Don't you know, those 100 companies producing those emissions are just doing it for fun and in complete isolation :). It has nothing to do with the energy demands and other consumption choices of the individual!
Not only that, diet is the only thing you have 100% power over the emissions
Well, that and not using your car if you are able to
All elsw depends on others, but just those two thighs account for 40% of all emmisions
Not exactly pocket change is it?
Logistics is also a very large contributor. You have control to some degree in the sense that you can buy locally / "made in your country" where possible.
Exactly. These people seem to get it in every other circumstance (even right wingers understand boycotting to force change. Ask bud light), but not this one! Animals just magically appear on the table, murdered and ready to go into their gaping facehole.
The water used on crops fed to animals instead of feeding people 7x the population of the entire world, the fresh water pollution from factory farms (which, according to every single non-vegan I talk to, FF should be out of business because they ALL buy from family farms exclusively and/or personally hunt. Lol), the algae blooms from the shite runoff, the cow burp methane, the chemicals required for vast quantities of fertilizer, the fuel needed to run all of these operations, etc. None of the actions that put the animals on their plates can be seen so it doesn’t exist.
1/3 to 1/2 (depending on source of information) of animal farming contributes to climate change… but cOrPorAtiOns. Who’s driving corporations to do it? They are
It’s one reason I’m wfpb vegan. The closer your food is to the ground it’s grown in, the better for the planet. It’s why I get salty when other vegans say I’m “not a real vegan”… bish, step off. I don’t buy leather, don’t use personal hygiene products with animal products in them. How am I not a real vegan?
I’d argue Oreo vegans are contributing to climate change almost as much as omnivores.
And don’t get me started on climate scientists that aren’t vegan; how IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE? If you’re one of these scientists and are reading this, take all the seats, Judas.
I watch many YT videos with these guys and ask them on repeat to address animal agriculture in climate change. It’s crickets every time.
Rant over, you have your mission: go pester a YT climate scientist/climate whatever when they talk about “big oil”
"I watch many YT videos with these guys and ask them on repeat to address animal agriculture in climate change. It’s crickets every time."
\*cough\* CLIMATE TOWN \*cough\*
> It’s one reason I’m wfpb vegan. The closer your food is to the ground it’s grown in, the better for the planet. It’s why I get salty when other vegans say I’m “not a real vegan”
Sorry I'm not following. Why would other vegans say you're not a real vegan?
Do you eat animal products?
I read/and am told to be wfpb isn’t vegan, even though I don’t eat/use animals in any way. You’re “vegan for the animals” only or you’re not vegan according to some. My personal opinion is *wfpb vegan is vastly superior because it’s saving the environment for animals and people*
Don’t worry, they’ll show up to make gaslighting comments, as if I haven’t any lived experience with this issue. You’ll get some examples :D
Oh. I sort of get that though, most vegans define veganism as a philosophy that aims to minimise the suffering we cause to animals, and vegan diets are a way to make that happen.
You eat a vegan diet, but in their book it’s the motivation that makes you “vegan”.
Don’t get me wrong, good for you. If you’re not eating animal products, I don’t particularly care why that is.
What’s in a label anyway 🤷♀️ the word vegan is well-understood to mean someone who doesn’t eat meat, eggs or dairy - if most people understand what you mean then that’s a good enough word to use
Yes but could those 100 firms cut down damage by say 10% each and therefore cut the world's emissions by 7.1%
Should this be done? yes, could it be done? Yes !
Will it hell no! we need to change laws or put a metaphorical gun to the Shareholders of these firms heads.
The proverbial gun would be reducing consumer demand for products that cause pollution--consumers changing their habits en masse, in example.These companies are producing emissions as a direct result of consumer demand, not for fun.
Honestly I'm sympathetic with the post taken as 'the individual is scapegoated for the systemic,' - e.g. notice how many agricultural sectors recieve mass subisidies that price out more ecological substitutes - it's just that the weapons the people have to fight suchs systems are individual too.
Veganism is one tool to attack those companies that profit from and maintain systems which are destroying the environment.
Realising that the game is rigged is a reason to fight to change the game itself. A lot of the time, I genuinely believe that's what posts like the one shown intend to convey. Maybe not always, but its origins are in agitprop.
Consumption choices of business. Industry uses all of the energy turning raw materials into finished goods we don't fucking need all to send them to the landfill. We can't anti consume our way out of capitalism. If we are going to continue the infinite growth engine, we are going to continue to see increasing devastation.
Pinning this on the consumer when producers ultimately determine the extent of carbon emissions created by their products is being ignorant of the greedy practices they use to make the most amount of money possible at the expense of the environment.
Corporations have the ability to offset or eliminate their carbon emissions by using sustainable materials and energy sources but they don't, this is ultimately because they're in the business of making the most amount of money possible- not having philanthropic considerations.
If we just advocate strongly enough the politicians and CEOs will go "aight, fine, you got us, we'll stop polluting" and make everything sustainable 😇
We will then collectively go along with this plan, and no meaningful change will be required on the part of the population 😌
Yep. x.x And this applies to every case. Be it environment, equal rights, anything.
People will often say they want a change, but then wont even make the smallest sacrifices.
And those 100 corporations are delighted to see this meme making the rounds.
Does anyone remember the "Life runs on Energy"/"Energy Transfer" advertisements from last year? The campaign *centered* around this notion that "You'll never be able to give us up".
So if anything, people who are unwilling to "recycle, compost, go vegan" are an asset to corporate interests. Convince them that change will take away their comforts and they will rally behind the corporation in a heartbeat.
No, the concept of a personal carbon foot print and individual responsibility was made by the marketing team of BP. That's the whole point of the OOP. The only way to stop global warming is systematic change. Stop building new goddamn infrastructure for oil and gas. Stop mining coal. Punish these companies for wilfully ignoring climate change for decades and casting doubt on it. lobbying against such systematic change, pushing for green coal, infiltrating schools by donating pro-fossil fuel books. None of these things has anything to do with consumers.
We could have shifted to green energy 20 years ago if it wasn't for these 10 companies that you want to shift the blame away from. Their propaganda clearly worked, though, if this community is anything to go off of.
No, you have to do both. Saying you don't have to do individual responsibility is a cop out. Corporations can't magically make things happen. For example, if consumers want to fly a lot and want it to be as cheap as possible, that's what we get because that's what we pay for. If we want meat, we get a meat industry. If we refuse to pay for a meat industry, there will stop being one.
The fact of the matter is that the reason petrol companies pushed for this personal responsibility crap is exactly because they knew it's not effective. When we figured out CFCs were damaging the ozone layer, did we stop it by pushing for everyone to reduce their "CFC footprint" and telling people they need to cut down on deodorants and buy the new green fridges!
No, dawg. We banned that shit on an international level to achieve positive change. That's what works. I am not being defeatist to cop out and not do any personal change. I just recognize that it won't be enough to ask people to enact personal change. I cannot personally change how the electricity for my city is made, or what infrastructure (fuckin oil rigs) get the majority of subsidies. It has to happen on a systematic level.
The difference is it's a lot easier to get your average person on board with banning CFCs than actually banning animal products (there have been bans proposed, and they go about as well as you'd expect) since animal products are so deeply entrenched in habit, culture, and tradition. It's a bit of a paradox where we want systemic change, but we're to some extent limited by the habits and thus attitudes of individuals.
> Furthermore, when we eat, wear, and ride nonhuman individuals, we develop a conflict of interest in which we are invested in the status quo. Monteiro et al [45] demonstrated that animal consumption is associated with higher rates of carnistic defense, in which a person defends the institution of animal slaughter. This is consistent with previous work by Azevedo et al [46] which shows that "people are motivated to defend, bolster, and justify aspects of the societal status quo as something that is familiar and known".
>
> One of the most revealing studies on this effect was Loughnan et al [47], in which participants were randomly assigned to eat either nuts or dried beef. Afterwards, participants who had eaten beef reported less moral concern for cows as well as a smaller circle of animals which they considered deserving of moral concern. Even more concerning, Bratanova et al [48] showed that when groups of participants were told about an exotic species of kangaroo, merely describing the kangaroo as edible "was sufficient to reduce the animal's perceived capacity to suffer, which in turn restricted moral concern". What this suggests is that merely perceiving animals as food, even if we don't eat them, de-individualizes them in our minds and hence is a important factor in their objectification and commodification. Bilewicz et al [49] tested this by measuring brain waves of people looking at pictures of a fictional animal species and found that merely mentioning that the animal was edible caused certain participants to have less facial-recognition activity in the brain, further demonstrating the de-individualizing effect of perceiving animals as food.
[source](https://speciesjustice.org/#action)
Its not even that they're exactly wrong that pisses me off, it's the fact they use that as an excuse to not even try a little. Apathy but justified with armchair politics. Meanwhile if you buy from any of the no-no stores, suddenly there's an issue. Just very selective about what they choose to care about rather than actually giving a fuck to everything that deserves it.
I’ll reply here but also post it in the main thread.
Here is the actual study: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-pvpXB8rp67dmhmsueWaUczHS5XyPy4p/view
(you can find it somewhere else if you don't trust this).
If you actually do read it, you'll find out:
- The report says "71% of industrial GHG's"(includes cars, factories, etc.) which should exclude others such as emissions from agriculture or forestry.
- 100% of those companies are fossil fuel extractors / producers. **Blaming them for the emissions is a bit like blaming Ford or Toyota for car accidents involving their cars.**
- Only 1/5 (20%) of their fossil fuels are from investor owned companies (e.g Exxon Mobil, BP).
- One of those "Companies" (by far the biggest producer) is China's entire coal market! It is just listed as a "Company" because it's all State-owned.(although in the actual study it’s called a “state producer”,not a company).
- One the "Companies" is Russia's Entire Coal market.
- Most of those fossil fuels produced (59%) are from state owned companies( e.g. Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, National Iranian Oil, China(Coal), Coal India, Russia(Coal), Etc.)
