I am not supporting shell here, just asking a question.
If I am correct in assuming that shell produces 928 million tons (58,000,000 * 16) that means if the average American reduced their CO2 output from 16 down to ~13.3 then that would offset the total output of shell?
Is that amount of reduction even possible for the average American without giving up too much?
Obviously every company should do everything they can do lower emissions, but per person changes can have effect too. The problem is the vast majority of the 340 million Americans simply don’t care.
This is a false dichotomy, the way you shutdown O&G is through political action, making personal choices to limit your personal carbon output is a political action. It directly hurts O&G and directly helps the alternatives.
Making a personal choice helps drive political will which changes how people make personal decisions which drives political will. Arguing about which step to bootstrap the process seems pointless. If it's easier for you to show up at Tuesday at 11am to city council meetings and yell for more bus routes do that. If it's easier to increase your commute 20minutes and drive up ridership to give ammo to the council people, do that. If it's easier to drop a big sum of money to lobby the government do that. Just do whatever you can that helps.
We are all drops of rain in an ocean, but without the rain the ocean would run dry.
You fell into the trap that this post is exposing. Of course personal action matters, everyone knows it and there's no chance we'll forget it, but the heavy polluting companies want to focus our attention on that alone, to keep it off of themselves. Please don't assist them in doing so.
No they didn't. They clearly stated that we need to take political action which is the only way to force the companies to align with our goals. Policies that drastic need a lot of backup in the society that legitimises these policies, which is what they meant by "we are all raindrops"
I think this is the same carbon emissions : just split differently. Shell consumers are the very same citizens. Also 16tons is huge, even compared to other developed countries in Europe for example (almost twice as much !)
Legit question, because I never really see a breakdown of these numbers. I always hear about corporations emitting n number cO2, but it's never really the whole story (I don't think) But, is this from developing their product, or is is it the development of said product plus the use of that product? Like in Shells' case, is it them making gas (I know they do more, but for the sake of argument...) and the use of their gas in vehicles across the world? Or is the use of the gas calculated into the individual person's number?
I'm not trying to start anyrhing, I am genuinely trying to understand.
This is my big criticism of these claims, because it really seems like the latter.
Yeah, it’s a disgusting mess. Yeah corporations are given far too much privilege. But if Shell weren’t around, there’d still be demand for oil that would be met by someone else.
The problem there isn’t Shell…not directly, at least (they’re certainly guilty of a lot, including lobbying to protect their position)…the problem is the oil. Redirecting to “the corporations” just ignores that.
You could say the same about the meat producers and the people who are clear cutting the rainforests and planting alfalfa in the deserts of Arizona to feed cows in the Middle East. Some seriously fucked chain of events must’ve happened to make that the logical and profitable choice yet, here we are.
That all depends on the industry in question. I'm not sure about Shell.
But the key point is that regulating individual action, or focusing on individual action, is only a small part of the problem. We need to focus on the big polluters first and foremost. And we know who they are, even if we don't know exactly how to parse the data.
Remember everyone, corporations aren't at fault for climate change, it's YOUR fault for living in a country that requires driving a car where everything is made of plastic and powered by coal! Shame!!!
/s, fuck off with the blatant propaganda that is your "carbon footprint". You should support more sustainable stuff when you can, literally nobody is claiming otherwise (besides oil and car companies). But your carbon footprint is a molecule of water in the pacific ocean. Plus oil and car companies have been specifically trying to make other options less accessible. Fuck off if you think that climate change is caused by people and not corporations
Jfc, it's distressing to see how many people buy in to the personal responsibility propaganda and are actively not only licking the boot that's on all our necks, but doing the corporations' dirty work for them, gleefully, ignoring the entire picture (the deliberate spending of many trillions, and holding governments in their pockets to keep us dependant on oil and having no viable alternative) except the tiny little fragment they're comfortable confronting - other individuals. It's both gross and concerning.
