• delirium
    link
    fedilink
    281 year ago

    It’s not like corporations produce greenhouse gasses because they think it’s fun.

    I think we can agree on that corporations are aimed at cheapest way to produce most popular goods at the biggest scale they can achieve for, in the end, produce the biggest possible profit. Thats what corporations are made for: money.

    In the end, rich guy gets a yacht, bunker for apocalypse and private residence with AC, private kitchen stuff and anything they want so he will be fine even if its 60C outside. If it will get unbearable, they’ll move to something like Norway and will be fine.

    At the same time, hundreds of thousands of people who live in hot countries will die and millions will be climate refugees.

    All that, because producing iphone with coal electricity (simplification, albeit I feel like its close to truth) is 10$ cheaper.

    Blaming corporations, even if partially accurate, doesn’t actually get us any closer to solving things.

    Swapping to paper bags will not help either. There are only two options to solve the issue:

    1. Government forces corpo to stop wasting our planet (because we don’t have a spare one)
    2. People get torches

    1 is impossible because gov will never cut the feeding hand and 2 is just a matter of time until we will get couple hundred millions migrants from Aftica, India, Pakistan etc.

    • P03 Locke
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      1 is still possible. But, we’re at a tipping point between ending up in some Cyberpunk corporate-ran dystopia and one where the general public actually has the upper-hand and can fend off governmental corruption.

      Choose wisely. Vote every year, twice a year.

      • arcturus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        but the thing about voting is that basically every politician is either:

        1. In the pocket of one or more corporations
        2. Literally part of a corporation (or outright owns one)
        3. A politician at who doesn’t have as much power as the former two or is in the pocket of one of them

        so we could vote for John StopClimateChange, and then find out that every single thing that Mr. StopClimateChange said about his crusade to stopping climate change was not at all true or was so utterly miniscule in the long run as to be meaningless

        then what?

        • P03 Locke
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          This is a defeatist and authoritarian position that the rich and powerful want you to have. They want to feel like you can’t win, so that they vote behind you while you sit at home. Until eventually, they just dismantle democracy altogether and we go back to fiefdoms.

          There is clearly one party that is more in line with the goals of fighting climate change than the other. Vote for that group. Vote for that group twice a year.