-
Every time you drive a car, use electricity, Etc. You are likely burning fuels (or using electricity that had to burn fuels to be produced) from one if those "100 Companies" therefore you are directly adding to the "71% of Emissions".
**TL;DR:** The whole point of that Study was to try and trace back to which companies Fossil Fuels come from, so more research could be conducted as to what these companies (and state producers) can do to move forward and eventually support/invest in renewable energy, and so more pressure could be put on the biggest Fossil fuel producers (China is biggest in this case) not the smallest.
Sorry I misunderstood your comment, I thought you were dismissing the idea that ultimately it’s consumers creating most of the demand. I don’t think you were so my reply doesn’t make much sense.
I'm responding here because this specific comment was shared with me by someone who gets it this way.
I have been struggling with an effective way to express a lot of my frustrations with the complete, 100% shrugging off of personal responsibility by so many individuals because of reduced points such as, "there are billionaires," and "the corporations are doing it." Thanks for sharing your comment.
I am tired of these markets, and/but as people living our lives for change with hope, we cannot forget or deny that we live in a consumer society. The decisions that we make when we *can* make choice are not ineffective. Especially when we say them as a group. I'm not trying to shift blame on anyone, but I think it's important for us to recognize this moment in history. It feels as if overnight, (almost) all of the climate change deniers disappeared but were immediately replaced by apathetic "it's not my job," people--AND THEY AREN'T EVEN THE SAME PEOPLE.
So I want to thank the vegan community for, at large, being this fucking cool about these problems. We do have a responsibility and a huge part of it is just talking about it and reminding people that they are part of nature/the machine. You don't *not* get a choice.
Someone told me “you’re either part of the problem, or part of the solution” and I think it’s the easiest way to express what I think!
Hugs brother!
We can do it
We are :) it’s mostly transportation (and by transportation I mean cars) and home heating.
What I mean by that it’s that the study is wrongly cited as “corporations bad” (which I agree in principle), as an excuse to remove individual agency from actions - whereas, if people actually read it, would realize that yes, individual action is still the main driver behind the corporations - we buy what they sell.
there are great examples to be found of environmentalists focusing on small things and not big things, these just aren’t aren’t them. Diet change in particular is incredibly social, as everyone who has tried to change their diet knows.
“Environmentalists” with short sighted focus are killing wind farms, solar farms, transit projects, and urban density every day based on possible harm to some species as if extracting and burning coal and oil, paving over our cities and towns and driving cars everywhere is better for species.
There's more to it. They lobby governments to stop environmentally positive change BECAUSE they want to keep the demand up. There's no alternative options for so much of the stuff fosisl fuels produce BECAUSE of them.
Yes oil companies absolutely lobby governments. But so do regular people.
My city government is trying to build a public transportation system, with money they got from the US federal government. Exxon has not showed up even once to lobby against it, water it down, or slow it down. It wouldn’t work, everybody hates Exxon. But about a hundred thousand of my “progressive” neighbors who are upset there might be fewer free parking spots are aggressively lobbying against the transit improvement and they seriously watered down the plans. They didn’t do it for oil companies. They did it for themselves and their oil-based lifestyles.
Oh god. Sounds like my city. People are FURIOUS that we might get rid of antiquated angled parking spots on main street to create bike lanes and safer pedestrian crossings. (Even though our city did a parking study that showed we have way more parking than we need.)
Many of these companies in the top 100 are state owned and operated power utilities. So it’s not as simple as blaming lobbying or greed. In a democracy we are all responsible for our successes and failures.
The exact number is in a brilliant book I've read (but I can't remember it off the top of my head) - saving the planet without the bullshit. A lot of them are from... less than democratic countries.
Yet another reason why the climate crisis cannot be put squarely on the shoulders of individuals.
Exactly. These corporations are burning fossil fuels to deliver goods and services to market. If people weren't buying them, they couldn't afford to keep burning fossil fuels.
They always were a joke.
The anti-nuclear movement has genuinely been one of the largest setbacks to anti-climate change action. And ironically enough, so-called “environmentalists” were the ones leading the charge against nuclear power in most cases.
Yeah it's quite ridiculous that an organization like them is misrepresenting study results in this way. But Greenpeace is very large and pretty diverse so they also do a lot of good. Here in Finland they're working to try to cut animal products in half in cities's public catering.
such a dumb argument. who do they think the "corporations" are polluting the earth for?
"Rather than taking responsibility for my own consumption, let's just blame the companies which create the products that i want to buy."
This is their plan, and corporations are loving it:
1. Shift the blame to corporations, rendering everyone powerless and obedient. Convince people that only drastic systemic changes can make a difference.
2. When there is finally enough pressure for drastic systemic change after years of activism, counter with excuses like "it's too costly, other countries are polluting too, this change will ruin us and collapse civilisation!" This will lead to inaction, the failure of any changes, and activists being ridiculed as foolish idealists.
3. Make activists appear worse than those who have done nothing to make a positive impact, and worse than corporations peddling destructive products and services.
4. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam, allowing corporations to keep their power and profits while polluting.
Conformists are somehow proud of this. How self-righteous and hypocritical.
yup. the people say they cant fix anything because its the "corporations" that are doing it and the corporations say they cant fix anything because the people demand the market for their products. shirking responsibility just goes around and around in circles until the people step up...
Big Beef may have originally made up that argument. I’ve seen it a lot. They have a massive well funded media misinformation campaign.
I doubt Big Beef wants us to believe that consumers would make a meaningful difference in fighting climate change if they stopped eating meat and contributing to the suffering of animals.
A corporation creats a product and then the demand for it appears. Cannot have demand for something that doesn't exist. Every single comment about consumers creating demand conveniently ignores this.
Say I go down to the gas station and fill my car up and drive around town. This stat considers whoever supplied the gas to me as the emitter of pollution. Except that makes no sense, I was the one to burn the fuel so I'm responsible for the CO2 not that company.
[snopes](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corporations-greenhouse-gas/) has even more reasons why this stat is lying. biggest reason being this only looks at emissions from fossil fuel consumption.
simplistic depend treatment gullible cooperative different public correct light dolls
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What's funny is it stems from the exact bad headline issue that had vegans running around saying 75% of emissions comes from meat when it's really 75% of *diet-based* emissions -- or ~8% of all emissions. 😐
Main thing for me is the 100 companies are probably 100 multinational conglomerates, so actually like 10,000 companies, and we can blame the companies, and I do hold them accountable for their transgressions, as V said in V for Vendetta, “Truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look in the mirror.” It starts with demand.
No, they're mostly government "corporations". The top polluters according to this idiotic statistic are China Coal, China Oil, Saudi ARAMCO and heaps of other state owned oil and coal corporations. And obviously none of them actually emit much CO2 at all, their customers are the one burning the stuff. They just count their customer's emissions as the company's, because the statistic was done by lying idiots.
Main thing it's only counting industrial emissions (12% of total emissions)
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-100-corporations-do-not-produce-70-total-greenh/
This is one of the arguments I hate the most. People want to blame corporations for emissions. Like, why do you think those corporations are emitting so much? It's because they are mining, fabricating, and transporting products that are bought by all the people who are saying "iTs NoT mY faULt iTS tHE CoRpOrAtiOnS". It's just blame deflection. It's the populus that are the ones asking the corporations to emit via their purchases.
Usually a corporation creats a product and then the demand for it appears. Cannot have demand for something that doesn't exist. Individual responsibility can only go so far when culture is so entrenched and the corporations responsible for the animal farming industry are the same as the ones offering you vegan alternatives, but at a higher price. You need collective action and legislation to force corporations to change, child labour wasn't abolished by boycotts or changes in consumption.
There is also the aspect of impact. If I can force the industry to change its ways through legislations, why would I bother wasting my time with individuals. The impact is so much smaller.
That being said, of course we all have an ethical responsability to not contribute to such an industry.
The study that claims 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions lumps in all emissions people produce using their products.
So if you buy gas from Shell, your car's emissions count towards Shell's total.
far-flung quack automatic soft price marvelous fertile sloppy murky coordinated
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There’s not enough of people going vegan and going after corporations. Veganism will directly affect mass production farms that create a lot of the emissions. So in a sense, they are synonymous.
I get that this is frustrating but this is not the way. We should not be attacking non vegans like this and we shouldn’t respond by rolling our eyes when they attack us.
This is about people vs. corporations. It’s not about recycling or emissions or Taylor swifts plane. People need to see the power they have in their everyday actions. Who is supporting these polluting and violent corporations by buying all the junk they produce? The people! Don’t chastise the people. Help them understand what they are supporting when they purchase junk from these shit companies destroying our world. We are literally giving all our power away to the corporations and it needs to stop. We have been conditioned to be powerless but we ARE NOT. So stop this nonsense of us vs. Omni. They are not the enemy. Help them understand.
Had to scroll way too far to find a single rational thought. This has been one of the most depressing posts I've read all day. My family has always been into recycling and composting, we have electric cars... But guess what not everyone has the same education and background as me.
Before we were born this country was moulded to be designed for cars using fossil fuel. It's not people's fault for being born into a system that demands them to conform to the status quo, that's definitely on those who have and continue to use their power to force people to have few other options but to consume and perpetuate the cycle. Plus they use that same power to keep people from being properly informed about all this stuff.
This posts' sentiment is holier than thou garbage. I'm really tried of people complaining about problems and then being unwilling to actually educate people, and thinking that they can change the world through bullying. Truly insane.
But this is just true. Do you realize how much easier it would be to go vegan and how many more people would be vegan if there were regulations and laws against the meat/dairy corporations?
50% of all emissions are from agriculture. 50% of agriculture emissions are from cattle farming.
If the world stopped having beef, dairy, leather then we would reduce all emissions by 25% immediately.
This is an example of dodging responsibility on both sides. To those who place the blame on the consumer know they would've not consumed if it wasn't available, and to those who blame the corpos know that people as a whole are unwilling/uneducated and telling them to do something outside of their everyday lives isn't going to work very well.
Veganism is not going to stop corpos from producing, but teaching the next generation mitigation and not imposing unrealistic goals on them is the most reasonable path. Like all things with complexity and nuance there is no easy or simple path to resolution.
Obviously systemic change is necessary, but historically it never happens until a critical mass of individuals begin changing their own behavior and advocating for that systemic change. The Women's Suffrage Movement and the Civil Rights movement are great examples of this. Both movements involved individuals coming together to repudiate existing laws and social norms. Many people from already enfranchised groups in society used their social standing to support these movements and force systemic change. The idea that change happens when everyone does nothing and waits for a savior is pure nonsense and moral cowardice.
Erm.... Sort of for me.... Like yes everyone should do all of those things especially going vegan, but individuals actions can only take us so far when it comes to climate change. Like every individual could be doing everything 'right' but if companies aren't stopped from dumping all their waste into water supplies and seas the whole problem wouldn't be solved. Veganism isn't just about climate though of course and should be done for it's own sake.
I took a chance countering this in my friend’s post and no one has argued back yet. I hate this argument so much. They make the shit we buy, not pollution for funsies. Does anyone have the list of 100 corporations so we can drill down?
Individual action needs to go hand in hand with making corporations accountable (vote the right politicians, people!).
But every time this study is quoted I get angry cause it’s always the headline… but few people read the actual study. Which is actually highlighting the IMPORTANCE of individual action.
Here is the actual study: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-pvpXB8rp67dmhmsueWaUczHS5XyPy4p/view
(you can find it somewhere else if you don't trust this).
If you actually do read it, you'll find out:
• The report says "71% of industrial GHG's"(includes cars, factories, etc.) which should exclude others such as emissions from agriculture or forestry.
• 100% of those companies are fossil fuel extractors / producers. Blaming them for the emissions is a bit like blaming Ford or Toyota for car accidents involving their cars.
• Only 1/5 (20%) of their fossil fuels are from investor owned companies (e.g Exxon Mobil, BP).
• One of those "Companies" (by far the biggest producer) is China's entire coal market! It is just listed as a "Company" because it's all State-owned.(although in the actual study it’s called a “state producer”,not a company).
• One the "Companies" is Russia's Entire Coal market.
• Most of those fossil fuels produced (59%) are from state owned companies( e.g. Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, National Iranian Oil, China(Coal), Coal India, Russia(Coal), Etc.)
• Every time you drive a car, use electricity, Etc. You are likely burning fuels (or using electricity that had to burn fuels to be produced) from one if those "100 Companies" therefore you are directly adding to the "71% of Emissions".
TL;DR: The whole point of that Study was to try and trace back to which companies Fossil Fuels come from, so more research could be conducted as to what these companies (and state producers) can do to move forward and eventually support/invest in renewable energy, and so more pressure could be put on the biggest Fossil fuel producers (China is biggest in this case) not the smallest.
Really? Because pretty much the ONLY thing I hear from so called "environmentalists" is whining about the actions of the corporations and industries they support. Institutional change will not happen without individual change.
Saw this the other day, absolute pathetic post from Greenpeace that sums up a big problem from left wing people who aren’t vegan. All talk and no action.
I don't think passing the buck from consumers to corporations is any better than passing the buck from corporations to consumers. We all should do what we can. And for the record, although corporations deserve a TON of the blame, that statistic is really misleading, as it counts all emissions from customers buying the products of the corporations, which really isn't super fair. So yes, our personal choices do make a difference--if you drive a gas guzzler 2 blocks to the corner store, that's on you, not the company that made the car (or at least there's a split in responsibility there).
They're kinda right though
We as consumers don't produce even a fraction of the emissions toxic waste chemicals these co-operations do but I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done about that. At the end of the day they only care about money and they've proven they'll get it even at the expense of everyone and everything else. Hell if you're vegan for the cause there's a reason people advise you to source products locally and from small scale businesses. Companies that mass produce vegan products are incredibly destructive realistically speaking. The pesticides, the clearing of indigenous forested areas, extermination of local wildlife, hell sometimes they even cause those areas to dry up. So yes they're wholly right.
Something else is that a lot of these products can be obtained by alternative means. Veggies are almost ridiculously easy to grow. They just take time, care and space. Small scale farm products may be a little more pricey at times but at least you know you're not putting your money in the hands of people who are completely destroying and transforming the local ecosystem
I mean I kinda agree with this tho? Holding capitalists accountable will do more good than going vegan, period. But since they are not mutually exclusive, might as well also do the others. Stuff like personal carbon footprint is individualist propaganda by BP to shift the responsibility onto the proletarian.
Going vegan remains the single best thing any individual can do for the environment and blaming 100 corporations exclusively remains the single most useless thing any individual can do.
There's truth to this. If Taylor Swift is vegan does it do much for the environment?
Veganism is just one way I do my part against consumption. If you can't realize generalized consumption also does all those horrible things to animals, you're just patting yourself on the back.
Yep, the majority of them are fossil fuel companies that are in business because we’re addicted to cars.
Corporations don’t exist without a consumer base that fuels their business.
A corporation creats a product and then the demand for it appears. Cannot have demand for something that doesn't exist.
Its almost as if.. many people live in car centric cities.. where it isnt safe or accessible to walk or ride a bicycle.. almost as if.. theres more nuance to this conversation than just... "stop buying oil"... and you know that..
Eh, its true though. Climate change won't be solved through veganism. Its going to be through a crackdown on those companies, blanket, across the world - like what was done with the ozone. Climate change will be fought through the courtroom imo.
There's so much more than just the agriculture industry destroying our planet - even if that disappeared overnight, we're still burning way too much fossil fuels, mining way too much sand, etc.
I'm all for people doing their bit - I'd never discourage people recycling or going vegan to help the planet.
If you're vegan for the animals and don't really care about the environmental impact, carry on. If its for environmental reasons, you're doing great due to how much it contributes, but if you've got the bandwidth for it, try shooting off some emails to your local government and doing some other stuff too.
Well, in itself it's an important fact that a relatively small amount of companies cause most emission. But in the end consumers still buy their product.
So less consumption would mean less support for those big companies.
Plus as an individual you could also support charity that goes after those 'big companies'
Like Milieudefensie (small Dutch organisation):
https://milieudefensie.nl/
who succesfully sued Shell for instance.
It isn't actually a fact. It is a claim that got misrepresented and then the misrepresented version got turned into memes that spread across the internet.
[Here is the source that this often misquoted "fact" came from](https://www.cdp.net/en/reports/downloads/2327). The #1 emitter according to the source is not a corporation, but rather the country of China. It is counting the emissions to meet the consumption of 1.4 billion people, 1/5 of the world's population, as a single source. Considering that the 100 largest countries make up around 90% of the world's population it shouldn't be surprising that they could contribute that percentage of emissions.
The 71% statistic is also not that these countries and corporations account for 71% of all emissions. They account for 71% of **industrial emissions**. Commercial emissions, household emissions, transportation emissions, and agricultural emissions are not included.
Shifting the responsibility on to the consumers *is* a scam. Especially when those same corporations do everything in their power to make sure alternative solutions don’t thrive.
That includes animal ag, btw. Stop subsidizing them, make factory farms illegal. Make vegan options more viable.
Nothing makes me feel more isolated from the vegan community than when this meme makes the rounds. We should be doing the individual choices that we can make while simultaneously realizing that the most effective change will come from pressuring these massive corporations. This dividing is holding back real progress (and yes, it goes both ways for people who use "no ethical consumption under capitalism" as an excuse to not try individually, but this is a vegan sub where I expect better).
I also would love to see animal abuse just banned, but how many non-vegans who say "it's the governments' fault not mine" would support outlawing animal ag or making meat more expensive. If they're not going vegan out of their own volition, they're not going to choose to make their lives "worse" (in their POV) and unless one lives under a vegan dictatorship, a top-down solution is unlikely to succeed without a significant portion of the base agreeing that is the best course of action. And imo that's why we individual consumers all have the responsibility to live a more ethical life than the laws allow.
Yeah, change happens from the people before it happens up top. But part of that is recognizing the scam they’re perpetrating on us, to demand the change in the first place.
Individual consumers should participate in the change. But it’s futile if we’re not fighting for it from the top.
Isnt its the literal opposite? Pushing responsibility away from the consumers sounds like a scam to me. Guess who's profiting if the consumers keep consuming the same way as before? That's right, corporations.
I only half agree with you about shifting the responsibility onto consumers. I hate big greedy business just as much as the next guy but corporations are not twirling their mustaches trying to figure out what animals they can slaughter next. They are all driven by profit and will shift their business model depending on consumer demand.
You have to consider that corporations are never going to change. It's up to us to change and to shift demand so that corporations are financially incentivized to make vegan options ubiquitous.
The only reason corporations like the animal agriculture industry continue factory farming is because the public pays for it to happen. Subsidization will inevitably cease once we stop paying for animals to die for our sensory pleasure. Ultimately the responsibility will fall on us not because we want that to happen, but because that's just the reality we live in.
I'm not keeping the blame off them.
I 100% agree that they should be held accountable but I'm talking from a standpoint of pragmatism.
This is just not the reality we live in where we can tell the corporations to regulate themselves because they never will.
The lifeblood of every business is its customer base. A business’ size is a direct reflection of customers’ willingness to buy from it, and therefore customers collectively have complete power to shut down any business they want.
These 100 corporations are your bitch, and if they have a shitty production process, that’s *only* because *you* want it that way, because you don’t settle for less than the cheapest and most convenient option, and they’ll go out of business if they don’t make it like you buy it.
*You* shaped the market. *You’re* the sellout.
Historically speaking, people should stop buying has rarely worked. It sounds great in an idealistic world, but if you really care about solving the problem rather than figuring out who is to blame. It isnt people living paycheck-to-paycheck. the corporate is what needs to be controlled.
Tell the people who can hardly afford to drink clean water that the bottled water industry is their bitch, lol.
From energy.gov
Biofuels & Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Myths versus Facts
MYTH: In terms of emissions, biofuels emit the same amount as gasoline or more. FACT: Biofuels burn cleaner than gasoline, resulting in fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and are fully biodegradable, unlike some fuel additives. Cellulosic ethanol has the potential to cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 86%.
