• HeartyBeast@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s very little, without systemic change. But blaming the 7 companies is too easy, as well. Imagine, if you will - what happens if the 7 companies tomorrow simply say ‘you convinced us - we will completely cease operations tomorrow’. Lots of dead people.

    • Gyoza Power@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s easy to blame them because it’s true.

      At this point, many of them are too stablished to just go away with the power of the wallet.

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, once again. If it’s 7 companies to blame - do you think shutting them down tomorrow is the simple solution?

          • RoboGroMo@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            ok play it through a bit, so we shut down those 7 companies - i’m not sure which seven companies people are talking about but i assume it’s related to this statistic Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions so let’s just shut them all down…

            mother nature breaths a sigh of relief as billions of people die because of the collapse of global infrastructure, world governments collapse, desperate conflicts erupt around the world with warlords taking over oil reserves and production facilities… the handful of dictators with working tanks and who only care about wealth and power subjugate the helpless and starving masses promising food and prosperity when victory comes…

            Now the planet has been purged of everyone who actually cares about the climate, every available source of food and energy is stripped in a frantic battle for survival - how many people do you know that would let their kids freeze to death and how many people do you know that’d go out and chop down a tree to burn? A couple of months of winter and every tree in every city would be felled.

            • EremesZorn@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And there it is. That’s the problem with the sort of naive idealists that frequent communities like this, fuck_cars, etc.
              Their concerns are valid but their own ideas for how the world should work, how the problems should be solved are just as dangerous as the root of the problem. Maybe even moreso, in some cases.

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

                it’s not entirely irrational though, if you’re convinced you’re in a frying pan and doom is imminent then it can feel like your only option is to jump out into the fire - and maybe it will work out better, maybe we’d land on a recently added log and spring to safety… personally i’m more about doing some parcour out the pan and along and the wooden handle or jumping onto the hand holding the spatula and burning through the flesh of the beast that got us into this dire situation.

                By that i of course mean developing a powerful open-source movement and an educated community which is able to transition to better ways of living without hurting anyone, it’s harder and far more complex but something we absolutely must strive for.

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Hey bud, I’m the guy you asked what in my opinion would happen if companies halved their consumption over night. I just wanted you to know that I replied, but due to the fact that the mod of this place disagreed with something I had to say about cruise liners, I got banned and all my comments erased.

      Good luck, and try not to disagree with the power tripper here.

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

          I do not. The gist of my reply was just that cutting production by half doesn’t have to happen over night. Setting a scaling goal of five years, for example, would give ample time for people to adapt and less environmentally strenuous alternatives to arise.

          Anyway, I’m not trying to say that change doesn’t have to come from the bottom as well. I’m also not super keen on continuing this conversation in the wake of being wholesale banned for talking about corporate interests. It just kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.

          Thanks for listening.

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

            Thank for taking part. I appreciate it - and I would have like to have explored this with you. I do appreciate batting ideas about with pople of differing viewpoint. I think we botgh have the same goal in mind

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

        It absolutely is a fallacy - but then I think the “its just 7 companies” is a fallacy too. It gives the false impression that CO2 emissions can be tackled trivially simply - just sort those companies out, and we are sorted. We aren’t. Setting aside for a moment, the criminal lobbying they have been doing, those companies are meeting current demand. Let’s say they don’t shut down - lets say they halve capacity tomorrow. What happens, in your opinion?