It's just another way to blame "personal responsibility", which of course only applies to the working/middle class, and never does a company need to be responsible and held to account. Great video as always!
Corporations are people, but they're exempt from personal responsibility to the extent that they're above the justice system that holds us non-corporation people to account.
@@peacelovebrad No they aren’t. A corporation is an entity, a huge body of people, but the people with the power that move the corporation are a few at the very top.
@@appropriate-channelname3049 And they produce the emissions before they sell products to us, they have a part to play too. This does not mean that we should despair as neither alone could change things, but rather, we should take a comprehensive approach to crack down on consumerism from both the supply and demand end of the production chain.
@@appropriate-channelname3049 ....by choosing to survive in a market economy. From the video: "your limitations as a consumer mean that things outside of your control get in the way of even the best intentions".
My professor for my Environmental Issues and Changes that I took last semester constantly repeated in order to drill it into our heads that “the greatest scam in history is gas and oil companies convincing everybody that climate change is their own fault and that it is up you as an individual to fix climate change.”
@@nenmaster5218hot take: Socialism RU-vidrs are the scummiest people on RU-vid. They sell a lie and a false utopia blame problems on capitalism then refuse to follow said principles themselves.
@@nenmaster5218 socialism is bad. Capitalism didn't tell me that. Living in china for 5 years did. Communism and socialism are pretty similar. China has many issues although it is filled with capitalism now it's not that free. The market is all controlled by the government which is in line with socialism and communism. You can't have to much wealth or you will be arrested. It's not much of a great thing if you want to have nice things.
It’s so sick , when I was in grade school in the 2000s the whole recycling/ “reduce your carbon footprint” craze I feel had kicked in at full effect. They mandated recycling bins in all classrooms when I was in the third or fourth grade. Being a kid who loved animals and nature I bought into it hard. I would pickup cans and any other litter anywhere I saw it and carry it to the trash can, I encouraged people to recycle. Sad to see that childish/naive yet well meaning feeling of making a difference slowly diminish with time. As I grew older the whole environmentally friendly craze only grew yet I would look around and nothing seemed to change , it seemed as though these things were getting worse. To a child it was incredibly disheartening and confusing. Such a disgusting thing to sell people this notion that they could make a difference while perpetuating the behavior in the background that was actually making things worse the whole time. The difference people were trying to make was almost negligible while the real root of the problem only persisted.
@@DarkDeepGreen Yes it’s not nothing , I understand that any significant number of individuals who make it a point to conserve and recycle can make a difference. The nasty part is selling it as a way to stop what’s happening while simultaneously continuing the practices that are causing the majority of the problems. Economic and political wise there should have been major changes ages ago. It seems the whole eco friendly thing was simply a distraction that made a small to decent difference that proves rather negligible in light of the fact that it served the purpose of distracting the wider public from becoming privy to the more serious issues fueling the problem in the background. Ones that they
I know man, this is so true. I was much luckier. In my school we were encouraged to bring as much plastic as we could and dump in in a nearby lake. During lessons we just poured acid out of our windows. We were allowed to dump any kind of waste anywhere. Didn't even need to visit toilet to have a shit, simply did in on the desk. After the classes we all went to a park cut down trees and burned them, adding gasoline and tires. We were true to our nature and had a great fulfilling life.
@@RandomHelicopter Recycling isnt so simple too, we should do this, but the problem is what is happening with our trash after its send away. Thare are no capabilities to recicle most of trash, if I remember correctly about 60% of segregated plastic is send to another countries like China to ulitize, and end up getting throw into the ocean...
Sadly, by design so that they could push this, humans are a cancerous scourge on the planet, narrative and deflect blame from the polluting factories, corporations and rich lizards with their huge carbon footprint crapulent lifestyles!
While it’s important to be environmentally conscious and responsible, people need to stop lumping regular people with corporations, politicians, and the over consuming rich.
Right? I don't own a store that ships fresh corn to the Midwest only to have it thrown out because it's inferior to what you can buy from local farmers on every other street corner. I know some ship it in, too, but if you know a farmer, you don't have to worry about that. Tends to be cheaper, too. Their faulty distribution isn't the consumers fault.
Yeah, in capitalistic economy, "demands" are created artificially, that's why there are so much wastes. Contrary to what some people believed, corporations didn't exist because there are customers demanding them (you can't have a customer when you don't have the product or service), but rather because the founder came up with something you don't know you "need," then marketed it. If they're big enough, they'll influence the economy in a way that you'll have to buy their products or you can't participate in the society, even if you're consciously aware of it. For example, I have lived without a smartphone before, I can do it again (and I rarely use them on my own accord anyway), if not because that social connection and jobs all required it. If there are only two choices, consume or die, then you don't have a choice, it's just a pure coercion.
Wasn't it something like a single car factory produces more emissions than the entire population of NYC's individual consumption choices? I don't remember the specifics.
Okay, a LoL RU-vidr, that recently makes genshin content, somehow commented, in the same video that I watch, while I watch both channels you have. Wtf is the odds of this.
@@rubberwoody wait I'm confused here, isn't the big plant working for consumers en masse in some way or the other? How can the plant be seen separately from its customers?
I like how you brought up the fact that our infrastructure is mainly car-centric, which inherently makes walking or cycling very difficult. Take it from me. I live in Houston, an infamously car-centric city. Believe me, places are so spaced out that it’s impossible to get to these places without a car and even dangerous to walk or cycle to those places.
That's indeed a huge problem, actually infuriating that walking has been made hazardous, and there need to be structural change. But in the meanwhile, instead of shifting the blame on companies or capitalism or some other scapegoat conceptualized as part of an exogroup as this video does, things would be quite different if people realized and accepted carpooling works, cuts emissions vastly, reduces traffic and room needed for parking, and thus can free up lanes to turn into bike lanes or made at least safe to work (granted, it's still not pleasant or efficient urban planning, but it's the first step to a transition).
Where I live in France, a car is all but pointless, save for the occasional long journey or pleasure-trip. Even then, there are few places that are not covered by some form of public transport. I worked in the US for a while and was provided with a car by my employer. One day, I decided to walk to a shopping center. No sidewalks so, I just followed the road. No busses either. When I commented on the lack of sidewalk, people were shocked that I would even consider walking the, just under a mile, to the shop.
yes that is correct. Can I ask you take a trip to the Netherlands and see how that mostly car free country works. Buildings in France and many other countries were built before the invention of the car and thus, they are very compact and compressed making walking to the store on the SAME street you live on perfect!
Whenever I see a big oil company saying hey here's how to reduce your carbon footprint I just reply "I promise not to dump millions of gallons of oil into a local environment" Or "I promise not to hide the fact that this industry is killing the entire world for over forty years"
Totally agree but if something that can be changed personally u should be more conscious (like going fully plant-based ,using public transportation,travel more in railway ,less in aircraft, buying from thrift stores not from fast fashion brands,not buying natural jewellery (like blood diamond) instead, buy artificially made Jewellery,etc.