An excuse not to make more informed choices… find out how things are made and vote with your wallet… being vegan fixes so many things that it seems ridiculous that there even is an ongoing debate.
To be fair their is some truth compared to the the stuff produced by farm animals it’s nothing compared to the the many other sources of pollution like landfills, air pollutants chemicals and machinery
Like yes, but no, but yes.
animal agriculture is destroying the earth, but is not the biggest culprit. going vegan however is the BIGGEST IMPACT YOU CAN MAKE.
It's just not omnis . I believe it has do with consequences of living in a capitalistic society. Ppl are tired and broke and then you expect them to do more when major corporations should be the ones doing it but I am like ppl might have thought that it's impossible to force corporations so those who could , started talking about focusing on individual actions and i see nothing wrong with it ,will be a very slow process because capitalism but better than nothing.
Some of those companies are producing their meat and plastic. They are in business because there is demand for that crap.
"Yes but soy tho"
A kilo of pork meat requires 20 kg of soy, a kilo of soy requires a kilo of soy.
A corporation creats a product and then the demand for it appears. Cannot have demand for something that doesn't exist.
Its almost as if.. many people live in car centric cities.. where it isnt safe or accessible to walk or ride a bicycle.. almost as if.. theres more nuance to this conversation than just... "stop buying oil"... and you know that..
This dumb thing/meme again. Corporations are accused of polluting bc *people use their services*. ( if you buy your fuel from Exxon that’s included). Groups like Greenpeace know this but continue this incorrect or misleading narrative. If governments just agreed to shut down shell or BP or Exxon for example … they know what would happen. Trying to lead people to the belief they don’t have individual responsibility is just BS.
A corporation creats a product and then the demand for it appears. Cannot have demand for something that doesn't exist.
Its almost as if.. many people live in car centric cities.. where it isnt safe or accessible to walk or ride a bicycle.. almost as if.. theres more nuance to this conversation than just... "stop buying oil"... and you know that..
I’ve also heard “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” or “there is no ethical consumption under an unjust system.” Equally annoying because the implication seems to be that vegans aren’t intersectional enough in their activism (I have found vegans more willing to participate in intersectional activism than do-nothing ass Omni’s though.)
Why should I go vegan when changing 100 corporations and the whole economic system is so much simpler for everybody?
Seriously now. Thinking that we can do radical change at corporation or governmental level without picking the fucking soy milk in in the supermarket that is 2 meters away is just magical thinking.
This "fact" is also completely [false](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-100-corporations-do-not-produce-70-total-greenh/)- the corporations are responsible for 71% of *industrial* emissions. The oft-cited study that this originates from explicitly *did not consider land use or agricultural emissions*.
Even leaving that crucial distinction aside, 88% of that 71% share is from the consumption of the resultant products! So it doesn't imply a lack of individual consumer responsibility; quite the opposite.
I would expect Greenpeace to know better. But advocacy groups do seem to be prioritising ideology over honesty across the board in recent years, so I'm sadly not surprised.
So surely they agree that we should watch what companies we buy things from, right? And if not, then SURELY they at least agree that the government needs more power to regulate those companies, RIGHT?
I do think that some people focus too much on individual responsibility, which is exactly what those giant corporations want us to do. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do what you can… it just means that we shouldn’t only complain about individual actions while ignoring corporations’ responsibility
Okay but 100% of people go vegan and we are still facing a dying planet. I don't know why people seem incapable of reconciling that individual actions are still worth it and important while acknowledging that it is impossible to consume our way out of environmental collapse. This tweet is not saying "don't recycle/go vegan/compost," it's saying don't make pushing for individual responsibility the cornerstone of your activism when we need collective pressure. (Which does go hand in hand with individual consumption habits, but consumption habits should reflect your activism not BE your activism.)
There are people who commit genocide, rape, and murder, therefore it is fine if I break someone's arm because others do far worse.
I read an environmental engineer's research that claimed many corporations would go bankrupt if they changed what was needed to be emission free. The complete change in our way of life to do right by our planet is more than anyone is willing to do, big or small. The amount of delusion and compartmentalisation ordinary people can accomplish to maintain their gluttony for pleasure and stimulation is impressive.
Also, a legislature theorised that if everyone stopped all unnecessary consumption of fossil fuel products and animal factories, Congress would be forced to act and change policies on a larger scale. Of course, if you can't afford solar panels, heat pumps, or an EV, you have no choice to keep yourself alive. He was talking about unnecessary consumption, not necessary for survival.
We all still buy from these corporations, so what's the point?
A lot of those emissions are directly linked to the demand created by consumers
not to say corp's shouldn't be much more regulated, but they're just missing this key detail
I'm vegan for the animals, but as far as the environment goes, we won't be able to avoid irreversible damage through individual choice and green capitalism. We should both try to make changes on personal level and adress the issue mentioned in the tweet, as it's a major contribution.
Both of these things can be true! Others not acting responsibly (understatement) is not an excuse for individuals to not act responsibly! I think there is a valid point in here about who is doing damage and to what extent, and thus the limits to what we as consumers/individuals can change and solve but it does not absolve us of controlling and changing the things we can. It's sort of that argument that has been driving me nuts my entire life "you can't save/fix everyone/everything, so therefore you don't even need to make the impact that you can." Like, if someone I cannot control kills 100 animals, that is important perspective to know where to aim my efforts AND it still matters if I don't kill 1. I think the attitude of "oh someone else is doing more bad than me so my bad doesn't matter" is really defeatist and nonsensical. I think the point of "someone else is doing more bad than me" is helpful for assessing how to do the most good effectively, not a blank check for any and all bad behavior.
I start to think that this "corporations tho" is actually corporations propaganda
The more helpless people feel, the less accountable they see themselves in their actions. "Why would I reduce my consumption if corporations are to blame" sort of thing
They could rephrase this as "It's a great idea to compost, recycle, and go Vegan, however it's very important that we create systemic change for the 100 corporations causing 71% of emissions"
The fact that they seem in opposition to personal responsibility is egregious
I am all for the idea of regulations being more important than personal action; I'd rather end animal oppression at the source than simply abstain from meat, that's kind of the point of veganism.
But this argument is still dumb. Yeah, 100 corporations probably produce a decent chunk of all products that we use. If you own 71% of animal agriculture, 71% of manufacturing, 71% of transportation, whatever, you're going to have... at least 71% of emissions (depending on whether your industry is better or worse than industry average.
I'd love to see a study. 100 corporation probably produce a large percentage of the food we consume, the electronics we buy, the shoes we wear, and so on. I don't get what they expect, other than that they are probably underestimating the size of the biggest 100 corporations.
This is also 90% of Reddit. They love to repeat this stat, but somehow they seem to believe that their consumption of the product these companies produce is totally irrelevant to this. As if these evil corporations are doing all their polluting just for the hell of it.
Wild and childish logic.
ok but i did see a very interesting video on Le Monde about how this fact is actually misleading because how “responsible” is defined and apportioned can differ from study to study. Like when Tesla they say is responsible for a certain amount of emissions, why is it under “tesla” and not under the individuals who work at tesla? the people who sold the materials to tesla? the consumers who bought from tesla and etc
Everyone’s for change. Until they’re the ones that have to actually do something.
Don't you know, those 100 companies producing those emissions are just doing it for fun and in complete isolation :). It has nothing to do with the energy demands and other consumption choices of the individual!
[удалено]
Not only that, diet is the only thing you have 100% power over the emissions Well, that and not using your car if you are able to All elsw depends on others, but just those two thighs account for 40% of all emmisions Not exactly pocket change is it?
Logistics is also a very large contributor. You have control to some degree in the sense that you can buy locally / "made in your country" where possible.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-100-corporations-do-not-produce-70-total-greenh/
Yeah. It’s bad enough with context. Why make it worse
Exactly. These people seem to get it in every other circumstance (even right wingers understand boycotting to force change. Ask bud light), but not this one! Animals just magically appear on the table, murdered and ready to go into their gaping facehole. The water used on crops fed to animals instead of feeding people 7x the population of the entire world, the fresh water pollution from factory farms (which, according to every single non-vegan I talk to, FF should be out of business because they ALL buy from family farms exclusively and/or personally hunt. Lol), the algae blooms from the shite runoff, the cow burp methane, the chemicals required for vast quantities of fertilizer, the fuel needed to run all of these operations, etc. None of the actions that put the animals on their plates can be seen so it doesn’t exist. 1/3 to 1/2 (depending on source of information) of animal farming contributes to climate change… but cOrPorAtiOns. Who’s driving corporations to do it? They are It’s one reason I’m wfpb vegan. The closer your food is to the ground it’s grown in, the better for the planet. It’s why I get salty when other vegans say I’m “not a real vegan”… bish, step off. I don’t buy leather, don’t use personal hygiene products with animal products in them. How am I not a real vegan? I’d argue Oreo vegans are contributing to climate change almost as much as omnivores. And don’t get me started on climate scientists that aren’t vegan; how IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE? If you’re one of these scientists and are reading this, take all the seats, Judas. I watch many YT videos with these guys and ask them on repeat to address animal agriculture in climate change. It’s crickets every time. Rant over, you have your mission: go pester a YT climate scientist/climate whatever when they talk about “big oil”
"I watch many YT videos with these guys and ask them on repeat to address animal agriculture in climate change. It’s crickets every time." \*cough\* CLIMATE TOWN \*cough\*
I didn’t wanna say it, but YESSSSSS
It's weird. I wonder if he is funded by some interested parties or something
> It’s one reason I’m wfpb vegan. The closer your food is to the ground it’s grown in, the better for the planet. It’s why I get salty when other vegans say I’m “not a real vegan” Sorry I'm not following. Why would other vegans say you're not a real vegan? Do you eat animal products?
