Not my OC but what I’ve believed for years: there’s no conflict between reducing your own environmental impact and holding corporations responsible. We hold corps responsible for the environment by creating a societal ethos of environmental responsibility that forces corporations to serve the people’s needs or go bankrupt or be outlawed. And anyone who feels that kind of ethos will reduce their own environmental impact because it’s the right thing to do.

Thoughts?

  • cinnamonTea@lemmy.ml
    4·
    9 months ago

    Speaking from a US point of view, society is often structured in such a way that a lot of the solutions you offer are made significantly difficult for consumers, especially with lower income.

    • sure, it’d be healthiest and best for the planet to eat vegan and cook at home, but if you have half an hour a day to find food you’ll buy what’s right there
    • of course it’s be healthiest to walk and bike wherever you need to go, and best for the planet to use public transport when you can’t, but again, if you work two jobs far away, you do not have the luxury to consider these options. These people you can’t convince by giving them even more work to do in their already full and arduous days. You convince them by giving them better options and taking the rich people to task more, proportionally to their strain on society.

    People simply aren’t well-enough off to be able to look beyond their own experience and want to improve the world as well. I think that’s why we need to champion worker’s rights as a big part of the push towards all this, too