• @doublejay1999@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    131
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    100% convinced our decedents will look back in this age and laugh 2 things : domestic recycling as an attempt to save the the planet , and the fact that we did nothing unless there was a profit in it.

    • @cooopsspace@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      817 months ago

      Also I don’t know about you, but my countries recycling relied on sending it all to China to burn.

      dustsv hands yep my work here is done

      Recycling is a lie to keep making plastic, nothing more

    • IninewCrow
      link
      fedilink
      English
      407 months ago

      Ancestors?

      It will probably be an alien species who will find a dead planet and wonder how and why so much toxic material was spread around the planet … and also wonder why there is an orbiting space station filled with gold, paper money and the greyed out decaying bodies of a humanoid species.

    • DessertStorms
      link
      fedilink
      87 months ago

      the fact that we did nothing unless there was a profit in it.

      who are “we”?
      I’m not profiting, are you?
      Those who already have all the money and power are, don’t even let the focus slip from them.

    • @50MYT@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      37 months ago

      I remember reading a fun fact: A single day (it might have even been an hour but let’s err on the side of caution) of the bigger cruise ship engine use pumps out the same amount of pollution as all of the cars in Europe do combined for a while year.

      Why on fuck do we bother with the small stuff when the big ones have such a huge weight on the problem.

      • @absentbird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        77 months ago

        One cruise ship has carbon emissions roughly equivalent to 12,000 cars. Maybe if you’re specifically looking at sulphur oxide pollution, since modern cars emit so little of it. But there’s a lot of other stuff coming out of tailpipes, sulphur oxide is just a single pollutant.

  • @_number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    577 months ago

    yeah anytime i see anyone talking about some little change they made in their lives to be more eco friendly it makes me incredibly, deeply sad. especially if it’s at more expense or more effort for them – they’re trying their best but it’s literally completely pointless

    • @artaxthehappyhorse@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      447 months ago

      Many of us do it for sport tbh. A healthier way to gamify life sorta. I’ve been vegan since 2015/16 and it does increase the difficulty setting somewhat, but also it’s unlocked a million fun mini games for me along the way and provided much needed community.

        • @artaxthehappyhorse@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          117 months ago

          Give it a shot, can’t hurt. You won’t become Buddha overnight, but it can certainly put you on a path toward much different ways of seeing yourself and everything around you.

        • Labeling this as “cope” is just straight slander against vegetarianism. Most people who are vegetarian don’t expect “it’s going to change the world” so there’s no “coping” to be had with the fact that it’s not.

          Vegetarianism choices can be based in health, ethics, not wanting to support mega corps, dislike of the taste, environmental impact, among other things. “it’s going to save us from climate change in light of everything else going on in the world” is a tiny clueless subset of just ONE of those rationales.

          Vegeterianism isn’t “hopeless” or “cope” unless you’re delusional enough to believe that everyone doing so would instantly solve our problems. Sure, some people think if everyone did it, it would make a difference, but very few think it’d fix all our problems.

        • Shush
          link
          fedilink
          47 months ago

          Even if it isn’t you could use the same approach in many other ways. Increase game difficulty by giving yourself bonus objectives. I gamify life quite a lot to do the boring stuff and try to be healthy. Otherwise I wouldn’t be able to keep it up.

    • @Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      367 months ago

      It’s absolutely not helpless to change your habits. All our consumption is based on collective habits, and changing them will have an effect.

      • Scrubbles
        link
        fedilink
        English
        247 months ago

        Exactly. It’s only pointless as long as other people think it’s pointless. If everyone made changes we could see a noticable impact happen.

        Billionaires need to change too, they do more than their fair share of polluting, but it doesn’t mean we are all off the hook. We should hold them accountable and also each of us strive to be better.

      • @uberkalden@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        07 months ago

        For some things, yes. The straw thing, no. If we snapped our fingers and made straws disappear, the effect on the world will be negligible.

    • @gizmonicus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      157 months ago

      What if that small change In made was assasinating billionaires (sorry, PragerU, people with means) in my spare time instead of just playing Hitman?

    • @Player2@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      147 months ago

      Does one person saying that they voted for change in the government make you incredibly, deeply sad? Just one vote in millions after all. Little things can collectively add up to something big.

      • @Demuniac@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        37 months ago

        Exactly. And just because those that can have the most impact refuse to do so, doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t try.

    • @kgrnd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      47 months ago

      It isn’t pointless, it’s our thinkings that makes it pointless. “It wouldn’t do much if it’s just me living eco friendly”, yes it doesn’t do much since alot of people thinks the same, and that leads to no progress.