@@LillyGamesx Did you know it was British Petroleum, amongst other companies, who were the official sponsors, if there can be such a thing, of the invasion of Iraq? And as this video rightly points out, Exxon was the one doing all the cutting edge climate research back in the 70s. They were among with first ones to understand the effects that their industry would have on the climate though instead systemically hid it because it would have dug into their profits. They buried that information, they had it and chose not to make it public. They said this is for internal eyes only, we're going to keep doing this despite the fact that we know what's coming down the pike and launched into one of the most expensive propaganda campaigns in human history to cover up the fact that what they were doing was essentially amounting to murder of millions of people over the course of the next decades. 🤔And they accuse Marxism of being inherently violent.
This mentality is totally counter-productive. realistically, we know that capitalism is not going to falter (at least not in the current climate). The idea that we can do nothing against the production of industrialists is completely false, it is also an illusion of the 1% to be able to exploit the worst resources at the best price. WE HAVE THE BOYCOTT. We can stop industries from using the most proportionately devastating resources (like red meat which is literally responsible for more greenhouse gases than all transportation combined. Or stuff like palm oil which destroys parts of the Amazon extremely quickly). We just have to organize COLLECTIVE movements of massive boycott and the industries will be forced to change their offers. (On the other hand, it requires education of the population on consumer products). Yes, it's "unfair" but it's literally the only real thing we can do NOW, other than complain about capitalism and do nothing.
This is no different than the goals of plastic companies promoting recycling. Recycling alleviated people's guilt and the carbon footprint highlights consumer's guilt. Anything to shift the blame away from those who are truly responsible; corporations.
It is pretty astounding to witness just how many people have been lulled into a false sense of security by the action of recycling. For example, my mother views it as a cardinal sin to place a plastic bottle into the regular rubbish bin. And yet, does not think twice about buying cheap plastic junk that will easily break within months.
Also reminded me of how fast food restaurants were behind the push for anti-littering campaigns. All their stuff came in disposable wrappers that were ending up on the ground and they started getting some heat for their choice to use that sort of packaging. So they just shifted the blame on the consumer.
@@timsmith854 ngl i used to be quite particular about making sure any and all products i used got into the recycling..that is until i learned just how much of it doesn't actually get recycled anyway :/
You're mixing how corporations and governments handle recycling with recycling itself. Also, anybody who has the least bit of education on the subject would see that it's not _just_ about recycling - there is, e.g., also the need to minimize consumption where it's not needed, so we don't have to worry about more stuff to recycle ITFP
This reminds me of a "graphic novel" I read as a kid. The world was polluted to near toxically fatal levels because of the profit motive methods of the Owner class. Rather than address the pollution output of his factories and industries, a very wealthy man developed a "suspended animation" unit for himself and put himself in hibernation until that future time when mankind had solved the pollution problem. Leaving humanity to whatever fate happened. When he awoke, hoping to find a clean unpolluted world, he exited the chamber his unit was in only to find the world filled with toxic atmospheric pollutants and NO PEOPLE. As he was dying he found a plaque thanking and honoring him for the money he "donated" to building spaceships to get people to safety on a pristine new world. Viewing his indifference to the plight of the people, those people had just "appropriated" his assets and used them to discover and utilize the necessary technologies to leave earth, leaving it to him and people like him to 'survive' in the world he and his kind had killed.
These corporations always want to talk about personal responsibility but never about community responsibility. It's like me spilling a glass of water but then they dump thousands of gallons of water but blame me for the spill.
Exactly and precisely are the same thing. If it's not precisely, it's similar. Similar is equivalent to "like" so I correct your incorrect correction and raise you 4 years in a correctional facility.
I would bet you also misuse the word "literally " and " conspiracy " because you're too lazy to look up the definitions and you are satisfied with just mimicking the context you've heard them in.
I've been saying this for years and how paying a voluntary "carbon tax" to offset your footprint is an obvious grift. Great analysis and coverage as usual Second Thought.✌️
I proudly failed a core subject at university which had a major assignment asking me to write about Carbon footprints in a positive light. I knew it was bullshit then, but I could not articulate why. This helps me so much.
So they only wanted your opinion in a positive light and no mention of the major drawbacks from it, probably wanted to display it to influence people about their scam.
@@michaelwalsh9145 Or maybe they were recruiting for a PR company. It was classified as a Human Geography subject which meant I couldn't put an alternate position like in a Humanities or Social Science subject, but I couldn't attempt to disprove it like in a Science subject. I've later realized that the reason I had such low self confidence in life was not my fault... it's to keep people from believing in themselves enough to question the bullshit.
Urgh. I am in the last semester of an enviro science degree and we have a unit in environmental impact assessment (part of the approvals process for projects in a lot of the world) and our lecturer keeps on talking about how great!!! the system is!!! and then goes on to give her another example of it not working and none of it actually being effective. Then he runs down China for being "undemocratic" while talking about how they're actually having some small (very small and inadequate to be clear) successes. It's incredibly frustrating, but then again he's a super arrogant arsehole so I'm not exactly shocked.
Anthropogenic Climate Change is a lie being used to create a one world government and the One World Religion of pantheism with the pope still at the helm. It's Luciferian deception straight out of the UN.
Even if we reduce our carbon footprint significantly, oil companies will produce more CO2 emissions than us. It sounds contradictory that it’s the consumer’s fault and never the companies.
Of course it is the fault of thoses compagny but this mentality is totally counter-productive. I mean realistically, we know that capitalism is not going to falter (at least not in the current climate). And the idea that we can do nothing against the production of industrialists is in fact false, i would even say that also part of an illusion of the 1% to be able to exploit the worst resources at the best price. WE HAVE THE BOYCOTT. We can stop industries from using the most proportionately devastating resources (like red meat which is literally responsible for more greenhouse gases than all transportation combined. Or stuff like palm oil which destroys parts of the Amazon extremely quickly). We just have to organize COLLECTIVE movements of massive boycott and the industries will be forced to change their offers. (On the other hand, it requires education of the population on consumer products). Yes, it's "unfair" but it's literally the only real thing we can do NOW, other than complain about capitalism and do nothing.
@@arphangh5409 transportation isn’t the issue, other uses of fossil fuels like electricity generation is, and those issues cannot be addressed by individuals, changing into renewable energy is something that can only be done at a systemic level. In a country of 300 million people, a boycott of the meat industry large enough to to affect them simply will never happen. The US isn’t even the largest consumer of meat, climate change is not an issue that can be addressed by a single country, and it cannot be solved under capitalism. “You cannot dismantle the master’s house using the master’s tools”
Maybe stop forcing us back to driving to the office 5 days a week, build better buildings/materials and stop buying junk/ fast fashion/ planned obsolesce at stores..... oh wait, we need to keep doing that to 'stimulate the economy' and just 'tax it' with 'carbon footprint'
I took that test 3 times making me better and better "behaved" ( eg live in a shared household of 10 & only have solar power, walk everywhere, eat only local food, etc) and it made no difference, I was still a problem. So, I figured it was lying.
