• Zippy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly corporations are only producing what consume. We are using corporations as scapegoats. If we don’t realize this soon and don’t change it ways…

    • toxic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are more efficient, greener ways to go about producing pretty much everything we use that doesn’t destroy the earth. Problem is is that it’s not as profitable for share holders.

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        For most categories, yes, but when it comes to something like meat production mentioned in the title here, that’s not really the case. Meat production is massively inefficient in its best case. We are going to have to reduce production which means having changes in consumption in one way or another

        If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

        […]

        Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

        https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat

        Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

        https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm

      • Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it was so efficient, why are not everyone doing it and building it? If it was so efficient, why are energy prices increasing? If it is more efficient, then it would be also more profitable but you say the opposite.

        • toxic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It requires a front-loaded investment in infrastructure, which means lower returns for a few quarters.

          Most companies wanted people to use horses for as long as possible because that meant they had to adapt, change, and invest. Why do something that’s difficult when you can just do the same thing? This works out when you don’t really have competition because the cost to enter the market is so high due to decades of mergers and acquisitions, consolidating all means of production and materials to a select-few companies.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you haven’t seen it, The Good Place is a great show and they discuss this basically. Should we be responsible for tracking the output of every company before we buy any product?

      (The answer is: of course not. We don’t have enough time in the world for that. The correct solution is regulation and taxing for negative externalities during the production process. If the cost of negative externalities is built into the cost of the product, then it will be less benificial to purchase a product with a dirty supply chain.)

      • Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure how to edit a post but will add this. I agree with you. We absolutely should be adding the cost of externalities. The only way to do this effectively is to add that cost at the consumption level. We should pay twice the cost for conventional fuel at the pumps. Heating your home should be far more expensive. Something that would also encourage people to take on roommates and fix housing issues. Taxing only or corporations simply means Russia or Saudia Arabia will increase their output while they laugh at us.

      • Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you tax Saudi Arabia corporations? How do you tax Russian corporations? They just make up the difference we don’t produce. Is it wise to send all that money to those countries because we won’t stop consuming? How is taxing our corporations helping them be competitive on the world market? We give everyone else a free pass but bill our corporations.

    • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, we kind of have to get basic necessities, so often buying stuff from corporations is necessary. Yes, we shouldn’t buy useless shit, but why are we making useless shit in the first place?

      I do agree that we as inviduals should take some responsibility, such as not littering and trying to minimise our waste, but we have to hold corporations accountable for their actions.

      Also there are a lot of more ethical and responsible ways for corporations to produce their goods, but they choose to not to. Why? Because it would take more money, and they don’t give a shit about anything else than their money.