• DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the truth right there. Gas prices went up two measly dollars compared to normal in 2022, and everyone flipped the fuck out. People were prepared to elect Republicans-- fucking Republicans- to office, they were so furious about it.

    And don’t @ me about “100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions”. Who’s buying those corporations’ goods? Who’s refusing to vote for politicians that’ll meaningfully regulate these corporations? Who’s spending all day fantasizing about Da Revolushun^TM that’ll never fucking come (and would kill tens of millions of civilians and likely result in fascists winning and seizing control of your country, if not the whole thing splintering into a bunch of warring fiefdoms controlled by ruthless oligarchs) instead of getting to actual work trying to effect real change in the real world? And I don’t mean “direct action” (read: looking edgy and getting photos for the 'gram), I mean actually fucking getting policy passed that’ll have a real impact on people’s real lives.

    • Ooops@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Gas prices went up two measly dollars compared to normal in 2022, and everyone flipped the fuck out.

      Yeah, sure. They flipped out because the love their cars so much and don’t want to change anything. Oh, wait. No, they flipped out because companies and corrupt politicians made them completely dependent on cars so they will starve without them and kept them so poor that even increasing the cost of using the cars they dependent on just a bit again ends with starving.

      And here you are babbling none-sense again about how it’s the stupid people buying products -as if they had a choice- and not the companies and politicians that are to blame.

      • Balex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to mention that the gas companies were reporting record profits after increasing the price.

      • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They didn’t say we can stop it at our individual points of consumption. They explicitly mentioned policy. People need to be willing to support policy that will drastically change their own lives, likely in ways they don’t even realize, and be ready to live with that. Otherwise pretty soon we won’t be living with much at all.

        • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          don’t @ me about “100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions”. Who’s buying those corporations’ goods?

          Suggesting that the consumer is responsible for emissions at the point of production betrays a deep misunderstanding of climate change.

          Suggesting that “people’s” willingness to support policy that would change their lives is holding back cuts to emissions at the point of production betrays a similarly deep misunderstanding of political power.

      • reverendz@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is it exactly. We have to turn off the f*cking spigot at the source!

        There is no amount of science or innovation that’s going to save us. It’s going to take “holy shit we’re all going to die horribly” panic from world leaders to forcefully cut off the source, which is oil and its byproducts.

        Short of that, no amount of responsible consumerism can stem this tide.

      • Flygone@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not immediately but they’ll stop producing if people stop buying. Just takes a lot of people to have any meaningful change. And that starts with every single one of us.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And that’ll never happen, because everyone else will ignore you and just buy the shit anyway.

          It NEEDS to be regulatory change. Shaming consumers into not consuming doesn’t work. Oil companies want you to think it works, that’s why THEY invented the concept of the carbon footprint. To make everyone ignore real solutions that could actually work.

          • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We can’t even get people to individually choose to wear a mask or stand a little bit away from each other when their immediate health depends on it. Nevermind asking people to… to do what? It’s not like there’s a choice. That’s what the monopoly phase of capitalism means.

            How can I choose not to use fossil fuels to get around? The buses don’t go where I’m going or when I need to go. How can I choose to avoid the food without the plastic packaging? Almost all the food except for some niche items is packed in plastic. I don’t even get the choice by picking fresh produce because it got to the store wrapped in plastic. How can I choose to use fewer resources? My devices, white goods, furniture, clothes, etc, are all built intentionally not to last – and if they do last, they get ‘updated’ to landfill mode.

            I’m agreeing with you, to be clear. I do wonder how regulation can help, considering politicians don’t regulate unless they’re forced to. Partly because they are or they represent the bourgeoisie and wouldn’t get anywhere near power if they wanted to do things differently. Political pressure can be built but the voices in some of the problematic comments in this thread are quite mainstream.

            I suppose what I’m saying, and I’m not necessarily looking for an answer, is: if we get to the stage where the public consciousness and it’s organisation are powerful enough to make politicians take climate action seriously, why would we leave it to those politicians to implement and why would we retain a system based on infinite growth? Why would we get to the point where we collectively decide to make the world a better place and then say, you know what, you can keep doing all the other extractivism, oppression, war, slum landlording, racist border controls, etc, just make sure you use recyclable packaging and transport it in electric vehicles?