  • @puppy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    527 months ago

    Apple: We’re changing everyone’s charging schedules to make electricity 0.00001% greener.

    Also Apple: Titanium, so pretty. Even though it’s dirtier to mine.

      • @MyFairJulia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        27 months ago

        Apple: “Look, we made an ad with a woman depicting mother nature. Look at how self-aware and quirky we are.”

        Me: (writes a short fanfic of mother nature beating Tim Cook up so bad, it might look like a Family Guy cutaway)

  • the post of tom joad
    link
    fedilink
    43
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    It drives me crazy, this performative enviornmentalist bullshit. I have to pay 10c (on top of 300% food cost increase don’t forget) for a plastic bag at the grocery when i forget my canvas ones. In these bags i must pay for i can place fruit individually wrapped in plastic.

    Every time something gets worse, we must be the ones to pay. This whole environment-saving-by-paper-straw phenomenon is so insipid that I would rather believe that it’s actually a deliberate corporate strategy. At least that would make sense. If they keep us thinking that something is being done, they don’t have to change a thing, and if it’s “all of our jobs” (read: not theirs), to save the world, we’ll never take them to task for their (greater) part of the waste.

    • @Grumpy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      267 months ago

      It is actually a deliberate corp strategy. Plastic straws were never a real concern, save for that ONE turtle. Plastic straw make such a negligible amount of plastic waste that stop using it will have virtually zero measurable impact in amount of plastic waste we create. All it ever was intended for was to make us feel like something was being done while doing absolutely nothing.

      That’s not to say all plastic reduction initiatives are pointless. But the straws definitely belong in the least environmentally impactful category.

      • @Zamundaaa@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        227 months ago

        All it ever was intended for was to make us feel like something was being done while doing absolutely nothing.

        It certainly does help a little bit. But it’s of course still not a coincidence that companies are pushing for it instead of more effective measures… It’s not just cheap but it also pushes people to believe that measures to save the environment are all useless and annoying, and makes them less likely to want more to happen.

        • @lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          107 months ago

          It’s the “thoughts and prayers” of environmentalism. I’m convinced the net effect is negative after you factor in the way it distracts people from anything that might actually help.

      • @MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        97 months ago

        What’s worse is we haven’t replaced plastic straws with a good alternative. Paper straws fucking blow and I’m not going to carry around and wash a silicon straw with me at all times.

      • @trailing9@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        27 months ago

        Can we use Lemmy to figure out what should be done, push for that change, and bring plastic straws back?

        • Fund a grassroots media campaign advocating to make corporations pay to fix the environment and for price control laws to stop them passing on costs to the consumer.

          At some point, people are going to have to accept their legal systems have been completely broken by regulatory capture and that they’re going to have to go to war to implement new governments that actually will do what the people want them to do. That’s the real talk that needs to happen

          • @noobdoomguy8658@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            5
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Companies already buy “carbon offsets” or whatever that shitbis called - essentially, they pay money to another businnes, one that is supposed to somehow help the planet and the carbon dioxide increase, and then they just call it a day and slap some stickers on their stuff saying it’s all eco-friendly.

            Big players have been at it for a long time to cover themselves from way more angles than we can think of. :(

    • MxM111
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Nothing beats collection of beer/cola can’s pull tabs for recycling competition at schools. That forces children to ask parents to buy more of the six packs so that they could have the tabs.

    • @VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      87 months ago

      You’re treating it like a hypothetical but that is in fact exactly what’s going on.

      Corporations and the politicians they own are hyperfocused on (relativee to centralised) inefficient end user recycling and regular people taking responsibility for the environment and climate change to distract from the fact that maybe 95%+ of it are the fault of corporations, not their customers.

      Even consumer waste is many times worse than it would be if companies didn’t for example use all that plastic and design electronics to become obsolete if functional at all in as little as a single year just to squeeze as much money out while spending as little as possible.

  • @banana_meccanica@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    397 months ago

    Not only the billionaires, even the millionaires, and all the people taking the plane more than once a year. It is an ecological crime the pollution of air transport.

    • @tilcica@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      327 months ago

      fun fact. modern planes consume ~3-4l per 100 passengers per km or 3-4l per passenger per 100km.

      efficient ICE cars consume ~6l per passenger per 100km.

      add to that, that there’s basically no good alternative to fast very long distance or cross-continent transport

      • Luccus
        link
        fedilink
        27
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Edit #2: ICE is a type of train in germany. I mistook “ICE cars” as meaning trains and was wondering how flying is supposed to be more efficient than trains. Hence my confusion.

        OG comment (invalid, see Edit #2): Where are these numbers coming from?

        I cannot find any source for the 3-4l/passenger/km claim. I cannot find any source for the claim that planes are more efficient. Nothing comes even near this claim.

        https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint

        https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/rail-and-waterborne-transport

        https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

        Can you please provide a source?

        Edit #1: I just want to add that my old combustion car (VW Up! / Seat Mii / Skoda Citigo) burned around 4.2l/100km. So I according to you, if I had another person with me, I’d beat both planes and trains with what stands uncontested as the most inefficient form of transport?

        • Zoolander
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Since I just had this whole back and forth with someone else a few days ago, I have these handy. I’m not the parent, but he’s right. An individual car can be more fuel efficient with 3+ passengers but the average car trip is only 1.3 passengers. The most popular use of a car is commuting and that stands at 1.2 passengers per trip.

          “A new report from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute shows that flying has become 74% more efficient per passenger since 1970 while driving gained only 17% efficiency per passenger. In fact, the average plane trip has been more fuel efficient than the average car trip since as far back as 2000, according to their calculations.”

          http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2014-2_Abstract_English.pdf

          “The main findings are that to make driving less energy intensive than flying, the fuel economy of the entire fleet of light-duty vehicles would have to improve from the current 21.5 mpg to at least 33.8 mpg, or vehicle load would have to increase from the current 1.38 persons to at least 2.3 persons.”

          https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/

      • @query@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        11
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The alternative is stop traveling such huge distances all the time.

        Other than public transportation and filling up the cars with people, instead of having one vehicle per person.

          • @Redscare867@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            57 months ago

            A lot of those flights could be replaced with high speed rail. Maybe not New York to LA, but a lot of people live in the cities in the northeast and travel between those cities would be very feasible at reasonable travel times with high speed rail.

            • @jscummy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              57 months ago

              Okay let me just lobby the government to build long distance high speed rail before I take my trips.

              High speed rail makes more sense for sure, but it’s not available in most of the country. There’s only two stretches in the US, in the northeast corridor and surprisingly in Florida

              • @Redscare867@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                37 months ago

                I know how pitiful our rail networks are. I take Amtrak regularly. It’s faster to drive. It shouldn’t be, but it is. Obviously I’m not talking about today, but building improved rail infrastructure over the next decade is very realistic and a worthwhile investment. Unfortunately the investment Amtrak has gotten isn’t enough to modernize our rail network, and a lot of that money is being used to improve privately owned rail lines that Amtrak leases for their passenger service.

                My point was that the US doesn’t have distances that are insurmountable that can only be traveled via plane. It’s an investment issue.

            • Neopolitan
              link
              fedilink
              English
              17 months ago

              That would require investment in infrastructure, and our govt would rather get us into another 9 forever wars than do such a thing.

      • @drolex@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        87 months ago

        efficient ICE cars consume ~6l per passenger per 100km.

        More like 6L per 100km, whatever the number of passengers, I suppose. So it’s usually still less than planes.

        And there are better alternatives like trains or buses, which can be actually efficient for long distance travels (high speed trains, night travel. Works well from city centre to city centre)

        There is also the additional issue of contrails which are a massive factor of greenhouse effect

      • tjhart85
        link
        fedilink
        77 months ago

        Is that planes that are packed to the gills or private planes that actually have space that people aren’t crammed into?

        Also, 3-4/6 liters of what? ICE cars and modern planes aren’t burning the same fuel, so I’m not sure what this is intending to portray by directly comparing how much of each (in liters) that they burn (serious question, no snark)

      • Scrubbles
        link
        fedilink
        English
        37 months ago

        Yeah gotta agree with you. I have to fly a good amount, both families live over 2000 miles away, it’s unavoidable. But I change what I can in society, I am switching to an EV, I pay extra on my electricity to pay for green sources, and I overall try to lower my carbon footprint.

        As soon as they come out with an alternative fuel airline I’ll be flying on that as much as possible, but until there are alternatives I’m stuck flying.

    • @LoamImprovement@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      27 months ago

      Admittedly, I am one of those people taking a plane well over once a year, although I really rather wish I weren’t - I haven’t had a personal trip in over four years, it’s all onsite implementation.

  • @SwedishFool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    277 months ago

    This resonates hard. Also incredibly fun to watch companies get to abuse loop holes and continue operations as always, then get told we need to sell our cars and turn off our heating to survive this environmental disaster.

