this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025
627 points (98.0% liked)

Canada

9607 readers
1584 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 51 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"One vote never changed anything," said ten million people.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"me reducing my carbon emissions won't change anything" said ten million people.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

But who else is to blame? Seriously...

Where do you think these 57 companies get their money from to continue doing their shit? By individuals buying their shit.

What do you think these 57 companies consist of? They employ hundreds of thousands of individuals. Each of which could theoretically decide not to continue with that.

Of course I realize it's not that easy, individual situations may be complex, and that there's different amounts of blame to go around. You're correct, these companies have concentrated blame to them and it'd be more impactful to regulate them specifically.

But my statement is simply also true. Multiple things can be true at the same time. Multiple courses of action can be reasonable.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

People need to stop buying animal products and demand our politicians invest in renewables and public transit.

Too many people have protested against bike lanes and apartment buildings when those are much better for the environment. So yeah let's not the individuals off the hook completely.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is no "hook" though. We shouldn't be fighting against each other.

Every person has a different level of personal sacrifice for the greater good that they are ok with. It is completely fine to be selfish. If that means that we're fucked as a species, then that's what that means.

If we militantly blame people for still eating animal products for example, it'll just create hostilities that are further entrenching the sides. Instead we need to push to compromises, everywhere. Make animal products more expensive, using the tax or whatever to offset their carbon impact. People that still want to buy it can buy it. Or say it'd be best to not eat animal products, but if that's too hard, how about just a little less, however much is acceptable.

It's not optimal, absolutely true, but it has a much higher chance of working.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It is completely fine to be selfish.

It’s completely legal usually…

Absconding from moral duties, completely fine?

Suppose “fine“ has to be clarified

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Can you honestly say that you sacrifice everything for the environment? Have as little/positive carbon footprint as in any way possible?

I'm saying that eventually stopping to sacrifice personal benefits for the common good is fine. I.e. being selfish.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh I’m a failure there, which doesn’t mean I should be shot, but it’s not completely fine I’m failing to protect the single inhabitable rock I want young family to be able to thrive on

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

While I said it's completely fine to be selfish, I didn't say it's completely fine to be completely selfish. I think I made it pretty clear that I think some level of selfishness is completely fine, not every level of selfishness.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Multiple things can be true at the same time. Multiple courses of action can be reasonable.

Of course. And your original statement was only placing blame on individuals, which is the type of attitude that helps these companies get away with the all the environmental damage they cause. 80% of the cause should also be 80% of the focus.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

People continue to use the big 6 banks that finance the fossil fuel industry when they could switch to credit unions instead.

https://bank.green/

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Right, so the focus should be on the big 6 and how they finance the fossil fuel industry to raise awareness and encourage people to switch.

Putting the blame on the individual (you need to reduce your carbon footprint) and expecting them to research every business and product they interact with on a regular basis means

  1. the research won't happen because nobody has that kind of time, and
  2. if they do try to do research on their own who knows if they'll actually research their bank.
[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, it was not only placing blame on individuals. That is your interpretation of it.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 23 hours ago

No, it was not only placing blame on individuals. That is your interpretation of it.

Me: let's stop blaming individuals.

You're immediate reply: "But who else is to blame? Seriously..."

Hard to interpret that any other way. But okay, where in your original post do you blame anyone other than individuals?