915
Stone Rule (i.imgur.com)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 6 days ago

There's no stopping climate change in capitalism.

And nothing was done in the way of ending capitalism. Asking "pretty please stop using oil we will paint things" to a capitalist government is ridiculous. The only way to end emissions is being us the ones who control the industry.

So, from my point of view was a useless, possibly counter productive, action.

[-] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 17 points 6 days ago

They also demand system change not climate change. But resting on "if we don't abolish capitalism, everything else is useless" we will never abolish capitalism. It is not a binary switch. It is a long and hard process for which every action counts. And defying the capitalist order and narrative of the corrupt and immoral government is an important step towards that.

Nobody will be more capitalist and more for the use of fossil fuels after he read whatever Murdoch tabloid complained about this. And who was like "well now i am against climate action" was just looking for an excuse, but always on the wrong side already.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cumskin_genocide@lemm.ee 31 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

The only protests I agree with are the ones that don't bother me, are out my way, and have no impact on actually changing things. Also any form of action from a protest should be stopped by the police.

[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 days ago

From my experience capitalism and climate activism are incompatible ideologies. Capitalism is entirely, without a doubt, entirely focused on the bottom line. If it doesn't make them more money and/or costs them more money, they're against it. That's why something as universally bad as smoking took so long to be essentially outed as a problem, and something people should actively avoid. Just watch "thank you for smoking" for more detail on that one.

Cleaning up factory emissions and by-products/waste, doesn't earn companies any money. It's the right thing to do, but it's far easier and cheaper to simply dump the raw waste into the environment. Whether thats chemical runoff, or toxic fumes, or carbon emissions, etc. To safely collect and dispose of the by-products is an expensive process.

Any efforts from companies that are "green" is either that they can offer you a marginally less-bad (environmentally) product at a reduced cost to them. Whether that is because they passed those costs onto the consumer, or because the "green" alternative is actually cheaper, is the only question. As soon as the "green" alternative costs them more and they can't justify an increase in product cost for being "green", they simply won't do it. Anything outside of this scope is simply a PR stunt to try to gain favor with the more environmentally conscious consumers to try to pull them away from their current brand loyalties, over to your brand.

Pretty much all pr stunts of this sort are one-offs, to give the illusion of making an effort, while doing essentially nothing actually helpful.

Unless they can somehow make a profit from "saving the planet" then they won't do it. It's against their very nature.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
915 points (100.0% liked)

196

15650 readers
2176 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS