor in fuel savings.
EV's are good but you all gotta stop getting so wet for them as if the whole green EV talk isn't ultimately just pushed by automakers that sell them easier because of the constant guilt tripping of ICE car owners.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · -1 pts · 4d
Hello!
You do not need a home charger for an EV
Ok?
87Six@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 4d
If I gotta explain how that is a deal breaker for many people there's no point in talking.
There's this guy I found on yt that did a video of what the cold does to his ev. It's abysmal. All the extra usage of electricity in the winter drops his range from 128KM to 100KM just by having HVAC on at 40% battery. That's ridiculous. At 100% he gets somewhere around 240km I'd guess.
Then later on in the video he shows that he used 5% battery to drive 4km because of the battery protections.
Then, he says it took around 35 minutes in between, and his battery % went from 36 to 46.
Not only that as explained by him and others, the car lies to you about what % battery it's at. Just like phones.
If I had that car where I live, in an apartment, where the nearest charger is at a kaufland parking lot 2km away that I have to leave after charging, I'd lose my goddamn mind. And there's more people in my situation than rich cunts living in houses that can afford a charger and a garage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rjb7Gzp03E
And that's just one aspect. A drop in the bucket.
You take care of an EV. A combustion car takes care of you. Hell, buy a hybrid if you really want to feel like a climate hero in a world that is literally burning because of corporate greed, but not a damn EV.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz · 5 pts · 7d
OP: Please ban leaded gas?
No consequences for my lifestyle.
Only ban leaded gas!
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 7d
Banning leaded gas requires pretty big changes to both cars engines and the gasoline mix, and that drove up prices.
It was a good move, but let's not pretend it was free. Lead was added for a reason, removing it had a cost as well, even though that was more than worth ut.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz · 5 pts · 7d
Lead was added because it made exxon's shareholders a shitton of money because they could make the same profit while spending less on oil refining infrastructure and gm didn't have to invest in better valve/head manufacturing.
The price of gas and engines are set as high as the market is able to bear. The public did not benefit from cheaper engines or cheaper gasoline, only exxon and their shareholders, who used that wealth to further stall progress, nor do products become cheaper when the manufacturer switches to from biodegradable wax paper to single-use polyurethane-coated plastic.