cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/1097575
You must log in or register to comment.
- BillCheddar@lemmy.worldEnglish50 minutes
We ought to seize all the top companies.
They’re just holding companies. They don’t make anything. They don’t produce anything. They just bleed off a kick, like a mob boss, and use those gains to amass political power.
Seize them all and use the assets (and annual profits) to fund American society.
3 hoursShell also dodge paying fair taxes. https://www.ftm.eu/articles/shell-shifted-billions-in-profits-to-tax-havens-leaked-files-reveal
Y’know we could have had spaceships each since the 1930s, right?
Or even just running our cars on seed oils, like hempseed oil, or plant derived ethanol.
Or even just running our cars on water.
… If they’d stop killing inventors and stop abusing the patent system to secretize emancipatory technologies.
- EvilHankVenture@lemmy.worldEnglish2 hours
I believe they crush technologies, but most of the things you mentioned aren’t true. There were no spaceships possible in the 1930s. Why crush that technology when they could have conquered the world with it? It’s not possible to run cars on water. The thermodynamics just doesn’t make sense. We have cars that run on biofuel, but mass-converting vehicles to that would drive up costs of food. Ethanol for fuel already does that by using farmland that could grow food.
- justme@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish2 hours
the last point are just the current status. there are various approaches to solve those issues, which could be explored more.
one examples that comes to mind is ethanol from algae, which live in salty water. i remember seeing a documentary about it, staying that you could just place them in big tanks in the desert. there they wouldn’t compete with food for land.
I’m not saying that this example solves everything, just that there could definitely be more research.
Bingo. I used to work for Shell. This is exactly what they do. And whenever I tell people I get told I’m a conspiracy theorist.
Heeh! :D I’ve just had effectively the exact same thing, except for advertising. “Mind control does not exist” they said, to the face of one saying they used to be one of those doing it!
I hope the water thing is /s
Why do you want that to be sarcasm?
Wouldn’t you prefer that to be true??
You hope differently to me.
Water powered car’s been invented more than just that once with the famous Stanley Meyer story. Y’know those blow torch thingies, that use water? Yeah, same basic principle. And remember in that special episode of Top Gear (I think it was maybe the Myanmar episode), where Hammond put a little water in his engine (in with the fuel) to give it more go at altitude? Same principle as many of the "water powered car"s use, where instead of (afaiu) electromagnetic alignment catalyst, they use chemical catalysts (and other starters and combustants etc), to which some eager naysayers throw the baby out with the bathwater and proclaim it all bunk because those designs were not using pure water. … I’m not sure any use entirely pure water, do they? Didn’t even Stanley Meyers design involve some kind of other chemical in the mix too? I’m not looking into it any further than is popularly known. I don’t want to be mistaken for an inventor, attracting the attention of the ruthless unscrupulous sorts with a lot invested in their rentier ride. ;)
Amusing aside… can haz steam powered car too. ;) Too contrived to call that water powered? Hehe. Even a Stirling engine?
- sculptor0725@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 hour
They make cars which run on hydrogen which you can get from water but that process is so inefficient they opt to get the hydrogen from natural gas instead thus defeating the entire purpose. Overall we have better tech now than “running a car on water” and doing that doesn’t help the bigger problem of unsustainable use of energy
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish4 hours
I’m assuming they were hoping you don’t actually believe it to be possible, not hoping that it’s impossible.
As far as I know, there’s no viable way to get water out of energy. All the different hydrocarbons we burn tend to produce water as a result of the burning process (CO2 and H2O being the results of a clean burning hydrocarbon).
The trouble is, you need energy to break bonds between atoms, and energy gets released as bonds are created. H2O has some pretty strong bonds and there’s nothing you can easily make it react with to get more or stronger bonds in there.
Water can be used in internal combustion engines to cool down the combustion chambers if you’re running super high performance, but that doesn’t meant water injection is adding energy from water, you’d still be burning more fuel to get more power.
The whole post is ridiculous. Putting cars on the water and inventing boats is pretty funny though.
- darthelmet@lemmy.worldEnglish9 hours
To the people who are saying “Yeah but you’re the one who buys the oil!!!” Please stop. Please think about any of the context surrounding those supposedly individualist decisions. Please think about what the most practical solutions are for fixing the problem. You can do that and be helpful or you can be smug and look down on others.