    • @cantsurf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      277 months ago

      I feel like this is a whoosh. The environmental impact of our collective straw use is so insignificant compared to the effects of so many other things. The fact that people focus on straws is just evidence that the average person has no idea what to do, in order to decrease their environmental impact and will also complain about the mildest of inconveniences.

    • /home/pineapplelover
      link
      fedilink
      237 months ago

      I don’t use straws at all, but this isn’t really the point. There are much more impactful ways to reduce your carbon footprint like biking, walking, public transport, but all this pales in comparison in the massive environmental pollutions that billionaires and corporations do to our waterways and air.

      • @eestileib@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        107 months ago

        I like using straws, and stainless is a really pleasant straw experience ; you can slurp up really thick smoothies, for example.

        I’m hyping stainless for the experience.

    • @RealWarrenBuffett@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      67 months ago

      I prefer gravity straws. You just put the cup above your head and tilt the cup for the drink to pour in a straight line to your mouth.

  • @r1veRRR@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    237 months ago

    ANY effective, long-term collective change REQUIRES that the large majority of people CHANGE THEIR CONSUMPTION HABBITS. While not great, the private plane stuff is exactly as pointless as the paper straws. Both are ways for everyone to point the finger at everyone else, and not have to change.

    If the government implemented the “correct” laws tomorrow, but the populace doesn’t want to change their habits, they will vote in people that give them back their old, bad things.

    If a company implemented to “correct” processes, but the consumers don’t want to pay the necessary price, they go bankrupt, and the company with the “incorrect, but cheap” processes wins.

    ALL COLLECTIVE ACTION IS A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL CHANGE. There is no alternative!

    • @WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      137 months ago

      You don’t solve this by just recycling harder - you solve this with legislative intervention to minimise packaging, ban private jets, retire fossil fuels, and stop massive food waste.

      Pointing your finger at the masses and demanding they muster the will to change enough that entire supply chains are forced to retool entirely is naiive to the point of stupidity - people will go for cost and convenience just as predictably as companies will burn down the world for an extra dollar. The systemic change makes that shift quickly and (for the consumer) easy.

    • @meliante@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      107 months ago

      Bollocks! If every private jet is grounded there’s no amount of paper straws that can match that impact.

      There’s still individual changes that impact more than the collective ones!

    • @Haui@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      67 months ago

      I can’t argue with that. There needs to be immediate change on all fronts.

      This means that I wont suck on a paper straw while mr CEO flies in his private jet. Dead easy.

      So far, there have mostly been changes that target the lives of people who already have a small CO2 footprint. I don’t even own a car for example.

      The mere existence of private jets is an atrocity while the „lesser“ of us need to invest time and effort to change their ways.

      https://greenisthenewblack.com/private-jets-are-uncool-environmentally/

      Obviously, there are those of us who like to leave their v8 running while in the grocery store and they absolutely need to stop. No emptying the ashtray on the street or going to starbucks every day and get a one use cup every time. But still, I‘m done listening to people telling me I‘m not doing enough.

    • kase
      link
      fedilink
      27 months ago

      “Airbus baluga” will now be stuck in my head to the tune of “baby baluga” all night, tyvm

  • @bleistift2@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    117 months ago

    You’re talking about two different ways to screw the environment. One is the rampant plastics pandemic, the other is carbon emissions. Paper straws are meant to combat the first, not the second.

    • @explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      117 months ago

      While that’s true, I think the complaint here is that the the law deliberately harms poor people only. Instead of banning individual plastic applications, we should be taxing literally all plastics and letting consumers decide what’s worth it. And if we are to take a case-by-case class warfare approach, we should be going after the excesses of the wealthy - like private jets.

      It’s not that they’re the same thing, it’s that they both hurt the environment and are treated very differently.

    • @danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      107 months ago

      Downvote this man and his factual statement!!!

      The popular comments are all about how recycling is a scam to allow plastic companies to continue creating plastics.

      But mushy straws isn’t even about recycling. You’re literally removing a plastic that people use all the time. Sounds like a win no matter what.

      • Scrubbles
        link
        fedilink
        English
        57 months ago

        My number one pet peeve:

        hey here’s one some concession we can do to make the planet slightly better.

        Most people in the US:

        if it doesn’t t solve all of our problems 100% I’m not going to think about doing so. What it only makes life slightly better for us? Nope fuck that it means I have to be slightly inconvenienced for it, I’m not willing to do that. Come back when it’ll fix everything 100% and then I’ll find more excuses to why I don’t have to change.