One of the things I envy most about Europe, aside from healthcare, education etc, is the fact that their cities are designed to be mostly walkable and conducive for public transportation. Its ridiculous how much valuable space is devoted to just parking cars in the US.
Of course, not all of Europe is the same - the Netherlands are very pro-pedestrian and pro-cyclist, and recently Paris elected a new mayor that is planning to make the city more pedestrian and cyclist friendly. But then you have countries like Ireland that are extremely car-centric. Dublin is the only European capital city without a metro line - even Bucharest (in Romania) has one! Heck, even a basic tramline was only constructed fairly recently due to the unbearable traffic congestion, but no other Irish city has one. Oh, and trains are virtually non-existent in Ireland (they do exist, but literally no-one uses them). Even taking the bus is pretty expensive, and there is no basic ticket system - if you don't have a so-called leapcard, you have to pay the fare in cash onboard to the bus driver, which is often very slow and inefficient, resulting in buses arriving several minutes late most of the time. Source: I currently live in Ireland.
They weren’t designed, they evolved that way. You’re forgetting that most european cities have been there for centuries or millennia, evolving from a time when most people were forced to walk around or at best use a horse. By the time cars came along the basic way these cities looked and worked was laid down, and due to economic circumstances cars didn’t catch on for a long while compared to America. Also, there is the question of space. Much of Europe is mountains, hills and small plains. There aren’t many places in Europe that are huge open wide areas like in the United States, where all you see until the horizon is a boring, flat plain. Thus, the idea of building with huge spaces in between places, areas, buildings with wide roads is an impossibility for most of Europe even if you were to design a city from scratch. The only places this is more feasible are in France, Germany, Poland and some parts in Italy, Spain or the UK, but still very limited. On the reverse in the USA it would be quite insane to design cities to be more compact when there is space. That isn’t a good idea, especially when there is no need. Of course the fact that there is no public transportation, or that it’s worthless is also a problem. But anyone who’s lived their whole lives having to bunch himself up with others, smelling their breath and farts will tell you they’d rather have a car. So really, it’s pick your poison... do you have a monogamous relationship with your wife because you want the security, affection and dedication of that, or do you serve her boyfriend tea before he rails her because others want a shot at that ass and you mustn’t be an egotistical, patriarchal pig?
European cities have also been ruined with the construction of car infrastructure. Sure, the air pollution is not as bad as say Los Angeles -- yet, but still pretty bad. Public transport construction has not been keeping up with population growth, (because the politicians are in the car lobby's pockets) which forces people to buy more cars that consequently also worsen the unbearable noise pollution. Not to mention how most deadly accidents are car-related. They are a serious safety hazard for pedestrains and cyclists. I hate cars (in cities) so much. Just look at pictures from European cities before cars and after those metal boxes of death got introduced. Pedestrians had so much freedom to move. Now, we are forced to snake around overcrowded narrow footpaths, while cars get all the space. This is especially frustrating, considering the pre-car era is still in living memory for many boomers, which have been tricked into this car shit and now we young people are paying the price for it with increased amounts of cancers, accident fatalities and of course climate change. To top that off, boomers are consistently the most reactionary, biggest climate deniers.
I'm at the University of Toronto right now finishing the last year of my political science undergrad. One concept which has come up a lot this year (especially in my collective action class) is co-optation. I've become much more familiar with the term than I was before this school year. It has become much more clear to me how often co-optation of terms, ideas and movements is within our society. The use of the term "carbon footprint" by BP could be seen as co-optation and from BP's perspective, a good idea. Recognize the issue, but do nothing themselves to work towards solving the issue.
Did you see last week's video "How Capitalism Destroys Radical Movements"? What it talked about sounds exactly like what you describe as co-optation, can you confirm if it is the same thing?
@@Hubcool367 yes, that would be co-optation. Co-optation is best defined by Gamson in his work on political change. When there is a group challenging the status quo/political establishment, there are 4 possible outcomes for their success. Firstly, their movement can either be recognized or not recognized. Secondly, they can either gain or not gain new advantages as a result of their political action. Co-optation is the scenario where the movement is recognized by the political establishment, but no new advantages are gained. That would reflect the BLM road in DC. The mayor recognized the BLM movement with that road mural, but didn't give any substantive new advantages to them.
I agree about the co-optation stuff but the message of the video is kida counter-productive. Like realistically, we know that capitalism is not going to falter (at least not in the current climate). The idea that we can do nothing against the production of industrialists is completely false. And it is also part of the illusion of the 1% to be able to exploit the worst resources at the best price. WE HAVE THE BOYCOTT. we can stop industries from using the most proportionately devastating resources (like red meat which is literally responsible for more greenhouse gases than all transportation combined. Or stuff like palm oil which destroys parts of the Amazon extremely quickly). We just have to organize COLLECTIVE movements of massive boycott and the industries will be forced to change their offers. (On the other hand, it requires education of the population on consumer products). Yes, it's "unfair" but it's literally the only real thing we can do NOW, other than complain about capitalism and do nothing. Climate change ins't going to wait the end of capitalism, and his consequances are irreversable
Offtopic to your comment, I am someone going into uni and am considering Poli Sci. Should I do it? Pros? Cons? I'm sure it's far less difficult than STEM classes, but I'd wish to go into some sort of occupation regarding politics.
Thank you for making this video, I have been telling people for years that the "carbon footprint" thing is scaled for big businesses, not the individual. I'm glad that there is finally a cohesive video I can show people now.
Now I have a much better understanding of the intense anger and annoyance I felt but couldn't put my finger on what was causing it when I was forced to do a Carbon Footprint quiz in school.
Surely hiding information on something this big is a massive crime, no? Practices that could quite literally have human civilization take a tragic turn.
When you put it that way, it sounds like a crime against humanity of sorts. You know, knowing you're helping in a big way to irreversably damage the planet we all live on and pretend it's not your fault.
Crimes done in service of capital aren't a crime in capitalist society. Don't expect any of the ghouls who valued profits over the planet to face any consequences ever.
I’m tired of feeling like there is nothing I can do. I’m tired of feeling like Nietzsche’s “Last Man” who just gratifies his pleasures to distract himself from an inevitable destruction instead of doing something to prevent it. We are all part of something bigger than ourselves whether we wish we were or not. Individually there isn’t much we can do, but if we each just try: if we each just try to live a little kinder; think a little harder; listen a little more; talk a little louder; care a little more, we can take back what it means to be human. I don’t think any of us are happy with the way things are. None of us would have clicked on this video in the series of dopamine rushes if we were, if we didn’t want to take out our pacifiers and hear the truth of what’s happening. We live in the age of information and media, which means our attention is constantly occupied and we are being fed what we want to hear. I wish I was free of that, but RU-vid has its claws sunk deep in me. The same goes for this video, I wanted to hear we can change things together, that there is hope. There is a little part of each of us that screams for things to change as we accept the status quo. As I occupy myself with diversions so I can avoid the ugly truths of my complacency and our world’s brokenness, a little part of me wants to care, wants to be human and a person again, wants to not just be a number, an investment, and a data profile. That’s how we stop this, things won’t get better until we start listening to the strength inside of our hearts we want to ignore and exchange for comfort. If we do that together, we can be unstoppable.