Sure, you buy and drive the car, but you didn’t:
- Design towns and cities that can only be easily traversed by car.
- Decide where jobs and housing were located.
- Spend millions of dollars to lobby against public transit.
- Spend millions of dollars to lobby against regulations.
- Spend millions of dollars to lobby against green energy investments.
- Spend millions of dollars to lobby for imperialist wars to access oil.
- Spend millions of dollars to spread misinformation about climate change.
- Decide what cars were available to buy and at what price. (Demand driving supply only makes sense if consumers have a way to signal that they want something that isn’t being offered. The main market way of doing that would be to not buy anything until the right good is offered… but as stated above, people can’t just opt out of needing a car if the places where they can live and work are built around cars.)
- Decide to be too poor to buy luxury goods masquerading as green alternatives.
Framing the issue in terms of individual decisions lets the people who have most actively stood in the way of progress off the hook and ironically shirks any real responsibility to fix the issue. You think by saying that it’s us doing it that you take responsibility for your actions and therefore because YOU got a hybrid car or some shit, you did your part and everyone else needs to do the same and it’s not your responsibility anymore. Needing to put in the political struggle to take on the corporate interests destroying the planet takes effort that deviates from your normal life. You have to actually talk to people, work with them, and take part in collective action. And your responsibility isn’t over until the problem is solved.
Also, sort of related: I always take issue with how dealing with issues like climate change is framed in terms of making sacrifices. Like sure, are we going to be able to do as much excessive consumption as we do now? No. But there are so many climate policies that would also just make life better for people in the short/medium term. We would be happier, healthier, and safer in a world where we got rid of our dependence on cars and replaced it with walkable cities and good mass transit. But instead of talking about how good it could be, instead the message ends up being “You’re a bad person for diving a car. You need to give up using your car and go either walk to your job which is too far away and across a bunch of busy streets or cram yourself onto the underfunded public transportation that is crowded, slow, unreliable, and falling apart.” No wonder people get so defensive. We don’t want them to have to use the bad infrastructure. We want it to be so good that it’s the best option by far. Pitch that future instead of lecturing people.
TL;DR: I WANT TRAINS! GIVE TRAINS!
- TheOubliette@lemmy.mlEnglish11 minutes
And regarding your other points, don’t forget urban planning. Trains and urban planning go hand in hand. You can’t transform transportation by trains alone if everything is suburbs and city jobs, for example.
We’re all responsible. I’m sure a lot of Romans used this argument when their slaves came after them during the Servile Wars. And it probably didn’t go well.
- 7 hours
I don’t understand this argument. On the one had you have sympathy for the average car user who hasn’t the time or resources to struggle with poor transport infrastructure and don’t necessarily have the resources to make preventative purchasing decisions, but then, on the other had you say
Needing to put in the political struggle to take on the corporate interests… takes effort that deviates from your normal life
You don’t seem to have avoided the responsibility being laid at the individual at all. You’ve kept it firmly in the same place. All you’ve done is allowed those individuals to keep their materialistic lifestyle because “It’s OK, I’m an ‘activist’”.
Activism, for most people, is not sacrifice. Its a jolly good day out with a cool social group, sometimes there’s even free music, circus acts, the works. You get to waive a flag, and everyone congratulates you on what an amazing person you are.
What’s properly amazing is taking a slightly less well-paying job because it’s on a bus route, or not going out twice a week so you can afford organic cotton instead of polyester, or avoiding that deal trip to Tibet to meditate with monks to save fuel. Zero social credit, zero visibility.
And if these big companies have the economic system so stitched up that individual choices barely matter, then what on earth makes you think they won’t have the political system similarly stitched up so that individual activism doesn’t make a difference either?
- darthelmet@lemmy.worldEnglish4 hours
My point is, the important part isn’t assigning blame, it’s taking actions that actually have some path to success. You really can’t ethically consume your way out of climate change. Identifying the corporations and governments most responsible for blocking progress isn’t a mere moral victory, it’s focusing our efforts.
