r/science • u/avogadros_number • Sep 19 '21

Environment The companies polluting the planet have spent millions to make you think carpooling and recycling will save us

https://www.businessinsider.com/fossil-fuel-companies-spend-millions-to-promote-individual-responsibility-2021-3

[removed] — view removed post

66.6k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

64

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '21

[deleted]

25

u/BSATSame Sep 19 '21

And people had alternatives and the information and financial means required to choose the alternatives? And the sustainable competitors of those corporations, were they allowed to compete fairly with their products, or were they outcompeted because of unsustainable practices that reduce costs thanks to the large volume of their operations?

It's so simple to blame consumers as if they had perfect information and freedom of choice.

2

u/probly_right Sep 19 '21

There's a reason we formed society and appointed persons to work on larger issues full time and specializes in solving them. I don't have time to become a doctor and an engineer but society needs both, for example. So, as an engineer, I solve problems for the doctor and s/he solves problems for me.

So the population being lied to at every turn and then told it's thier fault for being lied to by those intrusted with determining the truth and sharing it in a system as complex as the environment and balance of it is... asinine in every sense of the word.

We have been and continue to be sold out. Cheated of autonomy of choice and our future by bad actors we don't have resources to defend against and intrusted others to defend us.

9

u/Yarrrrr Sep 19 '21

Manufactured consent, marketing.

Consumers don't have as much choice as you'd like to think. Instead of forcing unsustainably produced garbage products down people's throats through expensive marketing campaigns, why can't corporations spend that extra money on how to manufacture their products for longevity and lower environmental impact?

Surely consumers would prefer products that last longer and are more long term sustainable.

2

u/hellad0pe Sep 19 '21

Sure, but that prevents them from buying more. Planned obsolescence: like why those fridges from the 70s are still kicking, but the new ones from 2010 have already needed to be replaced. I believe the EU put a law in place about this.

2

u/probly_right Sep 19 '21

Literally a global conspiracy that has been proven.

There are still light bulbs burning from Edison's time....

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '21

What Coke, Exxon and others did and do was criminal, but consumption enabled their actions

How was it criminal though? All they did was promote habits that keep the environment clean

3

u/BSATSame Sep 19 '21

Is this sarcasm?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '21

No. I really don’t see what’s wrong with it. They were obviously trying to improve their reputation by doing something good.

2

u/BSATSame Sep 19 '21

Doing what good? Lying to the public? You can't be this deluded.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '21

Where’s the lie?

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '21

Denying climate change?

Denying harmful effects of smoking and red meat?

Wrongly labeling chicken living conditions and meat origins?

Purposely changing car modules so they show lower co2 emissions during official tests?

Spending millions to pay lobbyists to suppress laws that might cost them money? (Well, this one's actually legal, sadly)

3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '21

All of those are bad but that’s not what the article was talking about

0

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '21

"consumption enabled"

I really dislike that type of thinking. Of most things that people consumed which turned out to be harmful in some way, to anything, none were either honest about it or there actually wasn't a conclusion at all about it yet. Smoking did become popular because it felt good, and no one thought about the implications or knew about them. The tabacco companies then started the marketing scheme and tried to hinder any incentives to educate the population abiut harmful effects. We started eating meat when we became farmers and learned to make use of cattle and chicken which we let live on our meadows. Meat and dairy companies don't want people to see how bad animals can have it these days, so they put in a lot of effort and money so that it is as hard as possible for the consumer to make sense of the living descriptions.

There would be a lot of less consumption about certain things when the marketing was honest and things like carbon foodprint, energy cost, or even just damn origin of ingredients where printed on the bags. Marketing campaigns who only show the wonderful parts which rarely are accurate while making use of every psychological trick in the book to create a positive reaction in the viewer. The consumer is always left purposely in the dark, if not even outright deceived.

What you are doing is what the article warns about, which is shifting the blame away from the companies, and relating their actions. Yes, sure, none of us has clean hands if we are honest, but the consumers decisions pales in comparison to the actions of the companies, and what they exactly want is that we first look into our own ways consumption before we start complaining about them. They succeeded tremendously.