It is not a matter of responsibility, it is a matter of action. Being less consumerist on a grand scale would be a kick in the balls for most of these big corporations which rely on our consumption habits. They exist because we consume. %90 of the stuff Amazon sells is unlikely essential goods, yet we buy them. We eat much more meat than we should and then we get angry at deforestation. Blame them all you want, most wont exist without our over-consumption habits.
You're herding cats at that point, though. The vast majority of people will not change their ways because:
A: its exponentially harder for them to do so. Not driving in the majority of the US is flatout not viable for work and groceries, changing your diet is fucking difficult period, etc. Unless they've got a damned good reason that isn't some cosmic cataclysm they don't even fully get how it'll affect them, they're not going to change.
B: Companies are actively pumping out propaganda and lobbying to fuck over anyone attempting to change the status quo. When shown two different pieces of information, people will usually choose the one that causes less cognitive dissonance, and being told you're killing the planet by filling up your gas tank causes alot of that, so alot of people just buy into the big oil propaganda.
We need to tackle these issues locally - getting entire towns and cities to actually cooperate with climate-friendly policies ; Then States; Then Countries - if we want to make any actual meaningful headway.
I agree on its difficulty though entrenched in this very narrow local minima of a capitalist society, I presume no alternative would be much easier.
Nevertheless there are major shifts in these directions in other parts of the world. And what you are suggesting is actually adding forces to the system to push people in the direction I mentioned. Otherwise where there is over-consumption and demand, capitalism will find a way to expand again.
Not driving in the majority of the US is flatout not viable for work and groceries
Yeah but if you and 10 friends inconvenience yourselves and do it otherwise, or inconvenience yourself by showing up at 11am on a tuesday to city council meetings you can make the bus a little better, and then it makes sense for a couple more people who were on the fence, which drives more improvements. I don't really care whether you start with the council meeting or the bus ride, we need both really, one enables the other.
This is all just a false dichotomy, it's all the same shit. Phrasing it differently and fighting over it is just distracting.
Hey now, let's not stray into historical revisionism. Make no mistake: there was a lot of public transit back in the early 20th century. For example, here's Atlanta's streetcar map from exactly 100 years ago:
You need a car to get to work. How are you supposed to not buy oil? The point is the fossil fuel industry gave us no real alternative, you don't have to eat at a restaurant to survive but you need a job to.
It's also not just about cars. Oil is in other products people can try to avoid. Everyone can do something. Everything between voting for the right direction to changing your whole life around it. It doesn't matter where, as an individual, you can exist on that spectrum. As long as people don't just throw their hands to the air and deny all responsibility.
Yea, bc you're German. Americans aren't so lucky, and nothing constructive comes from acting like that makes you superior to Americans, who for the most part are literally forced to drive places
If the restaurant is the only source of food around, what do you do then? Not eat?
It transpose into the fact that North American societies made car centric cities with poor public transit where many place that aren't a city, you need a car to literally do everything.
And even cities cut budgets for public transit.
A simple example from a friend of mine. He makes an effort to go to work by public transit instead of taking his car.
If he takes his car, it's a 10 minutes ride. If he takes public transit, it takes him an hour to get to work. I wouldn't blame him for taking his car to get to work.
I mean I am going to play devils advocate but I wonder if they also include stuff like how much carbon emission does your online and non-local shopping habits are causing indirectly? Or your meat consumption? Or your airplane travels? Fuck big companies yes but also we have to change our consumerist mentality as humanity too.
Your argument boils down to suffer more because someone else is doing proportionately more damage to the point where your personal contribution is entirely negligible and we don't know how to fix that.
Can't buy what isn't sold. The bulk of society don't have the financial capacity to change their purchasing habits, they're already struggling for survival.
middle to upper class? I mean sure a handful of individuals have %50 percent of the whole wealth but it is not a handful of individuals who are consuming that amount of meat and using amazon (or the likes) daily to get ten useless junks shipped all the way from china every month. can't sell what is not being bought.
Lmao, you think the bulk of human society is middle to upper class? No wonder your perspective is warped. You'd ignore those who can't just because some can.
Where did I say that the bulk of human society is middle to upper class? If you are poor enough that you can't eat meat, use airplanes, or use amazon to get junk shipped across the world you obviously don't contribute to over consumerism. The fact remains however that some hundred million to billion people are wealthy enough to contribute to over consumerism and they do. Without these people's spending habits these companies wouldn't be able to grow so much. Our consumption habits are the sugar that feeds the cancer. Stop feeding the cancer.
Oh fuck you're right, it didn't occur to me I could just be wealthy to avoid consuming shell products xD sorry for not being wealthy enough to be a good person m'lord
It's my fault for not being open to constructive conversion, not your fault for being an insufferable fucker who acts better than others bc they have more money, I see. I could've had a constructive conversation, just not with a holier than thou piece of shit who thinks victims of capitalism are more responsible for climate change than the capitalists
"not anyone that can't afford it" BULL FUCKING SHIT you literally just said it's "objectively false" that a lot of people can't avoid shell shit. Baiting and switching only makes you look like more of a cunt
You're twisting words and replying emotionally. I said it's objectively false/hyperbolic that "any" person can't avoid shell, which I did not contradict.
Read and think before you reply, also resulting to insults is childsplay, nice one
"You know shell along with a handful of other companies actively block any other option for us, and hold us captive to their exploitation, right? 🙄" this is an objectively true statement, even after you shift the goalposts. Just because you avoid shell specifically doesn't mean the other oil companies you support are any better. And yes, you support the fuck out of them no matter what because it's current year and everything is made of plastic.
What the fuck even is your point if you're not shitting on poor people like you say? What the fuck was the point of "debunking" the "claim" that oil companies run everything and work to block more sustainable options? What fucking side are you on???? You're like those fuckers who claim to hate netanyahu and likud but only ever mention hamas' crimes, so clearly trying to look like an ascended centrist while supporting mass murder
They effectively sell all of our fuel. I'm doing my best to avoid them but I'm in a fortunate position where I'm wealthy enough to use the alternatives which are 20% or so more money.
Can't kill a megacorp like that this easily, they have ample time to invest their ill-gotten earnings elsewhere even in the most optimistic scenario. Most energy companies are branching out into renewables nowadays.
addendum: this is not an excuse to do nothing on a personal level. you are just as bad as the corporations if you act carelessly like you can’t help change anything. go vegan
absolutely, plants and vegetables have been around since the dawn of time, and once we stop funneling those plants through animals so they can grow fat and get slaughtered, we can just eat the plants directly from the source :) like @Cowbee said (no idea how to tag people on lemmy, sorry), however, getting everyone on board is a process
the only reason why animal meat is so rich in b12-vitamins is because it is artificially pumped with it. nutritionally the exact same as taking a supplement tablet, except the supplement tablet doesn't go through a gas chamber before they sell it to us
edit: here's a handy site that answers the most frequent arguments against veganism: https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en - i also recommend Ed Winters ("earthling ed" on youtube), i'm currently reading through the first of his two recent books on veganism
Whenever I say this I get gang downvoted by people on this site.
What most fail to understand is they are contributing to the emissions of shell and other major contributors to global warming by purchasing or using anything which relates to their products.
The wealthy humans can afford to avoid these products, but they cop out. Personally I've bought a second hand electric car and gone vegan over the last 18 months. It's more expensive than not changing my car but I could afford it and now I don't support the oil industry at all. Next on my list is my natural gas house boiler.
I've had people say 4 return flights a year isn't many flights and isn't a factor to climate change, especially compared to businesses which fly employees everywhere. Madness
Damn, you're right, I'll just take the train to work instead to avoid having to use my car and thus pay for gas, so simple!