What’s properly amazing is taking a slightly less well-paying job because it’s on a bus route,
Sure, but not everyone can do that. And I don’t mean it’s just difficult, but literally there are a finite number of jobs and housing options that will fit that criteria. As our societies are set up now, it is not physically possible for enough people to make a sacrifice like that for it to make a difference. That’s why collective action is needed to make those big structural changes in the first place.
And if these big companies have the economic system so stitched up that individual choices barely matter, then what on earth makes you think they won’t have the political system similarly stitched up so that individual activism doesn’t make a difference either?
Oh 100%. I’m deeply concerned that there may be no peaceful, democratic way out of this. But that’s step 2. Step 1, regardless of what our strategy ought to be, is organizing. Whether we need voters, protestors, boycotters, or an army, we need people who are able to coordinate with others. It’s not individual activism, it’s collective action.
- 4 hours
Yep. Solidarity, collectivism.
Which presumably is why the left wing spends 100% of it’s time and energy on purity tests, cancelling, essentailist identity politics, and knee-jerk tribalism…
… classic solidarity-building. We should have this problem sorted in no time.
- darthelmet@lemmy.worldEnglish3 hours
That is exactly what I’m trying to push back against. Guilting people over their tiny contribution to climate change is hurting the cause, not helping it. It’s a problem intrinsic to the consumption-oriented liberal approach to climate activism, but not exclusive to it.
- 3 hours
I agree. I was pointing out that (even if perhaps inadvertently), your post just ends up guilting people who don’t do enough activism instead. It turns, not on the problem (reducing carbon emissions), but on your comrades (those who share your concern, but disagree about how best to achieve it).
The responses blaming individuals don’t seem to be exculpating corporations. They’re just adding a dimension they felt was missing.
Solidarity is about accepting into the fold anyone who agrees with a broad aim and working toward that end.
So anyone concerned about our impact on the planet can work together to minimise it. Some by campaigning to reduce consumption, some by campaigning against corporate overreach, some by campaigning for political parties who have better agendas. And each campaign supports and nurtures the other.
What we get instead are endless (and often furious) arguments between each campaign about how they’ve got it wrong and their approach will never work.
I suppose in the vein of “the one thing I don’t tolerate is intolerance”, I’d say the one thing I will always say isn’t going to work is telling every other well-meaning activist that their campaign isn’t going to work.
(The obvious caveat here is determining ‘well-meaning’, but hey, no system is perfect)
As long as they’re not routed through main commute hubs. Where I live (near a major german city, so there indeed is at least something) all the bus connections to the closest subway station of the city are routed over a small portion of a major street. That alone causes massive delays every morning and often also in the evening when everyone pours in- and out of the city in their gas guzzlers.
I’m very much for having waaay more (semi-subway) trains even in rural areas. Even if it’s just small ones that never exceed 50kmh or something, having a trustworthy schedule would be worth it. Connect every milk can! (After giving it 5G)
- craftrabbit@lemmy.zipEnglish6 hours
That is definitely true. Buses are way more susceptible to shitty traffic engineering than railways. Though buses can work really well at traffic choke points too, when good traffic engineering is employed. Where I live, the bus can always zip right past all of the morning rush hour traffic and there is nothing more satisfying than looking out of a bus’ window and laughing at all the car-idiots standing still, stuck in traffic :3
But yeah, railways rule, I meant buses for the really bumblefuck places out there where rails wouldn’t be economical.
I find it hard to be enthused for trains, trams, and busses any more, since discovering over 20 years ago that clean energy and many other technologies and man-made innovations have been suppressed to maintain out dependence on scarce polluting energy because it’s easier to put a meter on to extract rents by. … So much so… y’know we could have had spaceships each since the 1930s? T Townsend Brown was not the first nor the leading pinnacle. Even back to the mid 1800s, when they were rigging their hot air balloons with faraday cages and high freq e.m. fields to reduce, and even eliminate inertia [… 1 small vacuum-proofing hop, and you have rudimentary interstellar flight capabilities]… … we never needed rockets, we never needed planes. … we don’t really need buses either. Or cars.
But if we make a nice world, buses still could be very nice to have.
Semi-subway trains too.
