• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    if they didn’t dig it out of the ground it couldn’t be used at all. they have the responsibility

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      So individuals aren’t responsible for making any inconvenient changes to their lifestyle but can still feel morally superior? Thanks bro, this is just what I needed to hear today!

    • Gloomy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      No. It’s the System that encurages them to dog it out that is to blame. A System that is build around exponancial groth. Those 117 companies wouldn’t dig or pump that stuff out, consumers wouldn’t live lifes that use up extraordenary amounts of energy compared to any other time in human history, goverments wouldn’t make the GDP their holy grail, if not for the hyper capitalist framework that has enabled this to happen.

      So, it you have to blame something, blame the bloody System.

      And, btw., don’t use the “the companies are responsible” line to excuse not changing how you consume and how much you personaly continue. I am not saying that you are doing so, but I’ve read it to many times by now.

      Yes, BP pushed the carbon footprint idea. Yes, BP and any other oil company has to do chance their buisness model. That does not mean that All of us will not have to degrow the way we live. Every one of us needs to start acting in a more sustainable manor, from Individual to company to government, if we want to minimise suffering for future generations. If we don’t (and honestly it doesn’t look like it) their will be a systematic reduction in complexity anyway. The only question is if it will be by design or by desaster.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        “I want food and to not freeze/overheat” is not a desire based on exponential growth, but is a desire that currently requires fossil fuels.

        Much like the “9 million starve” number, the argument against fossil fuels is incredibly misleading.

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Again, no one believes that change is possible overnight.

          Such an idea has never been mentioned.

          At any time, a current condition of society is due to a long succession of events preceding it, without which the particular condition would be different.

          Our current predicament has been a long time in the making. We need to unify toward directing a succession of events away from dependence on fossil fuels, for achieving a transition to sustainable energy.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      If we didn’t use fossil fuels, literally billions of people would die within months.

      We need to transition away, not stop cold turkey