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Exactly. The world around us has been engineered so that we’d all consume more. Either out of necessity, or for convenience. After all the hard work we put in, we feel like deserve convenience, don’t we?

              More and better public transit is 100x better for reducing transport carbon emissions than telling people to “just walk to work”. When the options are there, and they’re incentivized, people will use them. But public transit will also have to be way cheaper than driving, because let’s be honest, it’s kinda icky, if you’re used to driving your air conditioned private pod of utter comfort, and you’re being asked to share space with some hobo who couldn’t decide if he wanted to piss or shit himself so he did both.

              • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Agree with that. It’s been difficult since Covid, too, as it’s made it clear how different people’s views are on hygeine and health. I didn’t used to have a car. But I’m not sitting in an unventilated metal tube where nobody wears a mask and every third person coughs or sneezes without covering their face. That was disgusting before Covid. Now it’s potentially life-changing.

                They could be built with better ventilation and with more frequent services and more regular cleaning but that would eat into profits. In fact, during Covid, they reduced the number of lines, citing ‘safety’. How it’s safer to have busier carriages in an airborne pandemic, I’ll never know. They never re-introduced the old lines. So the trains and buses have been even more crammed than they were up to 2019. At least the shareholders are happy.

                • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ooooh the bullshit companies did “because covid” drives me up the wall. Closing early, because covid is scared of the dark. Longer hold times because covid? Bullshit. Forcing everyone to enter and exit through the same door, because that’s safer for some reason? Jesus

          • reverendz@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Think globally, act locally” and other such clever slogans that seemed so logical and made so little impact.

            How about “round up the heads of oil companies and deliver them to a firing squad?”

            Not as much zing to it though.

        • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Seems odd to say

          And don’t @ me about “100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions”. Who’s buying those corporations’ goods?

          People bringing up the 100 corporations are usually calling for regulations on them, and the “you’re the ones buying the goods” people are usually calling for Personal Responsibility and Voting With Your Wallet.

          • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s possible to both think those companies should be regulated and that people are doing almost nothing personally to help, including electing people to enact those policies. For most people I talk to the “but 100 corps” is a total deflection of personal responsibility. This crisis will not be solved without a good heaping helping of both personal responsibility and aggressive government regulation. If nothing else because that aggressive regulation will never pass into law unless people acknowledge their personal responsibility and are willing to accept the sacrifices that will come with it.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              In the US, unless you are willing to vote third party, you don’t get the choice to vote for Anti-Capitalist politicians. And there are millions of liberals waiting in line to scold you for not voting for the parties of Capital.

              • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago
                1. Primaries
                2. Politicians don’t care because the general population doesn’t care. Guarantee if it was on the top of the list of peoples concerns even the corporate shills of the main parties would give it more than just lip service. but climate change didn’t even crack the top 10 voter issue concerns in 2022 midterms (it was 14th)
              • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                In the US, 3rd parties effectively don’t exist and you’re throwing away your vote.

                Vote blue. Remember that Joe Manchin of all people epically played the GOP to get us the IRA. Even corpo shills can advance our cause. Throwaway votes cannot.

            • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              This crisis will not be solved without a good heaping helping of both personal responsibility and aggressive government regulation.

              100%. People usually argue for one to the exclusion of the other but we need both.

              • boonhet@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Only one actually works.

                You can do personal responsibility alone all you want. Nobody will join you. Government regulation affects everyone.

                Selling people on personal responsibility is what the oil companies want, because they know it doesn’t work. It gives you the chance to be high and mighty, while nobody else reduces their consumption, so their profits stay the same.

                Definitely consume less if you can, but don’t delude yourself into thinking that individual actions in reducing personal consumption achieve anything. Go out there and vote for politicians who propose better climate policies, maybe assassinate some oil, gas and coal company execs, etc.

                • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Not to mention that we could organise for every one of the seven or eight billion people on the planet to take ‘personal responsibility’ and it would still leave 70%+ of emissions untouched. Not even close to where we need to be.

                  • boonhet@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That part is not true.

                    If we COULD organise every single person to consume as little as possible (in terms of goods, fuel, electricity and services), that would mean that all those polluting companies have nobody left to produce stuff for. The 70% number doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s still people who buy all the shit. It’s just impossible to get enough people to stop buying stuff without a carbon tax and other rules that increase the cost of pollution.

                • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Did you just completely not read the context of the conversation that prompted my comment? At all? You seriously just pulled my comment out of context, made a straw man out of it, and started arguing. What the actual tittyfucking Christ.

          • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sorry, I’m so used to hanging out in left-of-center places I make the mistake of assuming everyone understands how BS the whole “personal responsibilty” shtick is and is onboard with strict regulations to fight climate change. So I tend not to explicitly call it out in my posts, assuming it goes unsaid. Which might be a bad assumption to make in more centrist / non-explicitly-liberal spaces.

            Will try to be clearer in the future :)

    • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s almost like our society is car centered, and raising gas prices directly results in worse outcomes for the majority of people. You can’t expect people to just stop using cars, but you can use the state to create massive infrastructure policies paid for wholly by the polluting industries who most heavily profit from our current situation. Use the next decade to build high speed rail, electrified busses and lightrails, subway systems, and other mass transit, and then when gas prices go up, people will have an option other than cutting back on their food to ensure they make it to work every day.

      I replied to the wrong comment in this thread, but if I delete it’ll only delete from my instance, so I’m just gonna leave it.

      • lka1988@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Our society is 100% car centered. My kids’ schools are miles away from my house, my job is miles away, and you cannot convince me to ride a bike or walk when it’s over 100°F outside. Fuck that shit. I’m happy to take public transit, but any public transit available to me isn’t feasible because it would take literally 1.5-2 hours to get to work and back each way, which cuts down severely on my family time. And I can’t work from home either due to the nature of my job, which is maintaining the machines that build microchips.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe don’t move somewhere that your job and kids school is hundreds of miles away? My child’s school is down the street, and I can take the subway to work in about 15min. This was a specific choice my wife and I made when we chose to live here.

          • lka1988@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hundreds of miles? I think you misread. They’re several miles away.

            Also it’s a lot easier said than done to just up and move somewhere more convenient. I don’t have that luxury, and telling me to do so will get you a big fat “go fuck yourself” from me for being so insufferable about it.

            Now move along and go bug someone else with your luxury conveniences.

            • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your reality is the one that’s grounded in reality.

              You can’t win, either way. When you move for work or whatever and then say you wish you could see your family and old friends more, you get the same shitty response: well, you didn’t have to choose to move away. Or if you complain that your landlord keeps putting up the rent, you get told, ‘why don’t you just buy’, as if the bank doesn’t just put up the mortgage if it’s even an option. It’s almost like capitalism loves liberal individualism, where every societal fault can be blamed on the individual for not taking better choices.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh great, let’s use privilege as a bludgeon to enforce the status quo. This is great and also happens to be indistinguishable from doing nothing.

    • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If i could buy none polluting alternatives to anything i currently buy, you can bet your life that i would.

      But i dont have alot of choice.

      I do what i can.

      Maybe ill give it all up and go live in the woods somewhere. Become self sufficient. Maybe the capitalists will notice im gone… or not… probably not.

      • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a regular liberal trick, to insist on looking at the consumer while the producer laughs at us on their yacht. In the meantime, their managers, agents, lawyers, and accountants work tirelessly to make sure that what they offer, in the form they offer it, are the only options.

        They’ll buy a stake in public transport and run it to the ground so that people are forced to buy and use cars. They’ll drop the prices in their supermarket so the local grocer with local suppliers can’t afford to stay open. They’ll build obsolescence into every product so you have to keep buying new ones, and the old one is thrown into landfill. They’ll campaign against nuclear energy under the guise of green activism, then complain that wind and solar must be backed by fossil fuels. They’ll buy all the newspapers and news channels, ensuring the only narrative is theirs—dog eat dog and the activist down the road is coming for your way of life. They’ll buy the recording studios and reinforce these messages in film, TV, music: that petite bourgeois living is peak aspiration and that ‘there is no alternative’ as if we lack imagination.

        Then the public will continue that good work for them. Condescending all who disagree. Arguing that capitalism isn’t the problem because humans are greedy or any of the other unassailable, facile, and trite logics that we’re forced to hear constantly but which have no grounding in reality.