What's that? Car and oil companies lobbied hard as fuck to ensure public transit in the US wouldn't be good enough, forcing people to use alternative means of transportation?
Ah, the old "this solution isn't 100% effective, thus I shall ignore it".
Shell is creating products you are buying. We can regulate them harder, but you can ALSO just not buy their product. We can do multiple things that contribute, you just don't want to, because it's slightly inconvenient for you.
It's basically impossible not to buy Shell products. Even if you don't buy from Shell directly, chances are there are products of Shell in the products you buy. And even if that isn't the case, chances are the factory the product is made uses a lot of Shell products and so do all the factories that made the components and so do the shipping companies that shipped all the stuff around the world.
Shell is freaking huge, they are everywhere and one of the biggest companies in the world. They don't just make gasoline, they have so many products and have their claws in a lot of industries.
Your personal action affects only your own carbon footprint, and if you somehow eliminate it entirely, you alone can reduce carbon emissions by 16 tonnes per year.
However, by funding climate research, educating the public, and most importantly: contacting your lawmakers, you can affect the footprints of many thousands or potentially millions of people. If you do even 0.001% of the work required for getting a law passed that cuts Shell's emissions by only 1%, you will have reduced the global carbon footprint by approximately 90 tonnes per year (58000000 * 16 * .01 * .00001 = 92.8). That's more than 5 times as effective a use of your time, assuming you were able to do each with an equivalent amount of effort.
Vote with your wallet, yes, but NEVER underestimate the power of campaigning for change. A person's actions carry further when they affect the actions of others.
Your personal action affects only your own carbon footprint
That's not true. If I take the bus, I increase ridership and resources for buses, which in aggregate can lead to improvements to the bus route, which can convince others to ride. the people at your local city government can have a much easier time justifying an increase to public transit spending if they can show high or increasing transit ridership. Depending on your individual circumstances one may provide better impact to effort than another but taking a bus is as much political action as voting.
Riding the bus alone will discourage others from taking the bus because they'll see the busses as more crowded. Taking the bus and using that to convince others to also ride the bus by talking to them about your experiences will. Political action can include anything you do with the intent of influencing others to change their behavior. If you don't add that step, you cannot reduce other's carbon footprints.
Great, instead of Shell, just buy BP, or Exxon.. Oh wait.. they're up to exactly the same shit, and are all together deliberately holding us captive and keeping any realistic alternative from being accessible to the masses because they know it will replace them..
I'm very sorry you see absolutely no alternatives to driving a car, but I think it's a bit unfair to claim my head is up my ass because of your lack creativity.
This post is a call to action. You should take it as a call to action.
You should be going to marches.
You should be rallying and participating in your local politics.
You should be supporting groups fighting for better public transit, stricter regulations and the budget to enforce it, and right to repair.
You should be voting with environmental Policy in mind.
You can do personal changes too, and encouraging others to do the same. but the vast majority of humans will not change until it's easy and gratifying or they're forced to. It will take exponentially more work getting a meaningful number of people to listen to you're propaganda. Its much more efficient to target the infrastructure around them to incentivize the change.
That's not point. Individualist solutions are weak in comparison - a drop in the bucket. Collectivist solutions are what will actually be the brunt of solution. You're pitching a patch kit for damage that needs a full rework.
By all means, cut you're consumption, but realize that your consumption change isn't going to do nearly enough on its own. That's the point of what's being said above.
And my point is that structural reform is neither fast, total or certain. It's preferable, but if you can change some things today, that's a great temporary thing in addition to maybe changing everything in 10 years.
Yes, and people are already getting hit with propaganda constantly encouraging them to recycle, take the bus, buy fewer clothes, and a bunch of other minute actions. Some people even followed through.
This post was explicitly about getting people to support action against corporations, and your response to it was to take a dig at the message and promote more of the most common environmentalism propaganda in the US - as if it wasn't promoted to high hell already.
