Tyson Foods and the federal government refuse to show their math for a new sustainability label.

  • alienanimals@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    To say Exxon was just, “fulfilling demands” makes them seem like good people. They KNEW they were causing climate change 50 years ago. They suppressed the information. Many Americans are dependent on their oil. It’s all part of the design of our roads, infrastructure, jobs, etc. These corporations only care about their revenue streams, not the streams of water and how clean they are. Hoping the majority of consumers band together to do the right thing simply will not work. The corporations and the executives need to be held accountable or we will continue to flounder on climate change.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately it goes back further than that. We knew anthropogenic climate change was a thing in the late 1800s, and the oil companies started doing the research in the early 1900s. They knew by 1910 that they were flirting with disaster. Which just allows everyone to say, “nope, not changing anything personally, because those decisions were made before I was born.”

      I agree that it’s unfair that we have to modify our consumption when it makes so little impact. Hopefully meat in vats is actually better for the environment, but I’m not counting on it for the first generation. It is finally being served in a couple restaurants so that’s a first step

      • hypelightfly@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It has nothing to do with fairness. Modifying consumption at an individual level doesn’t help and isn’t even a step to solving the problem. It’s literally propaganda to shift blame and make sure nothing is ever done to address the issue.

        If you’re relying on individuals you may as well just give up. There needs to be systemic change forced by legislation.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Modifying consumption at the individual level unintentionally creates boycotts that the local consumer isn’t even aware they are involved in. This compounds when the local consumer happens to be an upper manager, because they will carry their biases against corporations, such as Nestlé, into the corporate world, and continue their own boycott of services that are undesirable.

          Again, totally unfair to the individual since we carry so little responsibility, but we also carry the ability to crush corporations that refuse to follow the people’s will. Look a bit deeper into why Enron, or Sears-Roebuck collapsed. You’ll find that your real power is burying corporations that have no value.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Modifying individual consumption is literally the only viable solution. It just cannot be voluntary.

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

            That was sort of my point. I guess it would be better stated as putting the decision making at the individual level doesn’t help, or something like that.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Then it isn’t propaganda meant to shift blame.

              Blaming “the top x%” of corporations is effective propaganda that does shift blame.

              People are going to fight carbon taxation, even with a dividend, and if they think “just go after the rich” will help, we’ll never get it.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      To say they’re filling demand is a morally neutral, and objectively correct, standpoint.

      Many Americans are dependent upon their oil

      This is the actual problem to solve, and why you should support carbon tax-and-dividend.

    • Bolt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not defending fossil-fueled energy production. When the product is energy it’s inexcusable to produce it in such a grossly irresponsible manner.

      But if “coal energy” specifically was the product, and consumers overwhelmingly directly choose it rather than available renewable energy, then yeah I’d cut companies a bit more slack. When the harm isn’t in method but the product, and people are choosing that product instead of alternatives, then much of the blame rests on them.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Many Americans are dependent on their oil. It’s all part of the design of our roads, infrastructure, jobs, etc.

      No, it’s all because America ‘needs’ to be competitive with the world on a military level. This means that whatever will make us progress the fastest is the route we’re going to take.

      Operating without oil will severely hinder US military progression, which is why we don’t do it. It’s the same reason why no nation does it that has a stake in world affairs. Slowing down to save the environment gives your enemies an advantage.