Unstoppable. So as long as the human population of finite planet Earth grows exponentially toward infinity (as it is), there is no such thing as sustainability. "Sustainable" seems utterly pointless to me, without addressing population growth.
Back when plastic bags were invented, they were made thick and lasted longer. People were meant to reuse them and take them to the grocery store to reuse. But then, the plastic bag manufacturers realised that if they made the plastic bags thinner, they wouldn't last as long, and shops will have to keep on using them. This resulted in one use plastic bags. As a result, these flimsy plastic bags filled up the landfills. Then, the environmentalists pressured the grocery stores to stop using plastic bags and switch to paper bags instead. But the reality is that the process of making paper bags is even more damaging to the environment than making plastic bags.
They charge you 5 cents per bag at one chain near me. Plastic bags are illegal. You have to use cloth bags(something I notice most people who are well off do" or you have to use some flimsy crappy paper bag which tears very easily. When they use virtue signaling to shame you into doing something, be afraid. They are getting ready to screw you.
I remember seeing that BP commercial as a teen and thinking it was absolute garbage what they were doing. It really says something about a company when they release something and you can only see the negative connotations from it. They would rather pit others against themselves than to ever reduce on anything they have.
When you realize that your whole life is basically an abusive relationship and the ones responsible for all of the worlds problems are the abusive partner and you have no other choice.
I have been feeling guilty for how much I drive and how much trash I make. I would happily take a bus or train but there is no bus system in my city. All the "green" things are too expensive. I'm broke getting my food from food stamps. If being environmentally responsible was in my grasp I would. I really appreciate this video that puts it into perspective that It is not because of my moral failing.
Same. Had to buy a vehicle ten years ago because I was travelling for work at nighttimes in places where there are no trains and buses only drive during the day.
A lot of the green products are actually greenwashed bullshit marketing propaganda anyways. The most environmentally conscious option is not to impulse buy, and see if you have the option to repair or obtain a used alternative, before buying a new one.
I can't stand that people blame individuals and let companies off the hook. Yes, individual actions matter but we can't solve climate change without government and corporate change. (I'm adding an example because lots of people are confused) People do need to eat less meat in order to slow climate change and a lot of people tell others to eat vegan or vegetarian products. But these are often expensive and hard to access to people in poverty or food deserts. And despite the push to vegan the removal subsidy for meat or a subsidy for plant-based products hasn't really been discussed.
But in a way it is true we vote with our wallets which world we want to live in, if people choose to stop buying polluting products no company will continue making them. There is no way to reduce pollution without reducing our consumption.
@@carlosgomezsoza Right. Which makes it very unlikely without corporate and government change since it is always a minority that has the awareness/ability to stop funding those companies and products.
I remember taking a mandatory carbon footprint quiz in elementary school. I felt really bad because it said something like we would need 2.5 Earths to sustain ourselves if everyone lived like me, but I'm glad to know now that it was bs.
@@Inconito___ not if he's financially unstable where he relies on the cheaper but less environmentally friendly products. The problem is fundamentally a systematic one. If you live in that same system that causes these types of issues, then you cannot avoid making decisions that will consequently cause those issues as well.
It’s messed up to put that responsibility on a literal child. On the bright side it exposes the disparity in our world, not caused by you, but by those who gain from the disparity. Your story is almost a parallel to the one in the video. You were a child when you were given that test. You had some decisions but your carbon footprint was largely determined by what your family made available to you. In the same way, your family made decisions based on what was made practically available to them. To blame you for your parents’ carbon footprint is like blaming your parents for the carbon footprint the companies in power incentivized them to have.
I 100% agree with you as Carbon Footprint as a marketing tool to shift blame. At the same time, as long as we are living within such a polluting economy and we have to choose between lesser evils to cover our basic needs. Being aware of our personal choices and their consequences is very much important. I have heard the excuse "My impact is minimal, so I can do whatever I want, it doesn't change anything anyway." too often. We need to change the system, yes, but we still need to change our choices within the system as well. We can not expect to buy the same products and consume the same goods, but suddenly it is going to be ecologically fine. When we change the system at the whole, we cannot expect to keep the products of the old system.
If corporations and their puppets like to preach about personal responsibility so much then why not take their own words to heart and switch their business models to be more environmentally sustainable?
They for sure should... the problem is our current economical model. If you do something that drives your costs up, it'll benefit the competitors who don't give a shit about environment.. The current model rewards those who are the most ruthless and can cut the most corners without getting caught. This is why we need a deeper change.
I did not see the line "Elon musk is a dweeb and his cars thirst for blood" coming. It was great. Thanks for giving me a legitimate laugh while informing me.
This is one of the reasons why we need more information on the things we are taught. I first heard the term "carbon footprint" and in that context that each one of us has a responsibility to save the environment IN SCHOOL! I don't think it's entirely wrong but I just realized how this entire thing shifts the blame from the companies to the consumers. I'm so pissed off from all this guilt tripping from all fucking sides possible and it works on so many people. On that note: thanks for making this video. I feel like my eyes opened a bit more.
We need to go after The CEO's of The Fossil Fuel industry. For lying to the public for decades. Hold them accountable & make them reveal all the evidence they've had hidden.
@@Inconito___The would personal responsibility argument is a logical fallacy though. It muddies the water on the whole climate change debate. Pointing out relevant contradictions is not a logical fallacy.
10:30 "It is infinitely more profitable to pollute than be sustainable" The lynchpin this all hangs on. You're not the first or last to say so, but hearing it every time really does give me chills.
Good video. Individuals are guilt tripped into conserving and recycling products while an hour of any typical factory wipes that effort out for hundreds of thousands of individuals, making the effort ultimately pointless. Having said that, I still recycle, reuse, conserve and remake stuff until it literally can't be used anymore. I do that because I think it's right. I know in the big picture, as long as corporations aren't held to account, it is absurdly pointless. That still does not stop me, for whatever other reasons.
There is few things more soul crushing than learning all of this stuff started several decades before my birth, and the hopelessness that comes with knowing there is very little I can do about it. Thank you for sharing this information, painful as it is (for me) to learn about it!
@Jahtzee That is the point of this video. There IS nothing you can do about it. There is nothing I can do about it, but together, if we are willing to see through the lies and misdirection and collectively decided we want things to change, we CAN make a difference. Collective action is just a sum of individual action, in this case individually doing what you can to speak up, vote, spread awareness, fact check what you are told, and do what you can to foster dialogue, that my friend is how we can make a difference.
How many millions did Lenin and Stalin "extinct", a.k.a. genocide? Not forgetting about uncle Mao and 100+ million dead, Pol Pot, Castro, Che, and many other killing their own people, minorities, destroying whole cultures, etc.
