this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
1393 points (98.5% liked)

Memes

45661 readers
1790 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
1393
It's that easy! (lemmy.ml)
submitted 7 months ago by lemmyreader@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://climatejustice.social/@breadandcircuses/112303357717712825 Scroll down inside that link for a slightly more extreme version (NSFW).

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 146 points 7 months ago (1 children)

80s: corporations send hundreds of tonnes of trash to landfills while people are told to reduce the trash they generate

90s: corporations make everything plastic and disposable while people are told to recycle

00s: corporations cover the atmosphere in greenhouse gasses while people are told to reduce their carbon footprint.

10s: corporations buy politicians while people are told to vote.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 76 points 7 months ago (1 children)

90s: corporations make everything plastic and disposable while people are told to recycle

It's worse than that: the plastics industry tells us to recycle -- even going so far as to plagiarize the recycling symbol into the resin identification codes -- despite knowing from the beginning that recycling plastic was mostly never going to be a viable thing. They did this purely to shift blame to consumers because the only way their business model worked was to not be held accountable for their waste.

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm fond of saying that recycling is almost exclusively bad for the planet. It's true and people don't like hearing it.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 32 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Reduce, reuse, recycle. In that order.

If you don't need to, don't produce something. Chocolates don't need to be all individually wrapped inside of yet another wrapper. Transport should be mostly by public and active transport (though we also need better city planning to help enable this), and private motor vehicles can, at this point, mostly be converted to the less-polluting EVs. That kind of thing.

If it's been produced, rather than throwing it away, find ways to reuse it. Coke should be taking in glass bottles, washing them, and putting more coke back in it, rather than producing new bottles all the time.

If something has been produced and cannot be reused, we should try to find ways to recycle it. You're right that recycling is bad, but that's mainly true of plastics. Glass and paper are far more easy to recycle, if collected effectively. Which is also why the move from glass and paper products to plastic is such an environmental disaster, brought on because companies don't want to spend the larger cost of producing those products, or collecting them in to effectively recycle the glass.

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

This is absolutely right. It's reductive of me to say that recycling is bad for the environment; intentionally reductive.

People generally have a very hard time absorbing the fact that plastic recycling is a scam, so it's hard to start nuanced to actually get the point across.

But you definitely nailed it. I would argue that if it was reduce, reuse, revolt, the environment would be in a much better place.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The rhetoric causing people to put their guard down is what’s bad, or actually recycling is a bad thing?

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Recycling was actively brought forward as a solution by the oil companies to push the blame of plastic use onto consumers.

So while recycling rare metals is always valuable, plastic is definitely not. Almost all plastic gets buried in landfills, and the only way to make this not happen is to not make products with plastics.

By creating and marketing plastic recycling as a solution that the consumers must take onto themselves, it allowed them to rake in profits by moving everything to cheap plastic alternatives.

We are now literally made of microplastics as a result.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Right. So the former.

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Sort of. It's less a guard down thing as a fraudulent hoax thing.

[–] m4x@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What I don't understand is why burning plastic waste and using the generated heat (for example for district heating) is not discussed more often. I think recycling offers very little benefit over simple burning of plastics due to the amount of oil still being burned everywhere compared to the amount of oil used for plastic production.

[–] match@pawb.social 10 points 6 months ago

I guess I'm surprised we don't do it but we all know that burning plastic is gonna end up directly in the lungs of some poor people who have to live by the pollution factory

[–] grue@lemmy.world 61 points 7 months ago (6 children)

This is Lemmy; we can put that slightly more extreme version right here!

(I don't think it really is NSFW, but I'll put it behind a spoiler tag to honor your opinion.)

NSFW

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

I don't think it really is NSFW

Not that I find it in any way objectionable myself, but I'd say that in a very literal sense it's not safe for work. At least if you work for a corporation or similar type of soulless entity 😉

[–] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 13 points 7 months ago

🙂 👍

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago

Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Violent threats

porky-scared-flipped gui-better porky-point

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] akilou@sh.itjust.works 58 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It's because the explanation in the last panel should have happend before the 80s

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 37 points 6 months ago

Could have happened as soon as the 1950s when they first began seeing substantial proof of how harmful fossil fuels are.

