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

News

23405 readers
4937 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
[–] Bolt 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.

[–] alienanimals 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.

[–] AngryCommieKender 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.

[–] AngryCommieKender 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.

[–] SCB -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.

[–] SCB 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.

[–] SCB 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.

[–] Bolt 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.

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

Many Americans are dependent on their oil. It’s all part of the design of our roads, infrastructure, jobs, etc.

No, it's all because America 'needs' to be competitive with the world on a military level. This means that whatever will make us progress the fastest is the route we're going to take.

Operating without oil will severely hinder US military progression, which is why we don't do it. It's the same reason why no nation does it that has a stake in world affairs. Slowing down to save the environment gives your enemies an advantage.

[–] tomi000 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.

[–] Bolt 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.

[–] tomi000 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.

[–] Bolt 2 points 1 year ago

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