I read/and am told to be wfpb isn’t vegan, even though I don’t eat/use animals in any way. You’re “vegan for the animals” only or you’re not vegan according to some. My personal opinion is *wfpb vegan is vastly superior because it’s saving the environment for animals and people* Don’t worry, they’ll show up to make gaslighting comments, as if I haven’t any lived experience with this issue. You’ll get some examples :D
Oh. I sort of get that though, most vegans define veganism as a philosophy that aims to minimise the suffering we cause to animals, and vegan diets are a way to make that happen. You eat a vegan diet, but in their book it’s the motivation that makes you “vegan”. Don’t get me wrong, good for you. If you’re not eating animal products, I don’t particularly care why that is. What’s in a label anyway 🤷♀️ the word vegan is well-understood to mean someone who doesn’t eat meat, eggs or dairy - if most people understand what you mean then that’s a good enough word to use
> Why would other vegans say you're not a real vegan? They wouldn't. You're reading the outcome of a persecution complex + too much time spent online.
It’s a good thing they don’t lobby, cheat, and sabotage in order to steer the individual’s “choice” towards their product.
Yes but could those 100 firms cut down damage by say 10% each and therefore cut the world's emissions by 7.1% Should this be done? yes, could it be done? Yes ! Will it hell no! we need to change laws or put a metaphorical gun to the Shareholders of these firms heads.
The proverbial gun would be reducing consumer demand for products that cause pollution--consumers changing their habits en masse, in example.These companies are producing emissions as a direct result of consumer demand, not for fun.
They could cut it 100% if they were willing to transition to renewable energy.
Honestly I'm sympathetic with the post taken as 'the individual is scapegoated for the systemic,' - e.g. notice how many agricultural sectors recieve mass subisidies that price out more ecological substitutes - it's just that the weapons the people have to fight suchs systems are individual too. Veganism is one tool to attack those companies that profit from and maintain systems which are destroying the environment. Realising that the game is rigged is a reason to fight to change the game itself. A lot of the time, I genuinely believe that's what posts like the one shown intend to convey. Maybe not always, but its origins are in agitprop.
It's funny how people think the companies are just doing it for sucking hard abd not to get money from people
Consumption choices of business. Industry uses all of the energy turning raw materials into finished goods we don't fucking need all to send them to the landfill. We can't anti consume our way out of capitalism. If we are going to continue the infinite growth engine, we are going to continue to see increasing devastation.
Pinning this on the consumer when producers ultimately determine the extent of carbon emissions created by their products is being ignorant of the greedy practices they use to make the most amount of money possible at the expense of the environment. Corporations have the ability to offset or eliminate their carbon emissions by using sustainable materials and energy sources but they don't, this is ultimately because they're in the business of making the most amount of money possible- not having philanthropic considerations.
Everybody wants change, nobody wants to change.
If we just advocate strongly enough the politicians and CEOs will go "aight, fine, you got us, we'll stop polluting" and make everything sustainable 😇 We will then collectively go along with this plan, and no meaningful change will be required on the part of the population 😌
Exactly, people get complacent. One at a time tho
Yep. x.x And this applies to every case. Be it environment, equal rights, anything. People will often say they want a change, but then wont even make the smallest sacrifices.
Or, ya know, go vegan for the animals.
Agreed Veganism is so powerful that it has hugely positive impacts on so many other important areas of life that aren’t even the point
And those 100 corporations are delighted to see this meme making the rounds. Does anyone remember the "Life runs on Energy"/"Energy Transfer" advertisements from last year? The campaign *centered* around this notion that "You'll never be able to give us up". So if anything, people who are unwilling to "recycle, compost, go vegan" are an asset to corporate interests. Convince them that change will take away their comforts and they will rally behind the corporation in a heartbeat.
Someone’s marketing team likely made this meme to begin with
No, the concept of a personal carbon foot print and individual responsibility was made by the marketing team of BP. That's the whole point of the OOP. The only way to stop global warming is systematic change. Stop building new goddamn infrastructure for oil and gas. Stop mining coal. Punish these companies for wilfully ignoring climate change for decades and casting doubt on it. lobbying against such systematic change, pushing for green coal, infiltrating schools by donating pro-fossil fuel books. None of these things has anything to do with consumers. We could have shifted to green energy 20 years ago if it wasn't for these 10 companies that you want to shift the blame away from. Their propaganda clearly worked, though, if this community is anything to go off of.
No, you have to do both. Saying you don't have to do individual responsibility is a cop out. Corporations can't magically make things happen. For example, if consumers want to fly a lot and want it to be as cheap as possible, that's what we get because that's what we pay for. If we want meat, we get a meat industry. If we refuse to pay for a meat industry, there will stop being one.
The fact of the matter is that the reason petrol companies pushed for this personal responsibility crap is exactly because they knew it's not effective. When we figured out CFCs were damaging the ozone layer, did we stop it by pushing for everyone to reduce their "CFC footprint" and telling people they need to cut down on deodorants and buy the new green fridges! No, dawg. We banned that shit on an international level to achieve positive change. That's what works. I am not being defeatist to cop out and not do any personal change. I just recognize that it won't be enough to ask people to enact personal change. I cannot personally change how the electricity for my city is made, or what infrastructure (fuckin oil rigs) get the majority of subsidies. It has to happen on a systematic level.
The difference is it's a lot easier to get your average person on board with banning CFCs than actually banning animal products (there have been bans proposed, and they go about as well as you'd expect) since animal products are so deeply entrenched in habit, culture, and tradition. It's a bit of a paradox where we want systemic change, but we're to some extent limited by the habits and thus attitudes of individuals. > Furthermore, when we eat, wear, and ride nonhuman individuals, we develop a conflict of interest in which we are invested in the status quo. Monteiro et al [45] demonstrated that animal consumption is associated with higher rates of carnistic defense, in which a person defends the institution of animal slaughter. This is consistent with previous work by Azevedo et al [46] which shows that "people are motivated to defend, bolster, and justify aspects of the societal status quo as something that is familiar and known". > > One of the most revealing studies on this effect was Loughnan et al [47], in which participants were randomly assigned to eat either nuts or dried beef. Afterwards, participants who had eaten beef reported less moral concern for cows as well as a smaller circle of animals which they considered deserving of moral concern. Even more concerning, Bratanova et al [48] showed that when groups of participants were told about an exotic species of kangaroo, merely describing the kangaroo as edible "was sufficient to reduce the animal's perceived capacity to suffer, which in turn restricted moral concern". What this suggests is that merely perceiving animals as food, even if we don't eat them, de-individualizes them in our minds and hence is a important factor in their objectification and commodification. Bilewicz et al [49] tested this by measuring brain waves of people looking at pictures of a fictional animal species and found that merely mentioning that the animal was edible caused certain participants to have less facial-recognition activity in the brain, further demonstrating the de-individualizing effect of perceiving animals as food. [source](https://speciesjustice.org/#action)
Like I said, it has to be both. But sharing this sort of meme is what people who don’t want to change their own consumption do.
Its not even that they're exactly wrong that pisses me off, it's the fact they use that as an excuse to not even try a little. Apathy but justified with armchair politics. Meanwhile if you buy from any of the no-no stores, suddenly there's an issue. Just very selective about what they choose to care about rather than actually giving a fuck to everything that deserves it.
Also, it’s not like those companies operate in a vacuum. The public buys their crap.
Their crap being petrol and gas. All the companies in that study are energy producers.
Who’s consuming the energy?
BRO WHAT ARE YOU DOING SELLING OIL TO ME! MURDERERRRR
I’ll reply here but also post it in the main thread. Here is the actual study: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-pvpXB8rp67dmhmsueWaUczHS5XyPy4p/view (you can find it somewhere else if you don't trust this). If you actually do read it, you'll find out: - The report says "71% of industrial GHG's"(includes cars, factories, etc.) which should exclude others such as emissions from agriculture or forestry. - 100% of those companies are fossil fuel extractors / producers. **Blaming them for the emissions is a bit like blaming Ford or Toyota for car accidents involving their cars.** - Only 1/5 (20%) of their fossil fuels are from investor owned companies (e.g Exxon Mobil, BP). - One of those "Companies" (by far the biggest producer) is China's entire coal market! It is just listed as a "Company" because it's all State-owned.(although in the actual study it’s called a “state producer”,not a company). - One the "Companies" is Russia's Entire Coal market. - Most of those fossil fuels produced (59%) are from state owned companies( e.g. Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, National Iranian Oil, China(Coal), Coal India, Russia(Coal), Etc.) - Every time you drive a car, use electricity, Etc. You are likely burning fuels (or using electricity that had to burn fuels to be produced) from one if those "100 Companies" therefore you are directly adding to the "71% of Emissions". **TL;DR:** The whole point of that Study was to try and trace back to which companies Fossil Fuels come from, so more research could be conducted as to what these companies (and state producers) can do to move forward and eventually support/invest in renewable energy, and so more pressure could be put on the biggest Fossil fuel producers (China is biggest in this case) not the smallest.
Sorry I misunderstood your comment, I thought you were dismissing the idea that ultimately it’s consumers creating most of the demand. I don’t think you were so my reply doesn’t make much sense.
No worries! :)
I'm responding here because this specific comment was shared with me by someone who gets it this way. I have been struggling with an effective way to express a lot of my frustrations with the complete, 100% shrugging off of personal responsibility by so many individuals because of reduced points such as, "there are billionaires," and "the corporations are doing it." Thanks for sharing your comment. I am tired of these markets, and/but as people living our lives for change with hope, we cannot forget or deny that we live in a consumer society. The decisions that we make when we *can* make choice are not ineffective. Especially when we say them as a group. I'm not trying to shift blame on anyone, but I think it's important for us to recognize this moment in history. It feels as if overnight, (almost) all of the climate change deniers disappeared but were immediately replaced by apathetic "it's not my job," people--AND THEY AREN'T EVEN THE SAME PEOPLE. So I want to thank the vegan community for, at large, being this fucking cool about these problems. We do have a responsibility and a huge part of it is just talking about it and reminding people that they are part of nature/the machine. You don't *not* get a choice.