And cars even too. Track day, anyone? :)
Whole lot of vertical space unused in this world [and beyond]. We have so much headroom without the crooks holding us down. Heck! Even the crooks, even with their billions and trillions, would be better off, if we availed, each and all, all the emancipatory technologies.
- Jack@lemmy.caEnglish7 hours
Is it also not the fault of the 99% who vote for non-Green parties who then make the laws causing your bullet points?
- darthelmet@lemmy.worldEnglish4 hours
Waaaaaaaay less than the people who have used their power to corrupt said system. Capitalists wouldn’t have spent this much money on lobbying and propaganda if it wasn’t needed. They try their best to keep some people from voting and the rest from having any viable choices that reflect what they want.
It’s just counterproductive to conceptualize our current situation in terms of individualized guilt. It’s not like going to privately check a box every few years is doing much more than choosing to consume a bit less. We need to be organized. Our enemies are and they’re winning.
- Peanut@sopuli.xyzEnglish1 hour
Also the voting thing ignores the failure of electoral reform in preventing the two party system, and divorcing of the peoples intent from policy for the sake of lobbyist and corporate preference.
While more can be done locally, there have been think groups and other money-lead influencers affecting local efforts for as long as the heritage foundation has been supplying fascist mandates to USA presidents.
There were a lot of people trying to make that salient, and decide action in response to it, when suddenly all progressive groups decided the true threat was other progressive groups for some reason, and anyone trying to resolve that or encourage better communication or cooperation between progressive groups is actually secretly supporting the fascists somehow, because we out here dividing ourselves to be conquered.
Issue totally isn’t rich assholes with too much time and money pushing some policy sitting between feudalism, fascism, and whatever the fuck you would call what putin did to Russia.
I’ve been complaining about self segregation and communication issues for decades, and have been chastised/banned from a weird chunk of progressive spaces I’ve interacted with over this exact problem.
- 4 hours
500M MT
Stacking metric prefixes. That’s how big the problem is.
Edit: And a (metric) ton is a million grams. 500 Eg (exagrams) to 1 Zg (zettagram). You don’t get these numbers with data volume!
- melsaskca@lemmy.caEnglish4 hours
Don’t the non-auto companies who dump sludge in the rivers count for anything anymore?!
At some point, you realize that ordinary people are not responsible for any of these big “problems” (some doesn’t even exist).
Corporations and governments are responsible for all problems we have. They create them with their laws and their greed for power.
But they love telling people to donate money to the problems they cause, or to make us feel guilty for things we have nothing to do with. We should always be in a state of fear and guilt, because that makes us easy to control.
- TheOubliette@lemmy.mlEnglish4 minutes
Individual consumer shaming for society-level problems is usually corporate PR to defend from interventions. The classic example is the invention of the “litterbug” when companies introduced disposable but not easily reusable or compostable packaging and trash was piling up in much larger quantities. There were movements against using the packaging itself. The “litterbug” PR campaign successfully changed the narrative to make this litter an individual problem to shame people for rather than a problem with capital. Similarly, there were many movements against cars in the beginning. It was considered outrageous when “chauffeur’s” would hit pedestrians, there were calls for entire bans. There were multifaceted PR pushes to instead shift blame to pedestrians while giving cars exclusive use of the streets, pushing pedestrians to the side and calling them “jaywalkers” if a car hit them. Both of these cases also involved heavy lobbying/bribery of the political class, same as today.
- Wander@sh.itjust.worksEnglish11 hours
Ah yes companies that famously refine oil only to pour it into a hole and light it on fire for their own amusement, one else uses it at all.
If it’s just these companies that would be affected let’s just close them down. I’m sure it would make no difference whatsoever.
- yesman@lemmy.worldEnglish18 hours
This is a false choice between huge lifestyle changes for everyday people and regulating the polluters. Regulating the polluters is going to cause huge lifestyle changes for everyday people.
The idea that any of us get to go on as usual is the main roadblock to meaningful climate action.
Honestly, I believe the main roadblock is the idea that change will need to happen at all. The sad truth is that most people are fine with contributing to climate change so long as they can keep doing what they’re accustomed to doing.