But of course, the ones with all the money got to decide what the public gets to know. Just like it's been ever since 🤬

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It was explained in the seventies. Then the oil crisis started and it was "save the economy" time.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

When is it not?

[–] match@pawb.social 40 points 7 months ago (1 children)

20s: "Allow these criminal billionaires to escape to space and we may be able to start a new feudal colony on another planet"

[–] millie@beehaw.org 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Trick the billionaires into going to space, then blow the ship up in orbit?

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Or just convince one billionaire that they are actually good at designing spacecrafts and should bring their friends along for a joy ride.

[–] unmarketableplushie@pawb.social 4 points 6 months ago

Ah, the Oceangate maneuver

[–] psmgx@lemmy.world 38 points 6 months ago

The term is greenwashing, and it worked

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 32 points 7 months ago (1 children)

overcome capitalism

[–] Steve@startrek.website 7 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Figure out a way to profit off fixing the problem

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

That's probably not possible, and it would be ineffective. The fossil fuel industry is still actively killing the planet, and will continue to do so for as long as they are allowed. The motivation to pollute will still exist even if we make carbon capture profitable.

Here are some actual solutions:

  • A carbon/pollution tax. The cost of carbon pollution isn't reflected in the price of oil barrels. Fix that, and then people will start switching away from fossil fuels. You can't let the externalities be externalities, that's how we got into this mess in the first place.

  • Ending the subsidies the fossil fuel industry receives, as well as tax breaks. Instead give that money to renewable energy sources

  • Fix our shitty ass transportation system. We are too dependent on cars & planes. Bikes, trains, and busses need to be viable, but they aren't with our current infrastucture/lackthereof

  • Higher density residential building with mixed use zoning. How are we going to have a green world when it takes a half hour car ride to walmart to get groceries?

Of course, none of these are really possible with money still in politics, and with voter apathy. But this is the pathway forward.

[–] stewie3128@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In the US, there will always be a critical mass of voters ready to end the careers of anyone who tries to do any of the above.

I'd add that buses for the most part don't help, and we should revive the trolly systems that Goodyear intentionally put out of business, and furthermore build out mega railway projects to take long haul trucks off the road.

Railways need to be nationalized, and we need to make it easier to live rurally without the need for multiple cars and lots of gas consumption.

And we need to start building a bunch of new nuke plants like 30 years ago.

None of that will start to happen until it is way beyond too late though. And even if the US got onboard with the program, there will always be 40% of the planet who won't. So fuck it, enjoy nature while it lasts. We'll turn the sky white to geoengineer away some of the solar radiation, but the line will continue to go down from here.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

I agree with everything you said except for your last paragraph. Scientifically speaking, it is not to late. Politically it is, but politics can and have swung wildly. Our best bet is the younger generation shows up to the polls and votes in green candidates. My local area has had some good success with this at least.

As for the geoengineering, I can see that being the unfortunate case. I'm concerned it's going to be a far dumber and dangerous version of it though, like intentionally nuking a remote islands a couple times to start a mild nuclear winter.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 points 6 months ago

Impossible (outside of some small projects that tinker around the edges in beneficial ways, but can never do enough to put a substantial dent in the problem).

The problem comes down to something that's literally taught in economics 101: negative externalities. The cost to society of polluting is put on society, and not on the company actually causing that cost. There needs to be change in the legal situation so that doing the socially good thing is also the profitable thing. Whether that's taxes or outright banning polluting, or something else.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

What do you think Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) that the oil companies have been pushing for is if not a naked attempt to profit from the problem? Of course CCS will require even more oil to run, but that just means more profit!

[–] OurTragicUniverse@kbin.social 23 points 7 months ago (1 children)

20's: "Don't look up."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 19 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I don't think it's a secret that despite the overabundance of public messaging that "we" (the public) need to do x to "save the planet" or whatever, it's not working because it's entirely predicated on the idea that it's individuals doing the majority of the damage, which isn't the case.