@@jjjiljjjj I'm not the one been fed lies. My father and his father were communists. I grew up with access to all sorts of books from the USSR, volumes on Lenin, all the different Commie propaganda from different countries in the Eastern Europe. You have no idea who I am and what I know! Were the nazis in revolutionary Russia in 1917-1930? How about all the people Stalin himself send to the Gulags? And the Ukranians dying of starvation? How about the millions killed by Mao and his crew in China? Pol Pot? No Nazis in Asia since the 1940's! You're delusional!
My family was heavily invested in oil and gas production, I even worked for a gas pipeline company saving money to attend college to study ecology. I was seen as an outcast ever since.
@@michimatsch5862 wait... not only are consumers not responsible in any meaningful way but employees either? is that what is being said here? who IS responsible in your eyes?
Nothing wrong with that. You could also work for a solar farm project which ends up using photovoltaic panels made by literal concentration camp slaves in China.
An individual thing that isn't often mentioned is to opt out of a consumer logic as much as possible. Instead of buying green washed stuff, buy less, reuse, repair, save money. It's both a little middle finger to the capitalist class and an ecological way to live, and I suspect this is how we will interact with commodities in a post-capitalist world. Of course, overconsumption is a systemic issue and individual action can only go so far, but consuming ''less'' is a better individual path of action than consuming ''better''.
I noticed the scam when I took a couple of those tests and one called me almost a "Hero for the environment" and another basically said that I was "the worst polluter to ever pollute" and so on.
i had a class on sustainability last sem that made me calculate my carbon footprint and propose ways to reduce it further, all while there was no mention of the disproportionate role corporates play in global emissions, as promoted by capitalism... it really frustrated and disgusted me that i had to stifle my dignity to pledge to "eat more plant-based diets and cut down meat from my diet" or that "i will limit my online shopping to 1 purchase every 3 month instead of 1", for a grade, all while i already make a personal effort to cut beef from my diet, take public transport, limit electricity usage at home, and buy second hand clothing. and for what? for me to reduce my measly personal contribution to carbon emissions from simply existing by another 5-10%, while a single cruise ship alone contribute the emissions of a million cars, or that the US military releases emissions the level of entire countries??
The main problem is that any public policy that requires hundreds of millions of people to consistently do the right thing voluntarily is a policy that is engineered for failure. Instead, policies should be aimed at restructuring the ways a few hundred companies run their businesses (while subsidizing the costs incurred from this restructuring) in order to for them to be run more ethically, more sustainably, and more equitably. This is probably minor, but in the quote you showed on scree from Matt Huebner, your audio said "ecological footprint" but the text on screen read "ideological footprint". Which is it?
I totaly disagree. The only realistic and TANGIBLE option RIGHT NOW to fight the big compagny destructiv environnemental consaquences is massives public boycott mouvements. This mentality is even totally counter-productive. I mean realistically, we know that capitalism is not going away soon (at least not in the current climate). The idea that we can do nothing against the production of industrialists is completely false, it is also an illusion of the 1% to be able to exploit the worst resources at the best price. WE HAVE THE BOYCOTT. we actually can stop industries from using the most proportionately devastating resources (like red meat which is literally responsible for more greenhouse gases than all transportation combined. Or stuff like palm oil which destroys parts of the Amazon extremely quickly). We just have to organize COLLECTIVE movements of massive boycott and the industries will be forced to change their offers. (On the other hand, it requires education of the population on consumer products). Yes, it's "unfair" but it's literally the only real thing we can do NOW, other than complain about capitalism and do nothing.
@@arphangh5409 the thing is, is boycotts on a national scale, just lead to companies shifting to other nations. revolution is the way to go. till then, reforms that lead to a more conducive environment for revolution are needed.
@@arphangh5409 You are confusing grassroots organization from public policy i.e. legislation, executive orders, administrative agendas, etc. It cannot be a matter of societal sustainability to rely on hundreds of millions of people consistently making hundreds of millions of "good" choices voluntarily. "Good" is itself difficult to define in this space as illustrated in the video. Moreover, as the video points out, billions of people were forced to suppress their economic output and therefore their carbon emissions...and it was barely a dent in the global system. There is no way to affect the kind of change that is needed from within the system. The system must be dismantled and rebuilt with ecological balance and mutualism at the center.
@@ethanstump Not not necessarily, it is alway going to be more profitable to big compagny to actually some of the problematics ressources their using than losing an entire wave of consumers. In fact it's actually pretty easy to make a consummerist trend influancial and with strategy we can stop massive eco-destructive consequences by changing very fews key things. Whereas the path to a socialiste society requires massive structural changes in the economy. And i totaly agree that we can already forget the reformative approche with our actual pseudo democratic corporacratie. Of course we should unionize workers toward this goal and stuff, but that shouldn't stop us from influancing the actual system. Because "ending capitalisme" through syndicalist revolutionor or just ... waiting for capitalisme to "fail" (again) is going to take time and we dont have time. Climate change is already happening since some time already and it's consequences are irreversible. Even after implenting our eco-freindly socialist systeme, alot of the ecological consequences will be felt like forever. We need to do everything we CAN rn even by using market in strategic ways
I worked for a grocery store which bragged about how sustainable they were for selling reusable bags to clients, but which hid their paper bags from the public eye and didn't have a recycling bin in the employee break room.
Haven't seen you in a while, but you have been producing great quality content nonetheless. Plus I checked your podcast. It's not as worthless as you make it out to be. Great work as always!
This is the second thought video every single Biology, AP Envorinmental Science, Environmental Science, Marine Science, and Other science teachers need to watch. Even Mr C needs to watch this video.
Thank you! I am saying this for years now! It is always the consumer and never the company. And for all the people who will say "But you consume, so the company produces": Companys do NOT produce sustainable, just as "second Thought" just said, it is not profitable. And exactly this has to change!
Another great video! I’m tired of companies trying to shift the blame onto the consumer. It’s scummy. The sad thing is, it’s sometimes hard to realize that’s what they’re doing.
Haven't watched this yet but this whole campaign reeks of "Recycle, Reduce, Reuse" to me. We could recycle 100% of the things in our home that have that little recycle triangle at the bottom but so long as it's cheaper to just make new plastic there's no incentive for anyone to do otherwise. Having said that, if someone wants to plant 100 trees, I'm not going to tell them no. However, if I had a large parcel of land and was interested in future logging of farmed trees, I wouldn't mind selling someone the right to pay to plant them...
There are a lot of narratives out there that make me really mad. I know for sure that we are being lied to or at least being concealed from the truth. It gets harder to trust such a narrative from some companies who in reality have a hidden agenda.
Most indigenous cultures understand we shouldn’t take more than the land can provide . Unfortunately modern capitalistic society see nature as mere resources. We are part of nature, not God of nature. Great vid as usual.
“Personal responsibility” exists at a more privileged level. And it’s weird how some environmentally concerned people always use this talking point to defend the biggest driver of this problem whenever people point this out.