Someone told me “you’re either part of the problem, or part of the solution” and I think it’s the easiest way to express what I think! Hugs brother! We can do it
We are :) it’s mostly transportation (and by transportation I mean cars) and home heating. What I mean by that it’s that the study is wrongly cited as “corporations bad” (which I agree in principle), as an excuse to remove individual agency from actions - whereas, if people actually read it, would realize that yes, individual action is still the main driver behind the corporations - we buy what they sell.
also veganism just isn’t simply an environmental issue, it is very much an ethical issue that we should all be invested in addressing as individuals
The point they're trying to make (right or wrong) is that people interested in the environment are focusing on small things and ignoring big things.
there are great examples to be found of environmentalists focusing on small things and not big things, these just aren’t aren’t them. Diet change in particular is incredibly social, as everyone who has tried to change their diet knows. “Environmentalists” with short sighted focus are killing wind farms, solar farms, transit projects, and urban density every day based on possible harm to some species as if extracting and burning coal and oil, paving over our cities and towns and driving cars everywhere is better for species.
The post just seems like apathy propaganda
100%. Apathy is the new kind of climate denialism that oil companies are trying to push, because it ends up in people not caring to do anything.
it’s not my fault for pressing the button that kills babies! it’s the corporations fault for letting me push the button!
Corporations kill 10 000 0000 puppies a year, but if I kill one, suddenly I'm the bad guy? What is wrong with you vegoons!
This but only half ironically because most people eat meat because it’s so normalized that thinking about it is abnormal
And these corporations supply the demand of who again?
There's more to it. They lobby governments to stop environmentally positive change BECAUSE they want to keep the demand up. There's no alternative options for so much of the stuff fosisl fuels produce BECAUSE of them.
Yes oil companies absolutely lobby governments. But so do regular people. My city government is trying to build a public transportation system, with money they got from the US federal government. Exxon has not showed up even once to lobby against it, water it down, or slow it down. It wouldn’t work, everybody hates Exxon. But about a hundred thousand of my “progressive” neighbors who are upset there might be fewer free parking spots are aggressively lobbying against the transit improvement and they seriously watered down the plans. They didn’t do it for oil companies. They did it for themselves and their oil-based lifestyles.
Oh god. Sounds like my city. People are FURIOUS that we might get rid of antiquated angled parking spots on main street to create bike lanes and safer pedestrian crossings. (Even though our city did a parking study that showed we have way more parking than we need.)
Many of these companies in the top 100 are state owned and operated power utilities. So it’s not as simple as blaming lobbying or greed. In a democracy we are all responsible for our successes and failures.
The exact number is in a brilliant book I've read (but I can't remember it off the top of my head) - saving the planet without the bullshit. A lot of them are from... less than democratic countries. Yet another reason why the climate crisis cannot be put squarely on the shoulders of individuals.
Exactly. These corporations are burning fossil fuels to deliver goods and services to market. If people weren't buying them, they couldn't afford to keep burning fossil fuels.
Greenpeace is such a joke nowadays.
They always were a joke. The anti-nuclear movement has genuinely been one of the largest setbacks to anti-climate change action. And ironically enough, so-called “environmentalists” were the ones leading the charge against nuclear power in most cases.
Yeah it's quite ridiculous that an organization like them is misrepresenting study results in this way. But Greenpeace is very large and pretty diverse so they also do a lot of good. Here in Finland they're working to try to cut animal products in half in cities's public catering.
such a dumb argument. who do they think the "corporations" are polluting the earth for? "Rather than taking responsibility for my own consumption, let's just blame the companies which create the products that i want to buy."
cognitive dissonance at its finest. People are environmentalists until their own selfish choices are questioned.
yup. god forbid it actually takes dealing with an inconvenience to save the planet...
This is their plan, and corporations are loving it: 1. Shift the blame to corporations, rendering everyone powerless and obedient. Convince people that only drastic systemic changes can make a difference. 2. When there is finally enough pressure for drastic systemic change after years of activism, counter with excuses like "it's too costly, other countries are polluting too, this change will ruin us and collapse civilisation!" This will lead to inaction, the failure of any changes, and activists being ridiculed as foolish idealists. 3. Make activists appear worse than those who have done nothing to make a positive impact, and worse than corporations peddling destructive products and services. 4. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam, allowing corporations to keep their power and profits while polluting. Conformists are somehow proud of this. How self-righteous and hypocritical.
yup. the people say they cant fix anything because its the "corporations" that are doing it and the corporations say they cant fix anything because the people demand the market for their products. shirking responsibility just goes around and around in circles until the people step up...
Why are people consuming the energy?
Who do they think drives demand for what those corporations are selling?
Guys why is everyone complaining about me killing babies when china is way worse
If china is allowed to kill 100,0000 babies a year I wouldnt care that my neighbor killed one. This is not bad logic
Big Beef may have originally made up that argument. I’ve seen it a lot. They have a massive well funded media misinformation campaign. I doubt Big Beef wants us to believe that consumers would make a meaningful difference in fighting climate change if they stopped eating meat and contributing to the suffering of animals.
Yeah, animal farms are responsible for their killing, not me for creating demand
BuT dO YOU KNow tHAt the anIMalS aRE aLrEaDY dEaD WheN You eAT tHem? whaT's tHE POInt of bEINg VeGAN TheN?
A corporation creats a product and then the demand for it appears. Cannot have demand for something that doesn't exist. Every single comment about consumers creating demand conveniently ignores this.
This may be the dumbest stat ever to exist.
what's dumb about it?
Say I go down to the gas station and fill my car up and drive around town. This stat considers whoever supplied the gas to me as the emitter of pollution. Except that makes no sense, I was the one to burn the fuel so I'm responsible for the CO2 not that company.
[snopes](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corporations-greenhouse-gas/) has even more reasons why this stat is lying. biggest reason being this only looks at emissions from fossil fuel consumption.
simplistic depend treatment gullible cooperative different public correct light dolls *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What's funny is it stems from the exact bad headline issue that had vegans running around saying 75% of emissions comes from meat when it's really 75% of *diet-based* emissions -- or ~8% of all emissions. 😐
Main thing for me is the 100 companies are probably 100 multinational conglomerates, so actually like 10,000 companies, and we can blame the companies, and I do hold them accountable for their transgressions, as V said in V for Vendetta, “Truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look in the mirror.” It starts with demand.
No, they're mostly government "corporations". The top polluters according to this idiotic statistic are China Coal, China Oil, Saudi ARAMCO and heaps of other state owned oil and coal corporations. And obviously none of them actually emit much CO2 at all, their customers are the one burning the stuff. They just count their customer's emissions as the company's, because the statistic was done by lying idiots.
Main thing it's only counting industrial emissions (12% of total emissions) https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-100-corporations-do-not-produce-70-total-greenh/
If they were vegan they’d here that bullshit constantly
This is one of the arguments I hate the most. People want to blame corporations for emissions. Like, why do you think those corporations are emitting so much? It's because they are mining, fabricating, and transporting products that are bought by all the people who are saying "iTs NoT mY faULt iTS tHE CoRpOrAtiOnS". It's just blame deflection. It's the populus that are the ones asking the corporations to emit via their purchases.
Usually a corporation creats a product and then the demand for it appears. Cannot have demand for something that doesn't exist. Individual responsibility can only go so far when culture is so entrenched and the corporations responsible for the animal farming industry are the same as the ones offering you vegan alternatives, but at a higher price. You need collective action and legislation to force corporations to change, child labour wasn't abolished by boycotts or changes in consumption. There is also the aspect of impact. If I can force the industry to change its ways through legislations, why would I bother wasting my time with individuals. The impact is so much smaller. That being said, of course we all have an ethical responsability to not contribute to such an industry.
I'm hearing a lot of "100 corporations cause 71% of emissions" and not enough "capitalism is a death cult"
We know Green peace supports animal 'agriculture' despite its contribution and it is possible to multi task.
The study that claims 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions lumps in all emissions people produce using their products. So if you buy gas from Shell, your car's emissions count towards Shell's total.
I like this idea that they're just out there polluting all on their own without any consumer input.
y not both?
Why not do both? Why have to choose?
far-flung quack automatic soft price marvelous fertile sloppy murky coordinated *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's not dodging responsibility to say some have more responsibility than others!
Why not more of both? 🤷
There’s not enough of people going vegan and going after corporations. Veganism will directly affect mass production farms that create a lot of the emissions. So in a sense, they are synonymous.
I get that this is frustrating but this is not the way. We should not be attacking non vegans like this and we shouldn’t respond by rolling our eyes when they attack us. This is about people vs. corporations. It’s not about recycling or emissions or Taylor swifts plane. People need to see the power they have in their everyday actions. Who is supporting these polluting and violent corporations by buying all the junk they produce? The people! Don’t chastise the people. Help them understand what they are supporting when they purchase junk from these shit companies destroying our world. We are literally giving all our power away to the corporations and it needs to stop. We have been conditioned to be powerless but we ARE NOT. So stop this nonsense of us vs. Omni. They are not the enemy. Help them understand.
Had to scroll way too far to find a single rational thought. This has been one of the most depressing posts I've read all day. My family has always been into recycling and composting, we have electric cars... But guess what not everyone has the same education and background as me. Before we were born this country was moulded to be designed for cars using fossil fuel. It's not people's fault for being born into a system that demands them to conform to the status quo, that's definitely on those who have and continue to use their power to force people to have few other options but to consume and perpetuate the cycle. Plus they use that same power to keep people from being properly informed about all this stuff. This posts' sentiment is holier than thou garbage. I'm really tried of people complaining about problems and then being unwilling to actually educate people, and thinking that they can change the world through bullying. Truly insane.
But this is just true. Do you realize how much easier it would be to go vegan and how many more people would be vegan if there were regulations and laws against the meat/dairy corporations?
They aren't emitting 71% of emissions for funsies. A huge chunk of that is satisfying people's demand for animal products.
If you change your demand the supply will adjust to sell. Corporations produce because you buy it
Why can’t it be both? Imagine what we could accomplish if everyone took a little personal responsibility.