The only way I can see for meaningful climate action to happen is to get people on board with regulation polluters while allowing them to be ignorant to the fact that lifestyle changes will have to follow, and then when they’re forced to adapt, they will. People are much better at changing when they can’t afford not to than when they have the option to just keep on doing what they always have.
People are also a lot more likely to make sacrifices to keep up momentum after a win like regulating polluters; few people are going to change first when they can see a company like Shell - polluting more every day than they have in their entire lives - going unchecked. A change has to happen to give them hope that the climate can even be saved before they try to make changes themselves to save it.
Well can’t we just ban Shell from selling oil, and then get in our F150s to drive to the airport?
i assume F150 is an electric vehicle. electricity doesn’t come from nowhere. where does the energy come from?
F150 is a huge American ute that burns tons of gasoline to get around.
- PoopingCough@lemmy.worldEnglish16 hours
I’m cool with that. I also don’t think it would necessarily be huge in terms of inconvenience for the average person because alternatives would pop up before long. For example, if air travel became prohibitively expensive we might actually see an expanse of passenger rail for domestic travel. It’s ridiculous that it’s still cheaper/more convenient to take a 45 min flight (plus the time the whole airport experience takes) vs a couple hours (or less with high speed rail) train ride. Certain plastics might also become too expensive so we might see the return to more sustainable packaging. A lot of the oil and byproduct consumption from the average person comes down to lack of choice ratger than people choosing products made from oil ober alternatives.
- captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish3 hours
It would be a massive inconvenience, but it’ll still be worth it. High speed rail takes many years to build. People hate lifestyle changes. Hell, people will be unhappy at the changes to food packaging. Everything will become more expensive and the economy will contract.
If we go in promising it’ll be easy people will get mad and balk when it gets hard. If we go in explaining how it’ll suck, but that we’ve got a plan to fix the problems and it’ll be worth it then we can succeed
- SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.orgEnglish11 hours
No, we are past that point. A gradual reduction in CO2 levels is not enough any more. If you want to save billions of lives we need to cut CO2 production hard and right now. Since that is never going to happen you happy go lucky scenario becomes impossible. In any realistic climate scenario humanity is already fucked, it’s only matter of how much exactly.
Nothing changes until the price of an electric car is less than the cost of a gas one when it comes to the vehicle cost.
A Hyundai Sonata is 35k CAD
A Hyundai IONIQ 6 is 55k CAD
Miss me with that bullshit.
Isnt byd and other chinese ves a lot cheaper compared to the brand new normal cars? No wonder china has majority ev owners and drivers. It can be done, gas cars can be replaced, but the main problem with the oil company’s is that they have huge influence in the government and hmthey have huge power, boyboy has a wonderful video about this topic. They destroy nature, they only care about profits, they lobby against any ev or even hydrogen cars, they are the main reason why climate change is only accelerating in the west. At this point we as humans cant do anything legally to change this.
- wax@feddit.nuEnglish11 hours
Hyundai Sonata is a budget sedan. Ioniq is their top of the line electric. Perhaps look at Hyundai Inster or Hyundai Kona or something.
- Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish14 hours
This is why buying new cars is dumb,
A used Hyundai sonata 2024 is ~20k USD
A used Hyundai ioniq 6 2024 is ~24k USD
Yeah it may be more upfront, but most people finance any way and your monthly payment will be offset buy your fuel savings.
There’s enough of a stock of used EVs, quite often with low mileage, at this point that cost is becoming less of an issue for people then the perceived lack of convenience. That and dealerships/manufacturers not promoting them because they get less maintenance fees and they’re lower margin then a giant SUV or pickup.
- freebee@sh.itjust.worksEnglish9 hours
most people at this point chosing fuel over electric, the main motivation is best case “habit” or worst case political statement, it has very little to do with money or the technical limitations of the vehicles anymore. They just don’t like change, they’re scared of it. They have driven a fuel car all their lives and they will continue their habits as long as they are allowed to. The range on EV’s is crazy now. For christ’s sake, an electric bicycle has a reach of 100km! How far out away from what they need do the average 90% of people live… less than a few kilometers.
