• mavedustaine@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, the US has abysmal public transport (at least in houston, tx in my case) compared to even third world countries like Egypt. It’s downright embarrassing.

      • nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        In Egypt, a large part of public transport is from private entities, the people driving the microbus and tok tok own those vehicles. In the west, these services are expected to be funded by the government for some reason

      • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I live inside the 275 loop around Cincinnati. My work is 11 miles away. In order to get to work via public transit I’d have to walk 3.5 miles to the closest bus stop, take a bus the wrong direction, wait for a transfer to another bus heading closer to work, and then walk 2.5 miles to my job. The schedule is so sparse it would take me 3-4 hrs one way and I’d be walking more than half of it. No bike lanes or sidewalks either, and the roads are so dangerous that in almost 20 years of working there I’ve never seen a bike attempt any of my possible routes. I have seen memorial bikes on the roadside where someone got hit.

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

      I live in Germany and while not perfect, I’m glad we have such a thing.

      The problem is when a 10 minute car drive takes an hour with public transportation

      • Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Next problem is surge pricing and general ticket prices. I recall one city I was living in a few years back having advertisements for taking the train. And I was like “Yeah sure. It’s just double the price and triple the time”.

        To me taking the train (at least for long distances) is a luxury thing.

  • alternative_igloo@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    This reply misunderstands the fundamentals of market economics. If we, the consumers, start making the global climate more of a factor in our purchasing decisions, that will directly affect what gets produced in a capitalist system. Not trying to absolve these corporations of responsibility for the problems they’ve caused, just saying that if enough people start taking the bus/train instead of driving or substituting meats for plant based foods, we can have a significant impact. Of course the best thing we can do is vote to get ignorant climate science deniers out of office.

    • Wowbagger@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The issue with that logic, voting with your money, which I once used as well, is that richer people get more of a vote than poor people. And as a bunch of the issues with global warming didn’t really hit rich people, we shouldn’t depend on them to fix it.

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In order to make an actual impact on the environment, we’d need to all go back to living without electricity in stone houses. Everyone in the world could take the bus and it would do fuck all. Society needs to change how we produce energy and how we construct things. That’s stuff consumers cant do by changing their habits.

      Here’s a great video by Kurzgesagt

        • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s a 2 hour video from a guy with 35k subscribers and it starts off with Chad memes and an ad break for an alpha male bro podcast…

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              The video does not “debunk” kurzgesagt" but disagrees with who to blame. It’s the same conundrum that is happening in this thread. When telling individuals to do what they can to protect the environment you aren’t telling them that they alone are responsible. I don’t understand how people so regularly make this jump.

    • Forcma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Choosing what to buy is a luxury most people don’t have. Companies need to be forced into changing because the market proves time and time again that it can’t regulate itself

      • Blaat1234@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Chosing to eat chicken instead of beef impacts the whole chain from fertilizer to animal feed to clearing the Amazon for pasture to methane produced by cows.

        You have more choice than you think, like which meat to pick or to use more eggs and cheese as replacement instead. This is just one of the obvious everyday choices. Not all fish is equal too, with sustainable aquaculture being the best choice for the world.

        If the oil majors, or just one of them switch off the taps tomorrow we will just get Russian gas crisis x10 and make OPEC and friends insanely rich. We need to transition to something else, that’s for sure, but blaming them for everything is super naive.

  • Bucket_of_Truth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    IIRC the study that the “X% of companies are responsible for X% emissions” is somewhat misleading. For example they use the combined output of everyone’s car exhaust and attribute that to the major oil companies since they provide the gas. Not saying that large corporations and the wealthy in general contributing to climate change exponentially more than the average person, but its misleading to say that as an individual it doesn’t matter if we try to use less energy.

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

      This exactly! We need to go after the corporations with policy changes but that doesn’t mean that we, as individuals, are completely blameless or that individually actions are inconsequential. If nobody chooses to drive less or to take the bus then collectively we’re telling the major oil companies to continue with business as usual at if nothing’s wrong. The corporations are to blame but we’re all active participants!

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have some troubles with this line of thought.

        For a big majority of people, there isn’t simply a lot of options, or any options at all, to take the car less, or buy less over packaged items, or reduce the pollution footprint.

        The corporations won’t offer any alternative unless legislations make these alternatives the right choice business wise.

        So toothless legislation is a problem and the governing bodies absolutely have the lion share of responsibilities and the personal efforts are worthless without the support of the governing bodies.

    • whoami@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The average person isn’t wrecking the environment for no reason either, and yet they always appear to be the target for “environmental sustainability” snipes presented by mainstream media as fact. There are an innumerable number of practices that large industries can practice to limit their carbon footprint, but it is never a priority.

      • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean yeah for a whole host of reason we should shut down animal agriculture. But until we can make that happen people shouldn’t support it. People don’t support it for no reason but they do almost always support it for bad reasons like habit/tradition and sensory pleasure

      • Flaky_Fish69@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like the whole “save water” bullshit. like in california. Or anywhere else being fed by lake mead. Like, “You need to take shorter showers! conserve water”. the ten minute shower they’re berating consumers for… is literally nothing compared to the water straight up wasted for California’s agriculture. (and by wasted, I mean water lost before it even gets to the plants.)

        Most of Lake Mead and the Colorado River aren’t used by people. it’s used by corporations that don’t give two shits because nobody gives a damn about them wasting water- can’t harm the jobs, now.

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

        yes i think this goes both ways, both producers and consumers should be responsible. but we shouldn’t forget shell wouldn’t continue selling gas and instead shift their operations if gas wasn’t in such a demand.
        also if you’re littering you can’t blame corporations for that lmao

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. Saudi Aramco is wrecking the environment because (among others) Dow Chemical keeps buying their oil. Dow Chemical keeps buying their oil because Sterilite keeps buying the plastic that Dow makes. Sterilite keeps buying Dow’s plastic because people keep buying Sterilite bins to store all their junk. Ultimately if there wasn’t a person consuming things at the end of the chain, the oil wouldn’t be removed from the ground in the first place.

      Ultimately it all comes down to people’s lifestyles. When you buy something that’s made of plastic or transported on a container ship, you’re giving these companies money they use to wreck the environment. If instead of kiwi fruit, you buy melons from an Amish farmer who brought them to market using a horse-drawn carriage, that lifestyle choice has an impact on the environment.

      Having said that, it’s true that companies use lobbying to twist laws in their favour, and use sales and marketing to drive demand for their products. It’s hard to know whether a product you’re buying is damaging to the environment because the companies that damage the environment don’t want you to know and will oppose any law that makes it clearer. It’s hard to choose to purchase a less environmentally destructive item if you don’t know it exists.

      But, it’s just ridiculous bullshit to pretend that nefarious companies are out there burning coal just for fun, while cackling evilly. Everything companies do is in service to making money, and virtually the only way they make money is to sell things that people want to buy.

    • EnderWi99in@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s largely a problem of government that is exacerbated by the influence of the businesses themselves. It’s the governments job to enact policy change that force business to address these issues and develop more sustainable production process and product offerings, but since the government has essentially been bought out by those same businesses, nothing happens at all.

      We can’t decouple business from government without policy changes that would place limitations on such influence, and we cannot enact those policies because of the influence from businesses. I don’t see a solution unless people wise up and elect a lot of people in the same election cycle not beholden to these groups, but I don’t know how that can be accomplished.

  • raresbears@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Swap your car or plane ride for a bus or train

    Kinda hard to do when there’s nowhere near enough investment in public transit

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

      Yeah where I live, there’s a bus every 2 hours that needs ~30 minutes to get to where I work. If I took that, I’d have to walk an additional 15 minutes to my actual workplace and I’d still be an hour too early.
      And after work, I’d have to again walk 15 minutes to the bus stop and wait another 30 minutes for the bus home.

      So between leaving my house and coming back home, there’d be ~11.5 hours. When I use my car, that’s ~9.5 hours.

      • crdz@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        My old job was located out of the city and the times I worked there were no busses running (4am til whenever we were done) so I drove ~30 minutes to work, then work between 12 to 14 hours then drive back, which can take between 30 minutes to an hour if there was an accident. Then only being able to sleep like 3 hours a night then repeat the process was torture.

        I’m so glad I was able to get a remote job where now I actually have time during my work days to do other things like actually go to gym everyday and be able to see my family more rather than just work and sleep.

  • MrFagtron9000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is such a fucking stupid argument to make.

    The reason airlines make x% of CO2 emissions is because people want to fly, they’re an airline, and there is no emissions free way to power a plane.

    The reason the plastic company makes x billions of plastic sporks every year is because I want a spoon to eat my Taco Bell Nachos in my car. They’re not making all the plastic pollution because they just hate the Earth.

    They’re not cartoon villains like in Captain Planet that pollute just to make pollution.

    • Smk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it’s that bad, then let’s make a law that fixes the problem.

      You can take this and just welp, plastic spoon is cheaper and all my concurrent are doing it so fuck it.

      We want a greener industry? Make the fucking law reflect that otherwise, fuck off.

      • Vreya37@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which is how this ends up being a chicken-egg problem.

        Are people driving plastic usage or is capitalism driving policies that drive people to use more plastic?

        And if so, why is industry writing policy instead of the public, or agents that are supposed to work for the public’s interest?