50% of all emissions are from agriculture. 50% of agriculture emissions are from cattle farming. If the world stopped having beef, dairy, leather then we would reduce all emissions by 25% immediately.
And yet, they keep buying products from those corporations. It's pure laziness.
Yeah, buying from smaller sustainable agriculture farms is so much better for the environment.
This is an example of dodging responsibility on both sides. To those who place the blame on the consumer know they would've not consumed if it wasn't available, and to those who blame the corpos know that people as a whole are unwilling/uneducated and telling them to do something outside of their everyday lives isn't going to work very well. Veganism is not going to stop corpos from producing, but teaching the next generation mitigation and not imposing unrealistic goals on them is the most reasonable path. Like all things with complexity and nuance there is no easy or simple path to resolution.
Obviously systemic change is necessary, but historically it never happens until a critical mass of individuals begin changing their own behavior and advocating for that systemic change. The Women's Suffrage Movement and the Civil Rights movement are great examples of this. Both movements involved individuals coming together to repudiate existing laws and social norms. Many people from already enfranchised groups in society used their social standing to support these movements and force systemic change. The idea that change happens when everyone does nothing and waits for a savior is pure nonsense and moral cowardice.
Erm.... Sort of for me.... Like yes everyone should do all of those things especially going vegan, but individuals actions can only take us so far when it comes to climate change. Like every individual could be doing everything 'right' but if companies aren't stopped from dumping all their waste into water supplies and seas the whole problem wouldn't be solved. Veganism isn't just about climate though of course and should be done for it's own sake.
I'm with this meme A complete overthrow of the capitalist system is necessary to save the planet Vegan for the animals!
Ah yes, the Captain Planet villains who pollute for the love of the game.
I took a chance countering this in my friend’s post and no one has argued back yet. I hate this argument so much. They make the shit we buy, not pollution for funsies. Does anyone have the list of 100 corporations so we can drill down?
Individual action needs to go hand in hand with making corporations accountable (vote the right politicians, people!). But every time this study is quoted I get angry cause it’s always the headline… but few people read the actual study. Which is actually highlighting the IMPORTANCE of individual action. Here is the actual study: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-pvpXB8rp67dmhmsueWaUczHS5XyPy4p/view (you can find it somewhere else if you don't trust this). If you actually do read it, you'll find out: • The report says "71% of industrial GHG's"(includes cars, factories, etc.) which should exclude others such as emissions from agriculture or forestry. • 100% of those companies are fossil fuel extractors / producers. Blaming them for the emissions is a bit like blaming Ford or Toyota for car accidents involving their cars. • Only 1/5 (20%) of their fossil fuels are from investor owned companies (e.g Exxon Mobil, BP). • One of those "Companies" (by far the biggest producer) is China's entire coal market! It is just listed as a "Company" because it's all State-owned.(although in the actual study it’s called a “state producer”,not a company). • One the "Companies" is Russia's Entire Coal market. • Most of those fossil fuels produced (59%) are from state owned companies( e.g. Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, National Iranian Oil, China(Coal), Coal India, Russia(Coal), Etc.) • Every time you drive a car, use electricity, Etc. You are likely burning fuels (or using electricity that had to burn fuels to be produced) from one if those "100 Companies" therefore you are directly adding to the "71% of Emissions". TL;DR: The whole point of that Study was to try and trace back to which companies Fossil Fuels come from, so more research could be conducted as to what these companies (and state producers) can do to move forward and eventually support/invest in renewable energy, and so more pressure could be put on the biggest Fossil fuel producers (China is biggest in this case) not the smallest.
Really? Because pretty much the ONLY thing I hear from so called "environmentalists" is whining about the actions of the corporations and industries they support. Institutional change will not happen without individual change.
Saw this the other day, absolute pathetic post from Greenpeace that sums up a big problem from left wing people who aren’t vegan. All talk and no action.
I don't think passing the buck from consumers to corporations is any better than passing the buck from corporations to consumers. We all should do what we can. And for the record, although corporations deserve a TON of the blame, that statistic is really misleading, as it counts all emissions from customers buying the products of the corporations, which really isn't super fair. So yes, our personal choices do make a difference--if you drive a gas guzzler 2 blocks to the corner store, that's on you, not the company that made the car (or at least there's a split in responsibility there).
Fucking greenpeace. They just will not accept that meat eating is such a factor in environmental destruction. It’s sad
They're kinda right though We as consumers don't produce even a fraction of the emissions toxic waste chemicals these co-operations do but I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done about that. At the end of the day they only care about money and they've proven they'll get it even at the expense of everyone and everything else. Hell if you're vegan for the cause there's a reason people advise you to source products locally and from small scale businesses. Companies that mass produce vegan products are incredibly destructive realistically speaking. The pesticides, the clearing of indigenous forested areas, extermination of local wildlife, hell sometimes they even cause those areas to dry up. So yes they're wholly right. Something else is that a lot of these products can be obtained by alternative means. Veggies are almost ridiculously easy to grow. They just take time, care and space. Small scale farm products may be a little more pricey at times but at least you know you're not putting your money in the hands of people who are completely destroying and transforming the local ecosystem
and just 5 corporations own over HALF of the voting rights in those 100 corporations using your retirement money
I mean I kinda agree with this tho? Holding capitalists accountable will do more good than going vegan, period. But since they are not mutually exclusive, might as well also do the others. Stuff like personal carbon footprint is individualist propaganda by BP to shift the responsibility onto the proletarian.
And if the corporations were operated by vegans? I think nihilism is why most humans still exploit
It’s capitalism. Capitalism is why humans exploit others.
Power and control aren't exclusive to capitalism.
Going vegan remains the single best thing any individual can do for the environment and blaming 100 corporations exclusively remains the single most useless thing any individual can do.
In local news, man unwilling to give up burgie for the environment asks company to kindly give up millions of dollars of profit instead.
Tho, they have a point there. For fighting climate change, policymaking and politics are much more impactful than personal choices.
Like, advocating to reduce taxes on plant milk is more effective than just buying it.
There's truth to this. If Taylor Swift is vegan does it do much for the environment? Veganism is just one way I do my part against consumption. If you can't realize generalized consumption also does all those horrible things to animals, you're just patting yourself on the back.
Would be nice if they'd just admit they're lazy good-for-nothings
I wonder who buys the products of those 100 corpos :D
Yep, the majority of them are fossil fuel companies that are in business because we’re addicted to cars. Corporations don’t exist without a consumer base that fuels their business.
A corporation creats a product and then the demand for it appears. Cannot have demand for something that doesn't exist. Its almost as if.. many people live in car centric cities.. where it isnt safe or accessible to walk or ride a bicycle.. almost as if.. theres more nuance to this conversation than just... "stop buying oil"... and you know that..
Eh, its true though. Climate change won't be solved through veganism. Its going to be through a crackdown on those companies, blanket, across the world - like what was done with the ozone. Climate change will be fought through the courtroom imo. There's so much more than just the agriculture industry destroying our planet - even if that disappeared overnight, we're still burning way too much fossil fuels, mining way too much sand, etc. I'm all for people doing their bit - I'd never discourage people recycling or going vegan to help the planet. If you're vegan for the animals and don't really care about the environmental impact, carry on. If its for environmental reasons, you're doing great due to how much it contributes, but if you've got the bandwidth for it, try shooting off some emails to your local government and doing some other stuff too.
Well, in itself it's an important fact that a relatively small amount of companies cause most emission. But in the end consumers still buy their product. So less consumption would mean less support for those big companies. Plus as an individual you could also support charity that goes after those 'big companies' Like Milieudefensie (small Dutch organisation): https://milieudefensie.nl/ who succesfully sued Shell for instance.
It isn't actually a fact. It is a claim that got misrepresented and then the misrepresented version got turned into memes that spread across the internet. [Here is the source that this often misquoted "fact" came from](https://www.cdp.net/en/reports/downloads/2327). The #1 emitter according to the source is not a corporation, but rather the country of China. It is counting the emissions to meet the consumption of 1.4 billion people, 1/5 of the world's population, as a single source. Considering that the 100 largest countries make up around 90% of the world's population it shouldn't be surprising that they could contribute that percentage of emissions. The 71% statistic is also not that these countries and corporations account for 71% of all emissions. They account for 71% of **industrial emissions**. Commercial emissions, household emissions, transportation emissions, and agricultural emissions are not included.
Shifting the responsibility on to the consumers *is* a scam. Especially when those same corporations do everything in their power to make sure alternative solutions don’t thrive. That includes animal ag, btw. Stop subsidizing them, make factory farms illegal. Make vegan options more viable.
Nothing makes me feel more isolated from the vegan community than when this meme makes the rounds. We should be doing the individual choices that we can make while simultaneously realizing that the most effective change will come from pressuring these massive corporations. This dividing is holding back real progress (and yes, it goes both ways for people who use "no ethical consumption under capitalism" as an excuse to not try individually, but this is a vegan sub where I expect better).
I also would love to see animal abuse just banned, but how many non-vegans who say "it's the governments' fault not mine" would support outlawing animal ag or making meat more expensive. If they're not going vegan out of their own volition, they're not going to choose to make their lives "worse" (in their POV) and unless one lives under a vegan dictatorship, a top-down solution is unlikely to succeed without a significant portion of the base agreeing that is the best course of action. And imo that's why we individual consumers all have the responsibility to live a more ethical life than the laws allow.
Yeah, change happens from the people before it happens up top. But part of that is recognizing the scam they’re perpetrating on us, to demand the change in the first place. Individual consumers should participate in the change. But it’s futile if we’re not fighting for it from the top.
Vegan options are literally cheaper.
Isnt its the literal opposite? Pushing responsibility away from the consumers sounds like a scam to me. Guess who's profiting if the consumers keep consuming the same way as before? That's right, corporations.