@@claudiax233 it all stems from the hyper individualistic notion that capitalism has perpetrated in order to justify the whole "grinned" notion along with meritocracy. It's sad really
I like the clip of a woman at the grocery store buying organic produced wrapped in plastic, holding it up to her nose, and then... smelling the plastic? The weird imagery aside, it's an excellent example of how petroleum products are unavoidable, even when you go out of your way to buy the supposedly eco-friendly products. Here's a hint - if it comes wrapped in plastic, it's already not "eco-friendly." I mean, the "organics" market itself is sketchy at best and a scam at worst, but I'm sure ppl here will get what I'm talking about.
Ah yes, organic food because the plebs eat synthetic food... Organic food marketing is dumb because anything you grow, cultivate or raise is organic already since it comes from a live organism.
Organics aren't a scam. People don't actually know "organic" means. For a product to be labelled as organic, the places where the product was made has to have been checked by the government. However, you are right that organic things aren't better than other foods. It isn't scummy itself, but the general public doesn't understand exactly what organic means.
its called by reusable hemp bags for produce instead and not supporting all these companies that dont give a shit about our enviroment BUT GUESS WHAT you can buy sustainable products to replace the bad ones.
@@gypsycat8627 Depends on where you are. In unfortunately large sections of my state? Walmart is the only option for groceries unless you want to drive more than an hour and a half. And frankly, the vast majority of products come wrapped in plastic. And outside food products? It's near universal that it'll come wrapped in plastic with only a few exceptions like fabric or clothing (although petroleum products are often used in fabric blends and in clothing).
I remeber having to do the carbon footprint test in middle school. I should not be surprised we live in the world we do now. Almost the entire class tried to see how bad of a score they could get to see how many "Earth's" need to support thier way of life. These kids are adults now wonder what they think now
They would agree. A teacher who dares question 2 black ppl having Asian and white babies who wandered off to bang apes and never came home, they would be fired on the spot in many States
@@jayz8839 Yeah, or the teacher who dares question the 2 white people having babies with their sisters who wandered off to shoot up schools and never get caught would be fired on the spot...
The dilemma is "How can politicians have the power and authority to directly stop emissions, which we the people would hate even if we support it, while not having the power and authority to do other decisions we hate that are actually bad decisions?"
This is a good one. I'm constantly seeing these young people turning themselves in knots trying to figure out how to go "zero-waste" and even judging each other harshly for extremely minor infractions, saying that they technically have a choice if they cared enough. But we don't have a choice. Houses in my area need to be a certain size in order for the city to benefit from the property taxes. I can't buy a 900sq ft house unless it's far out of town and was built in the 1800s. So I'm in a house larger and more expensive than I wanted because it's close to my family and jobs. I'm heating and cooling the whole house because I guess closing too many vents is bad for the HVAC system. I don't have a lot of choices that would make a difference, but I guess I can buy a $60,000 electric car when they are available in my area and $25,000 in solar panels. It's not reasonable for the average person.
I mean obviously capitalism is going to limit your "eco-durable" options according to your classe, but most of the worst resources for climate used in consumer products are in fact totaly dispensable. And this mentality is totally counter-productive. I mean realistically, we know that capitalism is not going to falter (at least not in the current climate). And the idea that we can do nothing against the production of industrialists is completely false. I would enven say that this is also an illusion of the 1% to be able to exploit the worst resources at the best price. WE HAVE THE BOYCOTT. we can stop industries from using the most proportionately devastating resources (like red meat which is literally responsible for more greenhouse gases than all transportation combined. Or stuff like palm oil which destroys parts of the Amazon extremely quickly). We just have to organize COLLECTIVE movements of massive boycott and the industries will be forced to change their offers. (On the other hand, it requires education of the population on consumer products). Yes, it's "unfair" but it's literally the only real thing we can do NOW, other than complain about capitalism and do nothing. Climate change isn't waiting, his consequences are irreversible and we have no choice
I can't afford an EV even if the infrastructure were available. Not to mention the ethical dilemma the battery sourcing would come with it. Spew pollution every time I need to go somewhere? Or don't spew pollution but drive something that was only made possible by pregnant women and children in the Congo digging up cobalt? There's definitely an ethical discussion there. But more to your point, solar panels would be great if, again, I could afford them and I actually owned my house instead of rented...
@@arphangh5409 If you had the power to organize masses of people so large that you had the power to influence entire industries, why would you put your focus on boycotts? You're basically advocating for a political party whose only goal is to make destructive businesses a teensy bit less destructive. I disagree with the notion that capitalism isn't going to falter. It's faltering right now. We should be focusing our political will on establishing socialism, not making small business adjustments.
@@guy-sl3kr No capitalisme is more establish than ever and your delusional if you think otherwise. The thing is, you dont even need to organize masses of people to influence industruies. In fact it's pretty easy to make a consummerist trend influancial and with strategy we can stop massive eco-destructive consequences by changing very fews key things. Whereas the path to a socialiste society requires massive structural changes in the economy. And you can already forget the reformative approche with our actual pseudo democratic corporacratie. Of course we should unionize workers toward this goal and stuff, but that shouldn't stop us from influancing the actual system. Because "ending capitalisme" through syndicalisme or just ... waiting for it to "fail" (again) is going to take time and we dont have time. Climate change is already happening since some time already and it's consequences are irreversible. Enven after implenting our eco-freindly socialist systeme, alot of the ecological consequences will be felt like forever. We need to do everything we CAN rn even by using market in strategic ways
@@whogavehimafork wish we could just walk and bike everywhere. Come to think of it, where is the bicycle lobby? They could work with city govs to stop vehicle-centric design in favor of walking/biking. They even have electic bicycles already (if "electic" is to be the future). Buying an entirely new electric vehicle while building new electrical infrastructure is crazy. Just build things in walkable distances with safe bicycle infrastucture along side.
I live in a very liberal, Hippy state and I use a wheelchair. They haven’t made an electric vehicle that accommodates wheelchairs yet. Even if they did, how could we afford them? People in wheelchairs can’t ride bicycles everywhere. Some can for a little bit of physical therapy but how do I tow my wheelchair behind my bicycle? And I can imagine the harassment I’d get doing so. Many people below the poverty line can’t afford natural fibers, organic foods or perfectly green lifestyles. If you want me to do that, perhaps advocate giving the disabled a higher disability check?
I’ve been chromecasting your videos to the living room TV and my wife’s family has been really enjoying it. They’ve been feeling pretty disenfranchised politically lately, they seem stoked to have this line of thought have traction
If you pull yourself hard enough by the bootstraps then you will solve climate change. Pull a bit harder and you will see how spending more money to buy more stupid stuff actually helps the environment because it had a green emoji on the price tag.
I've had this same conversation so many times with people, and its always the same result, disbelief in who to blame or belief that individuals should still hold responsibility....
This youtube channel played a significant part in preparing and jump starting drastic change in myself and my life a few years back. My perspective is more clear. My love for others is less constrained. I am eternally thankful for the positive impact your efforts have had on my life despite never even knowing me. I know your messages can be a little melancholic for some people to digest but I eat this up like no tomorrow! You speak to the very core of my being and instigate positive change. Thank you.