        None of this ends until enough “regular people” coordinate to take power back from industry so that we operate like an actual democracy again. If you want to preserve an environment on Earth fit for human habitation, you have to get loud about… Campaign finance reform : P. And then realized that as boring as that sounds, that that will be when things actually would get violent and scary bc real power would be threatened.

        I am not optimistic we’ll even get that far. Our population probably will take some very severe hits in our lifetime though. I’ll cut down on meat where I can, but I am mostly just enjoying the good times we have left.

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

        It’s almost as if regulations are needed because humans are incapable of doing the right thing to protect themselves. Fairly common thing I might add but you’d require a slightly larger government to do it and we can’t have that either.

    • Monkatronic@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      From what I understand, a lot of corporations have power over the options consumers have, the market isnt as free as this argument implies. For example, coal and fossil fuel lobbies do a lot to prevent sustainable alternatives from being adopted.

      The US doesnt rely on oil and coal because thats what consumers want, or because its necessarily the cheapest, its because the people that run those corporations have the means to subvert democracy. They are not cartoon villains, but they are absolutely villains.

      What you are saying is true for plastic straws and airlines, but I would guess it doesnt really apply to many of these 100 corporations

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Corporations create the heat and cooling, build the cars and airplanes, and raise the meat for… wait for it… consumers. These things go hand in hand. Asking people to make changes to their lifestyles that will help the environment IS demanding the corporations to stop producing so much pollution. No one wants to take the blame.

    When the world is on fire, no one will care, but the idea that corporations are somehow a separate entity from the consumers/individuals that line their pockets with profits is equally irresponsible. It does come down to daily choice, because the corporations follow demand. But no one wants to suffer the inconvenience of changing their lifestyle, so we blame the corporations that we then buy gas, electricity, meat, and cars from. It’s blindingly dumb from either direction.

    Spiderman points at Spiderman.

    Note that the IPCC acknowledges that no one is paying the true cost of energy or food. You could decapitate all corporate executives, and, if we truly wanted to pay the environmental costs of heating, cooling, and food, all prices would go up. If you think things are hard now, give it a decade. Prices for everyone for everything will go up. You could kill all the rich people on the planet, and it wouldn’t change that fact, and it wouldn’t suddenly make the environment sound. It truly does come down to fundamental lifestyle changes that none of us want to enact.

    You cannot eat money.

    • Kruggles88@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is classic dog wags the tail and vice-versa. Is it the demand causing these corporations to make the product or are they creating the demand through plentiful supply and marketing?

      If these entities were to make something with lower emissions and marketed that as a better alternative will nobody buy that something? I highly doubt it…

      • dazt6h@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I remember when the things we bought were extremely durable and could last for decades if taken care of, I’m talking about anything, from tools, to cars, to clothes.

        Now, from the 2000s to present day, everything is made to be consumed extremely fast, products are made with cheaper materials and most likely designed to fall apart sooner, this increases consumption by A LOT on a shorter span of time meaning more money in less time, something corporations just drool at.

        With things being replaced on a shorter span means more energy required for the factories, more materials, more waste, and yes, way more pollution.

        A lot of the times the “consumers” were created artificially with this tactics. Many things that lead to the current state of nsumption by the common folk is engineered.

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

    Can you imagine what would happen if you… stopped buying those products that those companies are selling that are responsible for the emissions? Nah, that’s crazy talk.

  • Granixo@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Big brain time: Using a bike or my own feet to go everywhere 🧠🚴‍♂️👣

    • JshKlsn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d use my ebike, but that shit will get stolen as soon as I leave it anywhere, and I cannot afford the $3,000 to replace it. So if I am actually going places, I have to drive my vehicle.

      Thanks, thieves!

          • Granixo@feddit.cl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I ask because i think the whole idea of an electric bicycle is dumb.

            Why waste money on a electric alternative of a transportation device that was made to both make you do excercise AND to get you places?

            If you want to get places faster, or just showoff on two wheels, that’s what motorbikes are for.

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

              the whole idea of an electric bicycle is dumb.

              It’s not.

              It gets you from point A to B, costs nearly nothing to charge, and is environmentally friendly.

              Why waste money on a electric alternative of a transportation device that was made to both make you do excercise AND to get you places?

              It gets you there faster and without sweating. My eBike goes 50KPH. I arrive at my destination with no sweat.

              If you want to get places faster, or just showoff on two wheels, that’s what motorbikes are for.

              I’m sorry, but you’re being very ignorant. A motorbike is thousands of dollars, requires hundreds of dollars per month in insurance, requires licenses, maintenance, fuel, etc.

              Not to mention not everyone can ride a standard bike. Older people, people with chronic illnesses, etc. I personally had a double lung transplant. I’m not pedal biking, nor am I paying $750/month for motorbike insurance in my province.