It’s really not that hard to put a price on societal collapse and the end of humanity: the money it costs to try to mitigate that is infinite and every decision every person makes right now should be made in that light of exponentially higher costs later if bad choices which now seem slightly less expensive are made now…
- GreyEyedGhost@piefed.caEnglish14 hours
Yeah. If you’re paying for the car outright, your free cash every month will be higher, which can go back into savings. If you’re financing the car, your monthly expenses will quite possibly be the same or lower, because you pay for gas every month, too.
I just looked in Canada
2024 sonata. 28k
2024 IONIQ 6. 39k
I’m sorry I’m not paying over 10k more for an electric car that’s absolutely insane.
Now factor in lifetime costs of repairs and gas/electricity!
BTW I have no idea which one is which of your two cars 😅
- fizzle@quokk.auEnglish16 hours
Yes, but regulating pollutors requires a populace that won’t accept anything less. Instead people are placated by paper straws.
- Tango@piefed.caEnglish17 hours
>>“Spoiler alert: it’s not you”
>>proceeds to display a chart of companies who sell a fuel we all use
- psx_crab@lemmy.zipEnglish10 hours
Well i don’t create the system. Given the chance i would rather not be a part of it.
- bort@sopuli.xyzEnglish11 hours
I hope big oil is paying you well for propagating their “personal carbon-footprint”-narrative.
What do do you say? They don’t even pay you? … Then why are you doing it?
- Tango@piefed.caEnglish10 hours
Because I don’t trust anybody who tells me things I wanna hear like “you bear no responsibility; it’s somebody else’s fault”.
Oil companies couldn’t sell if nobody was buying. The idea that the world can be fixed and I won’t need to sacrifice a thing is a little too good to be true. Sure, maybe others will need to make more changes than me, and I’m certainly not gonna let them off the hook, but I’m not gonna let myself off the hook either, and anyone who tells me I can is selling me something.
- 15 hours
If you can spot me $30,000 I’ll get an electric car today
- Final Remix@lemmy.worldEnglish15 hours
First, I have to get a new range hood, repair my foundation drain, regrade my yard, and earn a spare 30k after that.
- 15 hours
I think I’d get close to $5 if I traded in my current car, if that helps
- Alcoholicorn@mander.xyzEnglish10 hours
30,000? A domestically manufacturered, highway-capable EV is 10,000 USD here in vn and even cheaper over in China.
Who do you think is responsible for your inability to buy reasonably priced evs?
Oh, the old “it’s the consumers responsibility” fallacy.
Nothing will change if it isn’t forced, or if electric cars get cheaper.
- SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zipEnglish12 hours
Whatcha gonna drive it on? The streets and roads are a major source of CO2 by themselves.
- 12 hours
If someone can spot me $300 million, I’ll get functional public transit going in my city instead.
In the meantime, my options are drive a car, or be unemployed.
- SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zipEnglish11 hours
You’d also have to deal with all of the residents who pitch a screaming fit any time anybody suggests maybe possibly removing a parking space. Unfortunately, it’s a whole, self-reinforcing system, not just the fault of a few corporations.
- AngryPancake@sh.itjust.worksEnglish10 hours
I’d argue not having to burn your fuel is already a great improvement
- 18107@aussie.zoneEnglish16 hours
“we all use”
Speak for yourself. I refuse to pay them a cent, and have taken every step I can to distance myself from them.
- Tango@piefed.caEnglish16 hours
Most of the factories that manufacture the stuff you use are driven by fossil fuels. The food you eat is most likely grown using fertilizer that was made using natural gas. Unless you live in the forest and eat nuts and berries, you use fossil fuels.
- 18107@aussie.zoneEnglish16 hours
The factories may use fossil fuels, but I do not.
The fossil fuel companies are responsible for their own actions, as are the companies and people who still choose to use fossil fuels.
The people who have made an active choice to avoid fossil fuels (or the people without a choice) are not at fault. Blaming them instead of the people who can make a difference helps no-one.
- Tja@programming.devEnglish10 hours
It’s trump diddling kids, not me!
- this guy, eating a trump steak on trump airlines.
- Tja@programming.devEnglish10 hours
You realize that fossil fuels or natural gas are not evil by themselves, right?