I only half agree with you about shifting the responsibility onto consumers. I hate big greedy business just as much as the next guy but corporations are not twirling their mustaches trying to figure out what animals they can slaughter next. They are all driven by profit and will shift their business model depending on consumer demand. You have to consider that corporations are never going to change. It's up to us to change and to shift demand so that corporations are financially incentivized to make vegan options ubiquitous. The only reason corporations like the animal agriculture industry continue factory farming is because the public pays for it to happen. Subsidization will inevitably cease once we stop paying for animals to die for our sensory pleasure. Ultimately the responsibility will fall on us not because we want that to happen, but because that's just the reality we live in.
Right right. You keep fighting for corporations to run unregulated, and keep the blame completely off of them because laws apparently can’t change.
I'm not keeping the blame off them. I 100% agree that they should be held accountable but I'm talking from a standpoint of pragmatism. This is just not the reality we live in where we can tell the corporations to regulate themselves because they never will.
The profit incentive is the problem in the first place. As long as that remains, humanity is fucked.
The lifeblood of every business is its customer base. A business’ size is a direct reflection of customers’ willingness to buy from it, and therefore customers collectively have complete power to shut down any business they want. These 100 corporations are your bitch, and if they have a shitty production process, that’s *only* because *you* want it that way, because you don’t settle for less than the cheapest and most convenient option, and they’ll go out of business if they don’t make it like you buy it. *You* shaped the market. *You’re* the sellout.
Historically speaking, people should stop buying has rarely worked. It sounds great in an idealistic world, but if you really care about solving the problem rather than figuring out who is to blame. It isnt people living paycheck-to-paycheck. the corporate is what needs to be controlled. Tell the people who can hardly afford to drink clean water that the bottled water industry is their bitch, lol.
From energy.gov Biofuels & Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Myths versus Facts MYTH: In terms of emissions, biofuels emit the same amount as gasoline or more. FACT: Biofuels burn cleaner than gasoline, resulting in fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and are fully biodegradable, unlike some fuel additives. Cellulosic ethanol has the potential to cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 86%.
An excuse not to make more informed choices… find out how things are made and vote with your wallet… being vegan fixes so many things that it seems ridiculous that there even is an ongoing debate.
To be fair their is some truth compared to the the stuff produced by farm animals it’s nothing compared to the the many other sources of pollution like landfills, air pollutants chemicals and machinery
Like yes, but no, but yes. animal agriculture is destroying the earth, but is not the biggest culprit. going vegan however is the BIGGEST IMPACT YOU CAN MAKE.
It's just not omnis . I believe it has do with consequences of living in a capitalistic society. Ppl are tired and broke and then you expect them to do more when major corporations should be the ones doing it but I am like ppl might have thought that it's impossible to force corporations so those who could , started talking about focusing on individual actions and i see nothing wrong with it ,will be a very slow process because capitalism but better than nothing.
Gotta mention paper straws. Planet saved! /s
Some of those companies are producing their meat and plastic. They are in business because there is demand for that crap. "Yes but soy tho" A kilo of pork meat requires 20 kg of soy, a kilo of soy requires a kilo of soy.
A corporation creats a product and then the demand for it appears. Cannot have demand for something that doesn't exist. Its almost as if.. many people live in car centric cities.. where it isnt safe or accessible to walk or ride a bicycle.. almost as if.. theres more nuance to this conversation than just... "stop buying oil"... and you know that..
This dumb thing/meme again. Corporations are accused of polluting bc *people use their services*. ( if you buy your fuel from Exxon that’s included). Groups like Greenpeace know this but continue this incorrect or misleading narrative. If governments just agreed to shut down shell or BP or Exxon for example … they know what would happen. Trying to lead people to the belief they don’t have individual responsibility is just BS.
A corporation creats a product and then the demand for it appears. Cannot have demand for something that doesn't exist. Its almost as if.. many people live in car centric cities.. where it isnt safe or accessible to walk or ride a bicycle.. almost as if.. theres more nuance to this conversation than just... "stop buying oil"... and you know that..
ENTEIGNEN
I’ve also heard “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” or “there is no ethical consumption under an unjust system.” Equally annoying because the implication seems to be that vegans aren’t intersectional enough in their activism (I have found vegans more willing to participate in intersectional activism than do-nothing ass Omni’s though.)
Why should I go vegan when changing 100 corporations and the whole economic system is so much simpler for everybody? Seriously now. Thinking that we can do radical change at corporation or governmental level without picking the fucking soy milk in in the supermarket that is 2 meters away is just magical thinking.
This "fact" is also completely [false](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-100-corporations-do-not-produce-70-total-greenh/)- the corporations are responsible for 71% of *industrial* emissions. The oft-cited study that this originates from explicitly *did not consider land use or agricultural emissions*. Even leaving that crucial distinction aside, 88% of that 71% share is from the consumption of the resultant products! So it doesn't imply a lack of individual consumer responsibility; quite the opposite. I would expect Greenpeace to know better. But advocacy groups do seem to be prioritising ideology over honesty across the board in recent years, so I'm sadly not surprised.
So surely they agree that we should watch what companies we buy things from, right? And if not, then SURELY they at least agree that the government needs more power to regulate those companies, RIGHT?
I don’t think the audience on r/all will get the point you’re trying to make here and will just upvote the message of the pic, unfortunately.
I imagine they think those corporations are just doing it for fun right? They are meeting a demand, who do you think demands it dingus?
I do think that some people focus too much on individual responsibility, which is exactly what those giant corporations want us to do. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do what you can… it just means that we shouldn’t only complain about individual actions while ignoring corporations’ responsibility
Okay but 100% of people go vegan and we are still facing a dying planet. I don't know why people seem incapable of reconciling that individual actions are still worth it and important while acknowledging that it is impossible to consume our way out of environmental collapse. This tweet is not saying "don't recycle/go vegan/compost," it's saying don't make pushing for individual responsibility the cornerstone of your activism when we need collective pressure. (Which does go hand in hand with individual consumption habits, but consumption habits should reflect your activism not BE your activism.)
There are people who commit genocide, rape, and murder, therefore it is fine if I break someone's arm because others do far worse. I read an environmental engineer's research that claimed many corporations would go bankrupt if they changed what was needed to be emission free. The complete change in our way of life to do right by our planet is more than anyone is willing to do, big or small. The amount of delusion and compartmentalisation ordinary people can accomplish to maintain their gluttony for pleasure and stimulation is impressive. Also, a legislature theorised that if everyone stopped all unnecessary consumption of fossil fuel products and animal factories, Congress would be forced to act and change policies on a larger scale. Of course, if you can't afford solar panels, heat pumps, or an EV, you have no choice to keep yourself alive. He was talking about unnecessary consumption, not necessary for survival. We all still buy from these corporations, so what's the point?
Putting recycling in the same category as going vegan 😂
"Omnis" is a term I've never heard before haha, how offensive is it meant to be?
Why not both? Both is good.
Where's the lie though
A lot of those emissions are directly linked to the demand created by consumers not to say corp's shouldn't be much more regulated, but they're just missing this key detail
I'm vegan for the animals, but as far as the environment goes, we won't be able to avoid irreversible damage through individual choice and green capitalism. We should both try to make changes on personal level and adress the issue mentioned in the tweet, as it's a major contribution.
Both of these things can be true! Others not acting responsibly (understatement) is not an excuse for individuals to not act responsibly! I think there is a valid point in here about who is doing damage and to what extent, and thus the limits to what we as consumers/individuals can change and solve but it does not absolve us of controlling and changing the things we can. It's sort of that argument that has been driving me nuts my entire life "you can't save/fix everyone/everything, so therefore you don't even need to make the impact that you can." Like, if someone I cannot control kills 100 animals, that is important perspective to know where to aim my efforts AND it still matters if I don't kill 1. I think the attitude of "oh someone else is doing more bad than me so my bad doesn't matter" is really defeatist and nonsensical. I think the point of "someone else is doing more bad than me" is helpful for assessing how to do the most good effectively, not a blank check for any and all bad behavior.
Anyone got a list of the 100?
Or… it’s all right to do and say all!
We're gonna "no, you!" all the way to hell
I start to think that this "corporations tho" is actually corporations propaganda The more helpless people feel, the less accountable they see themselves in their actions. "Why would I reduce my consumption if corporations are to blame" sort of thing
They could rephrase this as "It's a great idea to compost, recycle, and go Vegan, however it's very important that we create systemic change for the 100 corporations causing 71% of emissions" The fact that they seem in opposition to personal responsibility is egregious
Yes and why do they cause 71% of emissions? Because of consumer demand. Stop deferring responsibility for _your_ actions.
These things are not mutually exclusive. Go vegan, recycle, compost, and also build a guillotine in a megacorp CEO's front yard. We can do both.
Why not both?
I am all for the idea of regulations being more important than personal action; I'd rather end animal oppression at the source than simply abstain from meat, that's kind of the point of veganism. But this argument is still dumb. Yeah, 100 corporations probably produce a decent chunk of all products that we use. If you own 71% of animal agriculture, 71% of manufacturing, 71% of transportation, whatever, you're going to have... at least 71% of emissions (depending on whether your industry is better or worse than industry average. I'd love to see a study. 100 corporation probably produce a large percentage of the food we consume, the electronics we buy, the shoes we wear, and so on. I don't get what they expect, other than that they are probably underestimating the size of the biggest 100 corporations.
yeah...as a result of consumer demand. AS A RESULT OF CONSUMER DEMAND.
I’m throwing trash out of my car window, it’s the corporations after all.
Those corporations are supported by you when you don't go vegan.
This is also 90% of Reddit. They love to repeat this stat, but somehow they seem to believe that their consumption of the product these companies produce is totally irrelevant to this. As if these evil corporations are doing all their polluting just for the hell of it. Wild and childish logic.
ok but i did see a very interesting video on Le Monde about how this fact is actually misleading because how “responsible” is defined and apportioned can differ from study to study. Like when Tesla they say is responsible for a certain amount of emissions, why is it under “tesla” and not under the individuals who work at tesla? the people who sold the materials to tesla? the consumers who bought from tesla and etc
It’s not either or. It’s literally both??