this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
416 points (96.2% liked)

News

23276 readers
4060 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Tyson Foods and the federal government refuse to show their math for a new sustainability label.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (12 children)

The 1% and the corporations are more at fault for climate change than individuals. I'm not going to stop eating beef while rich assholes fly around in their private jets fucking up the world just so I have to pay for their greed.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Corporations respond to consumer demand. Don’t buy beef and there won’t be massive deforestation and insane methane emissions. Every dollar you spend on beef is supporting the 1% and the corporations you claim to hate.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

I wasn't even alive in the 1970's when Exxon knew about climate change and lied about it to the entire world. Those rich fucks have been exploiting the climate for their personal gain for many decades before either of us were likely even born. I won't be giving up the few small liberties I have so that the rich can continue doing whatever they want.

And good luck getting every single consumer to agree with you. I suspect you're going to be waiting a long time for your plan to work.

Instead, we should be punishing the individuals responsible for 40% of the climate change problem. Not punishing the rest of the world who did not profit from exploiting the climate problem.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As horrible as those people are, it's not like they're just belching carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for fun. They're fulfilling demand. That 40% wouldn't disappear just by spreading ownership of the factories to more people. That's not to say that individual action is the only thing that works. Regulations need to be put in place to curb emissions, incentives should reward producers for investing & transitioning to more sustainable practices, and yes, monopolies need to get split up.

But the fact remains that some products are just bad for the environment. As as long as people continue buying those products they'll keep being produced. And when animal agriculture accounts for about as many emissions as the entire transportation industry, this seems like one of the easier steps to make.

The "my actions won't end this problem so I don't need to do anything" mentality never comes up in any other field (politeness, crimes, social change, voting). Yeah, choosing to never hold open doors for others wouldn't noticeably affect the global rate, but I doubt you'd use that logic to justify being rude.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

To say Exxon was just, "fulfilling demands" makes them seem like good people. They KNEW they were causing climate change 50 years ago. They suppressed the information. Many Americans are dependent on their oil. It's all part of the design of our roads, infrastructure, jobs, etc. These corporations only care about their revenue streams, not the streams of water and how clean they are. Hoping the majority of consumers band together to do the right thing simply will not work. The corporations and the executives need to be held accountable or we will continue to flounder on climate change.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately it goes back further than that. We knew anthropogenic climate change was a thing in the late 1800s, and the oil companies started doing the research in the early 1900s. They knew by 1910 that they were flirting with disaster. Which just allows everyone to say, "nope, not changing anything personally, because those decisions were made before I was born."

I agree that it's unfair that we have to modify our consumption when it makes so little impact. Hopefully meat in vats is actually better for the environment, but I'm not counting on it for the first generation. It is finally being served in a couple restaurants so that's a first step

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It has nothing to do with fairness. Modifying consumption at an individual level doesn't help and isn't even a step to solving the problem. It's literally propaganda to shift blame and make sure nothing is ever done to address the issue.

If you're relying on individuals you may as well just give up. There needs to be systemic change forced by legislation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Modifying consumption at the individual level unintentionally creates boycotts that the local consumer isn't even aware they are involved in. This compounds when the local consumer happens to be an upper manager, because they will carry their biases against corporations, such as Nestlé, into the corporate world, and continue their own boycott of services that are undesirable.

Again, totally unfair to the individual since we carry so little responsibility, but we also carry the ability to crush corporations that refuse to follow the people's will. Look a bit deeper into why Enron, or Sears-Roebuck collapsed. You'll find that your real power is burying corporations that have no value.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Modifying individual consumption is literally the only viable solution. It just cannot be voluntary.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That was sort of my point. I guess it would be better stated as putting the decision making at the individual level doesn't help, or something like that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Then it isn't propaganda meant to shift blame.

Blaming "the top x%" of corporations is effective propaganda that does shift blame.

People are going to fight carbon taxation, even with a dividend, and if they think "just go after the rich" will help, we'll never get it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To say they're filling demand is a morally neutral, and objectively correct, standpoint.

Many Americans are dependent upon their oil

This is the actual problem to solve, and why you should support carbon tax-and-dividend.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I'm not defending fossil-fueled energy production. When the product is energy it's inexcusable to produce it in such a grossly irresponsible manner.