What causes climate change is burning them and releasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
If you use it to create fertilizer, or plastic, or whachamacallit, it doesn’t create greenhouse effects.
- freebee@sh.itjust.worksEnglish9 hours
it’s still putting energy into pumping it up. And what happens with the fertilizer, or plastic, or whachamacallit? It gets consumed.
The fertilizer best case becomes plant, gets eaten, pooped out yada yada eventually it becomes the greenhouse gasses. Worst case it’s spilled into the environment as overfertilizing runoff, where it offsets soil balance which helps to release… greenhouse gasses.
The plastic: after use: what happens with it? It gets burned best case, which will release greenhouse gasses. Or it end up in the ocean, not greenhouse i guess, but also not that fun.
When we extract fossil carbon from deep down to the surface, there is a very high chance it will become greenhouse gas. Some of it becomes greenhouse gas almost immediately, some of it only after a few decades, but it’s still offsetting the balance of the globe and adding to climate change.
Fossil fuels are not evil by themselves (how can anything without consciousness be evil?), but many other uses than burning it to go vroom vroom also pose problems to global environmental systems, many uses will also end into processes that will also have negative influence on greenhouse gas situation. Plastic is a miracle material with many very good uses, but the way it is still mostly used now (use once, throw out, burn) is still adding greenhouse gasses.
- Tja@programming.devEnglish3 hours
Fertilizer helps plants grow (and bind carbon from the atmosphere). Doesn’t “become plant”. Poop doesn’t become greenhouse gasses. Poop will exist anyway, with or without fertilizer. You got most of it wrong.
PS: Plastic can be recycled as well. Even if it’s not, you just don’t burn it at the end.
Godammit. I’ve boycotted Exxon and BP, for their negligence that led to spills, for a long time. I knew shell probably wasn’t much better but I’ve preferred them anyhow. Turns out I was helping the worst offender. Awesome.
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish18 hours
It in fact doesn’t matter much which one you buy from, they all sell the same product and the product they sell is the problem.
Yes, it’s impossible to effect change as a single person so government action is needed… But the necessary consequence of that is that we also stop consuming as much fuel.
- hirihit640@sh.itjust.worksEnglish15 hours
if it’s impossible to affect change as a single person, then why do anything at all? Why bother to vote? I hear this logic all the time and it doesn’t make sense to me.
- “Don’t bother making personal changes, voting will save us!”
- people vote for Trump
- “Wait not like that”
That’s not to say that public policy is pointless. “Tragedy of the commons” tells us that regulation is necessary. But I think the framing is wrong. The culprit here is not oil companies. It’s oil. If you tell people “oil companies are evil”, and tax the oil companies more, these people are just going to get mad when the taxes trickle down to them in the form of higher gas prices.
The correct framing is “Oil and gas cost more to us, than the cost of simply digging it out of the ground. The added taxes are to reflect the true cost”. Then people will understand why gas prices need to go up.
Then add on some Infographics and memes that show how much more efficient public transit is. How solar panels pay off over the long term. Etc. Because personal responsibility does in fact make a difference.
- village604@adultswim.fanEnglish18 hours
Just a friendly heads up, it’s affect, not effect.
The way I remember it is affect is an action, and effect is the result of an action. English is dumb.
- f4f4f4f4f4f4f4f4@sopuli.xyzEnglish17 hours
No, they used effect in its verb form correctly.
effect
effected; effecting; effects
1: to succeed in doing or achieving (something) : to cause or bring about (something) : accomplish
effect a transformation in company culture
effected a settlement of the dispute
… a powerful reminder of the potential of technology to effect change.—Chris Gallagher
2: to put into operation
the duty of the legislature to effect the will of the citizens
… an executive grant of clemency … to effect the prisoner swap.—Eric Tucker et al.<
English! 😆
Your point should be that usually “affect” is the verb and “effect” is the noun. I’m having trouble coming up with a mnemonic device, but at least these can be pronounced slightly differently.
- Tja@programming.devEnglish10 hours
And you base that on… a shitpost on lemmy without a source or even a damn label? It’s literally bunch of rectangles.
Whoah there, give demons some slack. They aren’t destroying life as we know it on a global scale just for a few extra bucks