Title got me kinda scared that this was going to be another "don't bother with recycling" pessimism, but as someone with a background in environmental studies, I must say this is very well explained, kudos
Its not mutually exclusive. We can both push for systemic changes that would benefit the environment, and also recognize how our personal choices affect the environment. It’s about consuming consciously and responsibly. Thrifting clothes, going vegan, and moving towards zero waste reduce your personal environmental footprints significantly
Excellent video. An environmental studies class I did also raised a point similar to this. They asked us to do one of these carbon footprint quizzes on several sites. When we came back together to discuss the results, the instructor showed none of it mattered, because the money from the taxes each of us pay already contributes to way more pollution than any of our individual footprints.
I get it for cars and electricity, but where are the structual barriers preventing us from stop eating animals? Nobody can force us what to eat, so this is solely our consumer choice.
My main problem with this argument is that many people take it as an excuse to not make any changes to their lifestyle. People end up in the mindset that "I'm too small to make a difference, so I won't bother doing anything".
Yeah it’s a difficult nuance to hold in mind all at once. “The concept of a carbon footprint was popularized by big polluters to serve their own needs and they hold a large part of the responsibility but at the same time my personal choices also do affect the environment”.
well, think of it this way: overpackaging is something you pay for. leaving things needlessly running will cost you more on the electric or water bill. And a car that doesnt need as much fuel will cost less to refuel or need to do so less often. So quite a bit of the more ecological things will also save up money. Small gestures are just good practices just like not littering. i just wouldnt make any big sacrifices because of it. Because even if you did zero emissions for the rest of your life, your impact would be negligible compared to what the big industries will do regardless of how people consume
@@youwot2430 Refreshed to see someone like this, people in the comments who want people to change and inconvenience their life without any benefit get annoying
Take 5 billion humans ...the total collective of First and second world countries produce almost all the co2 or 37 billion tons of co2...which is trapping lots of heat over heating planet earth.
100 companies - 70% of all greenhouse gases. Eat your hamburger and drive to your corner store instead of walking, a BP spill is going to ruin your neighborhood's entire year's worth of green living practises anyway.
Each individual still makes a difference by influencing others. Its not so much about the reduction of carbon emission our individual actions make. It's about how through our individual actions of making environmentally conscious decisions we create awareness of these issues, influence more and more people, and can eventually have enough momentum to push for those macro changes which will make the biggest impact.
To be honest, if everyone can just stop using petroleum for combustion then petroleum then emission would go down, however i doubt most people can afford to switch.
These big companies can only operate because people buy their goods. If the consumers reduce their demand for the products that these companies produce, then the companies will end up producing less emissions as they produce less of the product.
@@insertcreativenamehere7970 No amount of people can stop companies from being harmful to the environment if everybody wants to go against companies it's like going against a union but worse
This is right up there with employers pushing mental health responsibility on the individual when the company perpetuates the issue as the source of stress and imbalance-externalities at their finest along with asymmetric relationships.
This video explains in a great way that we need structural changes instead of individual actions. However, the carbon footprint has the benefits to make people realize the areas that really matter -transportation, food, housing etc. Individual actions are necessary too, but not enough. Once aware of it, people will turn more easily to collective action.
I get where he's coming from, but it isn't *infinitely* more profitable, and most importantly it doesn't have to be. Under capitalism it only needs to be more profitable. Capitalists would burn the planet to the ground for a 1% improvement.
Ok before this all starts 😂 I gotta rant about this carbon foot print. So I heard that the big oil companies actually finded most of the carbon footprint research, to scare regular consumers out of being more environmentally friendly. Why? Because its heavily inconvenient or straight up inaccessable for us peasants to really do much about our footprint. It also makes a lot of people completely against trying to be more enviornmentally friendly because reducing our personal footprints is so taxing, that wed have to drastically change our quality of life, and not everybody has that kind of money. We are told we shouldnt fly, we are told we need to have an electric car and that our normie cars reflect who we are as a person. When in reality, when we fly, we fly with many. And we dont have electric cars because theyre very expensive. When in fact these rich losers take their private jets regularily, own multiple cars, and own companies that hold the highest carbon producing companies. They also consume much more than the average person. We are told that we need to change our whole lifestyle; never eat meat, never take a flight, dont buy unsustainable clothes. While even sustainable clothes can be inaccessable to poorer classes and the fast fashion is usually all they can afford. The whole carbon footprint puts so much blame on the lower classes, and responsibility on the individual that change is really hard to make. Meanwhile these mega corporations like the oil companies, and amazon arent held responsible for their carbon footprint. Legislation to reduce carbon emissions is never passed to control them. But we have Biden telling all Americans that we have to be using electric cars. They only legislation that does pass usually controls the consumer. Ie higher gas taxes or the proposed carbon tax. Now think about how little these rich losers are taxed? Its usually minimal and I doubt theyll even pay it. But they want us poor folks to suffer the consequences of them destroying our earth, and of them consuming more than anybody. This is a major reason im against lobbying and the carbon footprint. They arent fair and they intentionally harm the average American. And I am super pro environment. I do what I can to be more friendly to our planet, like using reusable bags, and usually buying 2nd hand (usually cant afford more than goodwill anyways). But I cant feasibly own a tesla and those classist tesla pricks can screw off, because Im sure the electricity to charge those, usually comes from gas anyways. And major farm corps arent even held accountable ._. AND POOR PEOPLE USUALLY HAVE THE LOWEST CARBON FOOTPRINTS ANYWAYS
I'm an ICT sustainability advocate, and this entire video reads as if I could have written it for one of my talks. Well done team! It hit on every relevant point.
Thank you! Loved the video and the new direction you’re taking your editing it’s really interactive and keeps me focused better than most Marxist/Leninists and political commentators so thanks a lot.
I gave up my car over 20 years ago and use public transportation in a large city, and it's miserable. It also makes participating in almost anything other than work or getting groceries so onerous I simply don't do it. I greatly appreciate your videos and analysis.
@@Eckathor I live in Seattle, which has a far better public transit system than New Orleans, where I used to live, but it takes me three buses to get to work, 90 minutes, and I'm only going halfway across the city. A 3-hour commute every day, especially during a pandemic, is extremely wearying.
My uncle who recently died milked 15 cows. He made a living and a life of it. He was a Steward of the land long before that was talked about, and he didn’t understand what it meant. Both his girls went to college, he went for vacation every two or three years, saw the Great Wall and the pyramids. He was comparatively modest and humble, yet not poor. Just didn’t feel the need to spend big. Once told me, Boy, I can teach you anything, but not how to run or deal with debt, because I never did either. I think he did a lot for our climate. I take his life as a guidance. You can forget about our future if we remain materialistic. We need to learn to love, live on less, always do for others and let others do for us. It sounds naïve, but I’m afraid it’s our only chance.
It so infuriating seeing how much these corporations and scummy rich people/politicians keep profiting off of idiots who don’t realize they’ve been duped and are getting screwed over
It has been well known in some circles for a long time that individually driving a easy on gas car, recycling, or buying sustainable stuff does not really make a huge change. BUT I still do it...because it makes sense...and relieves a small amount of the guilt that I feel from our existence destroying the planet for my kids. BUT for sure, the things we MUST do is re-evaluate from the ground up every system that we have allowed to run without much oversite. WE do need collective action.
