509
Survey finds that 60 firms are responsible for half of world’s plastic pollution
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
509 points (98.5% liked)
World News
37516 readers
1584 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh good. Then there's no problem. My output is infinitesimal on a global scale.
I was worried for a minute, but I guess since everyone else is taking this problem seriously, it should be fixed shortly.
An individual endlessly forced to attempt an exhausting futile endeavor is a punishment in Greek Mythology.
But on Lemmy, its supposed to be a panacea.
Even the single most offending business can claim only a small percent of the total damage. Does that absolve them? We both agree the answer is "no."
None of this was said nor implied. I've been talking about how we are all responsible, and you've been trying to justify taking no individual steps to make things better.
I disagree that it's futile, as I've already mentioned that the more people do it, the more businesses will cater to that. And if every individual makes the change, it would be massive.
Your argument is failing which is why you have to put words into my mouth. I think you're beginning to realize this. I just hope it turns into actually taking responsibility for what you can control: your own actions.
When industries are cartelized, that's less true. There's a real knock-on effect between firms, such that a procedure change in a single heavyweight forces others to follow suite or divide off into niches. Classic example of this was Exxon's adoption of Oracle database suite. Once they got on board, all their clients and partners were dragged along for the ride.
Another great example is the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that throw billions into grid overhauls that prioritize green energy. Wind/Solar dipping under coal has set off a massive construction frenzy, particularly in Sunbelt states like Arizona and Texas. You can claim no single coal plant is responsible for climate change. But when a MWh of power from wind gets under coal, it doesn't matter, because every coal plant sees a reduction in business and every wind farm sees a surge in consumption.
All that to say, these aren't individual problems. They are systemic. And they can only be solved systemically.
That's simply not true. If everyone on my block were to throw themselves off their roofs tomorrow and reduce consumption to a flat zero, climate change would continue apace. If the senior staff at these 60 corporate plants did the same, and there was suddenly a vacuum of leadership/lobbying going into the opposition to climate change reforms, the story would be entirely different.
We are not all responsible. Not in a privatized for-profit corporate hierarchy of an economy.
Your fallacy is the Tinkerbell Effect
Despite me very explicitly and clearly saying that companies have the lions share of the responsibility, you claimed my argument, that we all have some responsibility and we should change our individual actions, was claiming it's a "panacea." You were the one who made up something that wasn't there.
I also know that my local shop is moving into a bigger space and has talked about possibly even opening a second shop. I've also turned friends into their products and they still shop there. Just just like companies can spread their influence by changing, so can individuals. So your claim that it's "infinitesimal" starts to fall apart if you actually apply your own logic to yourself.
You need to convince yourself that your actions have no affect, because it's the only way to say you care while doing nothing. It's how you cope with that cognitive dissonance: pretend it isn't there.
You're really recognizing the fault of your own position here, it's just the opposite of the Tinkerbell effect, where if you pretend it isn't there, it's not.
Uh huh.
Damn this accumulated body of evidence and understanding of causality. If only I had been blessed with sweet ignorance and endless optimism.
And you're trying to argue that i didn't say this.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people will turn to outright lying in order to avoid admitting that they might be wrong.
Nah, just ignorance and endless dishonesty.
I'm pointing to all the instances in which you contradict yourself.
And that's been the name of this game since forever. The bait and switch of "Everyone needs to pitch in!" and "Its all on your shoulders, we can't afford to do anything more".
Businesses screaming "Stop me before I kill again!" and blaming everyone else for the new pile of bodies.
None of those contradicts that. Is this going to be the pattern? Just throwing dishonesty upon lies instead of just admitting you were wrong?
No one here is baiting and switching anything. This is a desperate strawman.
This is funny. Using this context, your argument is "well businesses kill a lot more people than I do, so the few bodies i'm racking up I'm not responsible for." It's you blaming businesses for the bodies you're needlessly piling up.
Im pointing at all of our piles and saying "look, you can actually make an effort to decrease yours while we fight to decrease theirs." You're arguing that your pile does not count because it's small.
This has no impact on a problem at the scale of industry.
If we were talking about picking up litter at the park, sure. But when we're discussing the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, there is no solution that isn't systematic.
It functionally does not. I can't pollute at the scale necessary for anyone to notice, individually.
And zeroing my pollution out does nothing to mitigate the problem.
Even at the scale of city blocks - hundreds of people - there's no impact.
The only solution is systematic.
You're making my argument for me.
You're effectively arguing that there is no point in picking up your litter at the park because there is a pacific garbage patch...and man the garbage can is all the way on the other side! It's like a full time job to throw away my litter! Me throwing away my litter is so tiny in the grand scheme of things, so it's not my fault if I just toss it on the ground.
We both agree major changes need to happen. But every time you leave your litter out, you're contributing to the problem as well and shoulder some responsibility. It's not like throwing out your litter precludes you from pushing for systemic changes. It's just something you can do, right now, to minimize your contribution to it.
And buying from places like I suggest is even more useful because it helps them thrive and spread. While I don't see how throwing away your litter really helps it spread.
I said the exact opposite
No you're main argument is effectively arguing that. Or I should say it's the equivalent argument.
That strawman is taking one hell of a beating.
It's not a strawman, it's an analogy; I'm not saying this is the argument you are making, but the equivalent of the argument you are making.
Although, I have to laugh at the fact that you claimed I said the exact opposite of what I literally and explicitly stated, and now are all up in arms over an analogy as a "strawman." lol
When you reverse an argument and claim it is equivalent, you are either extremely illogical or dishonest.
Perhaps you're experiencing some kind of mania.
Okay, I get it. You realize your position is no longer defensible and lying is all you've got now.
Take care.