Recycling is a particular scam. The idea of recycling basically gave everyone the green light to buy and use as many products that were "recyclable" as they wanted and could afford. The businesses making those products, in no small part started using "recyclable" plastics for nearly everything. People were satisfied that it was recyclable, with the three arrows in the package and that was it. All the while, recycling alone likely doubled the number of waste collection trucks on the road (increasing the amount of fuel needed) doubled the number of trucks needed to do collections of waste, and, as many have since pointed out, was largely not helpful, considering that plastics are basically impossible to recycle effectively at scale, into any product that anyone can use. Only a very small amount of plastic was ever able to be effectively recycled, and the vast majority was basically just landfill with extra steps.

So we polluted a fuckton more on an idea that it would save the planet, an instead, we just killed it more with trucks and oil.

This isn't a new story, and it's never been your fault. The last frame in this comic is what should have been done all along, but we were sold some bullshit lie so an asshole we've never met can buy another yacht.

And there's still legions of people engaging in wasteful practices and supporting companies that want you to throw out their products as soon as they release a "newer/better" version of the same. I'm looking at you, Apple. Sure, you've stepped back on this a little bit in the past few years, but remember when you intentionally slowed down millions of phones because they were 2+ years old, and for no other reason? I do.

Net Zero carbon emissions (or any other pollutant) shouldn't be the goal. It should be the minimum fucking standard.

[–] DakRalter@thelemmy.club 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The company I work for insists on almost every damn bit of stock arriving in delivery to be wrapped in a plastic bag. I've complained to management, they just laugh. Apparently I can't have any contact details for head office (not surprising since I'm not even allowed to contact HR directly and have to talk to them via a store manager). That's like 1000+ items coming in twice a week where almost all of it is individually wrapped in a bag.

Not only is it a pointless waste of plastic, but it doubles how long it takes to clear the stock as I have to take everything out of the bag (which is sealed both ends a lot of the time) instead of just putting it straight onto the shelves. I'm almost tempted to set up a twitter account so I can @ them. Almost, but not quite.

My previous employer did the same thing, but at least we had a way to talk to head office and a bunch of us complained so they did remove most of the plastic and started to use a band of paper to hold stock together, or a paper wrapper to protect delicate stuff. They went bust though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago

Net Zero carbon emissions (or any other pollutant) shouldn’t be the goal. It should be the minimum fucking standard.

Exactly. The part about recycling that you wrote makes me realize that fossil fuel industry has been more than an addiction for most of the masses with politicians (Think about Gerhard Schroeder in Germany with his Russian oil connections) and companies making the decisions in favor of destroying the planet. And those fossil fuel companies knew about the effects for decades. Just like tobacco companies were allowed to go for profits. Making profits and caring about shareholders has been worshiped for way too long.

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago

And in the 1970s it was, "we all need to tighten our belts and conserve resources."

Guess which part of society didn't follow that advice at all?

[–] Buttons@programming.dev 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

How about: regulate the 10 largest companies and we can save the Earth?

[–] unmarketableplushie@pawb.social 5 points 6 months ago

If by "regulate" you mean "forcibly dissolve them and charge their CEOs with crimes against humanity and nature", then I agree

[–] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago

How about: regulate the 10 largest companies and we can save the Earth?

Good plan. Don't see that happen. Yesterday I briefly imagined that a small group of billionaires left the burning planet Earth in their spaceship. And angry politicians were surprisingly not allowed in that ship. And the masses were sad for the politicians while the melting earth was transforming into dust and ashes.

[–] Mio@feddit.nu 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

I actually dont understand why we not do something drastic. I mean like ban cars and planes. We can still get around. Just not at the same speed at the moment. Someone will come up with a better idea then gas cars.

We also need to think about computers. Why throw them away? We could just make better software and keep the devices for a very, very long time. Heck, very bad computer could land on the moon...

[–] the_artic_one@programming.dev 7 points 6 months ago

I actually dont understand why we not do something drastic. I mean like ban cars and planes.

Talk so some other people about your idea and you'll understand why we don't.

[–] Twelve20two 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's because oily boiz don't want to give up their power and wealth. They seem to enjoy LARPing as dragons

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›