But if "coal energy" specifically was the product, and consumers overwhelmingly directly choose it rather than available renewable energy, then yeah I'd cut companies a bit more slack. When the harm isn't in method but the product, and people are choosing that product instead of alternatives, then much of the blame rests on them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Thats because we all have been raised to be polite and hold doors open. We have also been raised to consume anything and everything to satisfy our greed because it is our right as rulers of earth. It is the standard and noone criticizes you for it, so why not keep that privilege? It is apparently very hard and takes a long time to get rid of this mentality in the whole population, especially since the most influential ones fight for keeping it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you really only do good things when you've been conditioned to do so? You don't ever try to grow past what society tells you? I'm not asking you to solve everything. I'm asking you not to be a part of the problem. Defending your behavior by pointing to that of others has not been a historically sound position.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Totally agree. I wasnt trying to defend that attitude, just setting some context.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Ah, sorry. I sometimes forget to check for name continuity.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The reason why we will fail when it comes to the climate: we can’t even agree on who to blame and who to punish and how to change the situation to solve the problem.

We are f’d!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

There is no need to agree on who to blame. We all need to fight together and do our best.

Trying to shift blame away from ourselves is the actual problem thats keeping us from making change.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I won’t be giving up the few small liberties

One thing that has always bothered me about veganism is how freaken privileged it is. Cooking without animal products is more work and just has less reward. It is a privilege of the rich or at the least a full-time homemaker. I am upper middleclass now but I have been poor. Animal products are a hit of happiness with low effort.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Noone is saying we shouldnt punish corporations. We should, but how does that give us a free pass to keep exploiting the environment? How can you demand change from others when you decline changing yourself from the start?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

The goal is to reduce emissions. If you want to reduce emissions significantly, you must massively reduce or eliminate meat consumption.

And so any solution, no matter where it comes from, will result in meat being either banned or becoming absurdly expensive. So why not get ahead of that and learn to live without meat?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don’t buy beef and there won’t be massive deforestation and insane methane emissions

have you tried that?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yup! That’s why western demand for meat is decreasing

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but it doesn't seem to be working to fight deforestation and methane emissions

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because Chinese demand for meat offsets our progress. So we should give up trying? Great logic

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because Chinese demand for meat offsets our progress.

whatever the excuse, it's not working.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“China isn’t doing their part, why should we?” Ok, GOP talking head.

That’s the excuse every conservative in the USA gives for ignoring the climate crisis. The fact is that our efforts ARE working in Western countries. That doesn’t mean we should stop.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

your arguing against a straw man.

I'm saying your tactic isn't working. it's not a personal attack. it's a useful insight.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry, I just realized you were a troll. Should’ve checked your comment history sooner. Bye dude

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

calling me a name doesn't change whether what I said is true

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

So we should give up trying?

if you tactic is ineffective, you should try a different tactic.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, we can both eat less meat and also demand change from the rich, they aren't mutually exclusive. "Because they do it too" isn't a great excuse

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I never said they were mutually exclusive. The problem is that the majority of people have to make sacrifices because some rich assholes caused the lion's share of the problem. The funny thing about being a rich asshole is that they'll get away scot-free while the rest of us have to pay for their greed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Hey not all of us! I plan to get a job working in whatever underground cyberpunk hell scape is our future. It's you surface people who are screwed.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Going vegan isn't "making sacrifices", it's the right thing to do. Rich people aren't the ones consuming all of the meat, it's everyday schlubs like you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's the problem that schlubs like you don't understand: The rich people who profited from causing most of the problem aren't making any sacrifices and expect everyone else to do it for them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sounds like a poor excuse to avoid personal responsibility to me. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Be a good little communist and clean up after the rich capitalist's mistakes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Congratulations on successfully doing absolutely nothing, you must feel so proud.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

No but making yourself miserable for no reason won't either. Look, I am personally trying. Got meat down to about one meal a week (oh Lord that one meat meal a week is so awesome), only driving when there isnt another option, and not blasting my AC. This doesn't change the fact that there are big big problems that individuals making themselves feel like shit won't solve. All my effort can be undone in a single day by anyone on earth and they don't even have to plan it out, it could just happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow, this is so sad. So as long as there are people doing worse shit than you thats an excuse to keep going?

'I wont stop raping as long as there are murderers out there'.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I never said that. Sorry about your room temperature IQ.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)