This is the best video Second Thought has made so far. You hit the absolute bullseye! Citizens can make structural change, consumers can't. Americans have been sleepwalking for almost a century because we became consumers and lost our connection to reality. American culture has been a 75 year narcissistic trip where the only social dynamic visible was where art imitates life vs. life imitates art. Since 2008, people have been slowly waking up. You, Second Thought, and your peers watching this are the first generation in almost a century that sees with sober eyes. Forge ahead!
I'm really a big fan of second thought and OCC (our Changing Climate), both of you guys are like my two eyes, guiding me in my life.. Love your content a lot ♥️
I generaly agree with the video, but when reading the comment section I don't agree with the conclusion. Yes, individual actions won't have as much as an impact as companies going green would. But we have to realise that companies are here to fulfil our current needs, and these needs are not sustainable : eating too much meat, taking the plane too often, driving instead of walking ... If we change are way of living and show that we want to be more sustainable, companies won't have the choice but to follow. Because we are their customers. Companies are throwing the blame on us, and we are sending it back to them. The reality is that we shape the companies by the way we live, we can't keep on saying "It's not my fault it's theirs !", keep on living unsustainbly and hope for the best. Fundamentally, it's the way that we live that is the problem, companies and big industries are just a result of this new way of living. Let's show them that there's another way.
I think it's still important to take some personal responsibility about the environment, whether it would be making a pollinator-friendly garden with native plants, bicycling more (cities are now seeing the benefit of bike lanes), using existing public transport and demanding the city council to invest in LRT and metros, etc.
The problem with that is. We are blaming a majority of people that haven't done the biggest damage at all or that they don't have a lifestyle that put us in this situation in the first place. Who can blame all Africa when there are countries in there that still doesn't have electricity, who can blame all the developing countries for seeking a better standard of life, when many of them still live under precarious conditions. But we blame them still, as the follow statement that many people say: "but third world countries pollute more" "africa pollute our oceans" "china (even when they are refering other coutries as phillipines, malasya, indonesia) is dropping tons of trash" This places that have a low quality life, blamed by the countries who have a luxurious lifestyle. Personal responsability is often used as a distraction to shift blames onto others, and never to be accountable or reconsider our own lifestyle.
@@chikitronrx0 Of course, I agree, we need systemic change to significantly change our impact on the environment (afterall, more about a 100 companies are responsible for 70% of world emissions). What I'm saying is while we need systemic change, we can also make a positive difference (albeit small) at the local level: joining regional non-profit organizations that are dedicated to the protection and restoration of native habitats, getting your neighbourhood to create/join community gardens, promoting public transport, etc. I don't think it hurts to do both
@@TheOnlyReynoldsWrap What if we turn the equation around and make the local changes because they're better for us as individuals, not because they're going to change the world? We then have space in our minds to do something to make, encourage or demand the systemic change we all need.
Not driving makes sense for me because I can't see well enough to get a drivers license. This is a serious problem because we don't have public transportation. I have to ask others for help when I need to get somewhere. The local taxi company only has one driver per shift and the daytime driver won't transport anyone he doesn't like. I just happen to be one of those people.
OH I knew already. Me using a disposable cup every so often seems beyond minuscule when I see a factory or whatever smokestack belching out smoke constantly.
Great video. You really cannot push the blame onto the consumer. If I want to buy a loaf of bread I don't care if it's a paper bag or a plastic bag, but a plastic bag is all that is available. Then I try to recycle that bag, but it can't get recycled because of the mix of plastics the manufacture used in their design, so it ends up in a landfill. All that and I get the blame for buying it? Yea, that's straight up misdirection BS right there.
What I missed when you said about electric cars is that the electricity they charge is sometimes made of carbon, for example, which is constantly producing carbon dioxide. Personally, I have nothing against electric cars and that it is a grief in this field of transport, just like electric trains, but together with cars we have to think about better, more "green" electricity.
Also, fewer cars. Electric cars may be better than petrol cars, but they are still very wasteful when compared with a properly engineered public transport system. A train carrying four hundred people on the daily commute is much better than four hundred electric cars making the same journey. Electric cars can be an excuse not to invest in public transport.
@@kanguruster Green-er. They are an improvement on petrol, but still not the best solution. People really like cars though - they are more than just a means of transportation, they enable a way of life. It's the convenience of being able to go where you want without the need to plan ahead.
@@kanguruster A problem a lot of people ignore is maintenance. Batteries constantly lose range and must be replaced within 5-7 years to retain range most people use. In addition, they still have cooling systems that must be maintained, a lot more computers which generally also have relatively short lifespans, and the charging infrastructure needed to fully transition would require a lot more power, since the world doesn't want to use nuclear fission, it's not gonna help much. This also doesn't even cover the many rare materials used in construction such as lithium, we don't have close to enough for a full EV transition. Nor does it mention the environmental impact of mining for these things so quickly/all at once.
What your told is really true, That's what I realised when i started my current job at a small scale factory, as a manufacturing industry(though it's so small), produces and throws out more waste in a single day than I've done in my whole year. And it really hit me very hard . I've lived my whole life as a enviornmentally concious person, always reused and recycled plastics, food waste, trying my best to help enviornment, etc. If such a small factory itself is polluting so much, i really can't even image how much bigger factories or multi national corporations would be polluting, that's where our human capability to comprehend amounts of stuff starts to break down and we can't even imagine.. We really need collective action and massive political change to at least slow down the climate crisis and a massive overhaul in our world and way of life to actually solve it. I agree that being environmentally friendly and fighting climate change individually will cause burden on people, and make individuals compromise with their normal lives, most of the blame should go to those who have cultivated such a system for their profits..
Yup. Someone in my family works in a factory and he’s begged management to recycle leftover materials and they don’t. Just enragingus that we’re recycling at home but the company doesn’t
So, according to an articel I read, apparently 70% of all the waste thrown to ecosystem is coming from 100 or so corporations. Lets assume the real number is 50%. So, in the best case scenerio, every individual is using nothing but sustainable/recycling stuff and throw no trash at all (Already unrealistic), 50% of the trash and waste will still thrown to the ecosystem. Even with rough estimates, it is a massive scam to blame just individual consumers. My favourite take on this is, how much carbon a jet would produce vs how much carbon would an average consumers car produce. And considering politicians, rich business man and celebrities flying with their jets all over the place, it quickly becomes painfully obvious. Corporations are polluting tons of water per day but god forbid the poor old lady washing her 5 piece of dishes twice...
Life sentences are too short a punishment. They'll be out in no time considering the contacts and money they have. We need to redistribute their wealth and put it towards the solutions.
You'd need to show knowing deception first. Innocent until proven guilty, remember. Start by going through every report, study and office memo from their companies for the last fifty years, then decide who to lock up.
@Vyl Bird the ExxonMobil oil company did a study in the 70s that said what they were doing was going to result in climate change. They all have know for decades. Are you really this uninformed?
