"I’m hearing too much “recycle, compost, go vegan!” and not enough “100 corporations cause 71% of emissions”"


Also not enough, "Defund the military machine which is polluting the planet heavily in both the literal & figurative sense, thanks."


I wish someone would tell environmental "leadership" in the U.S. that. Their whole shtick seems to be selling swag, licking the duopoly's boots, and punching left.. decade after decade. :/


That's why I have this pinned, and thanks for the reminder that substituting "environmentalism" for "anti-fascism" works every bit as well.

@xenophora i would disagree in that antifascism is a very narrow type of politics while environmentalism is a broader one with different types of goals and associated tactics. But anti-militarism still can be a connecting bracked around both.


Well, it doesn't feel narrow to me, especially given that the chuds keep appearing in my town like clockwork to serve as de facto cop deputies and the only thing keeping them out at the moment is dangerous air quality. 🤷

@xenophora this(tm) is an atleast 90 years old discussion (about the narrowness of antifascism).
And the US is a strange environment now.

these 100 corporations probably produce 71% of the things that we buy every day, so I don't really see the point.

I think the point is that there are people/Hostile-AI-masquerading-as-people that have the big picture (they know what they're doing) and could make serious change in a timely manner, and chose not to.

@maltimore @syndikalista
Not quite. The claim is explained here:

and these are fossil fuel companies.

But your point is valid, in the sense that the consequence is "don't buy their products"

Which broadly means: don't drive, don't fly, don't buy plastics or synthetics; make sure your electricity and home heating is not from fossil fuels.

@wim_v12e @maltimore @syndikalista And 'Recycle, compost, go vegan' dint's their market in substantial ways (if everyone was doing it)

@dried @wim_v12e @maltimore @syndikalista Yeah, I was thinking more of home based versions of all those :)

@dried @wim_v12e @maltimore @syndikalista But people do tend to use "reuse" instead of "recycle" for the home version

@syndikalista I agree. I often say that the solidarity economy precedes the regenerative and sustainable economy because of facts like this. We need to build solidarity enterprises and create and pass laws and support systems to build a solidarity economy before we can build a sustainable world.
The problem is systemic so we need to change the system not so much just our little corner of it.

@Jon_Envisioneer I often say, that we should avoid the discourse of sustainability, since we moved to sustained destruction years ago. We need to focus on regenerative economies, regenerative environmental pratices. "We" need to put more back into the environment than we take out of it. Solidarity enterprises are one part of that, a crucial one i suppose.

@syndikalista It is harder to imagine a world where concentrations of ownership and wealth lead to a sustainable economy. I sense that we need to have a more distributed economy, which means companies have to be democratically owned and controlled rather than be autocratic as they are now. It is interesting to see how the occupy wall street movement lead to people starting cooperatives. Some of us just give up on trying to force an unwilling government to change the system and start coops.

@Jon_Envisioneer that fits the quote i found today: "We lack heartiness, naivety, self-evidence. __The so-called enemies would have a sacred respect for us if we did what we could do.__" Gustav Landauer

@syndikalista Your point is all right and valid, but these corporations are part of the highly centralized and partially state-owned energy sector: They are just big. Of course our electricity, fuel and heat production and consumption is responsible for most of our emissions, but that's not a particular fault of those corporations.

@adrianheine the corporations are responsible in how the approach their business practices.
It is so easy to make the individual accountable, why is it so hard to do the same with these corps?

@syndikalista Their business practices are extracting, processing, distributing and converting of fossil fuels. There's quite some room for doing that less wrong than they did, but it's bad and wrong no matter how you do it and those corporations are not responsible for people doing it for the last 150 years.

@syndikalista These 71% of emissions are consequences of our mode of production, our wars, our lifestyle. Whether they were made by 100 corporations or by 1000 doesn't matter.

@adrianheine To me it sounds like you are pinpointing back the responsibility to the mass of individuals.
This centralisation and enforcing power is a current relationship, that is true.
I disagree, that neither the fact of the 100 corps nor the structure behind matters.

@syndikalista Okay, I didn't mean to imply individual consumer responsibility, I guess that's the issue. I just don't see invididual producer responsibility, either, and I feel like this »100 corps« thing suggests that.

@adrianheine @syndikalista yes it does. Because these companies lied to us about plastic recycling. The public was turning on plastic, so they engaged in a PR campaign about how they would invest in recycling. They didn’t and even started to put the recycle label on all plastic to make us feel good.

A few plastics can be recycled, the rest are burned, buried, or dumped. They could change, the tech exists, but it was cheeper to run commercials.

@adrianheine @syndikalista and they lied about other things too. We used to make companies clean up their messes and charged them for it. Used to also make them recycle their own products.

But making money got in the way and so that kind of stuff had to go.

Companies should be responsible for the junk they make and push on us. And we should stop demanding companies always make a profit. Part of the market is making things that break so we will buy a new one.

@adrianheine @syndikalista Its all very complicated and plastic has been a boon to society. But if we don’t get it and other waste under control we will lose the ability to have nice things.

The fastest way to ensure something evolves that is air born and likes to eat plastic is to keep going like we are. Imagine everything plastic around you degrading because of a fungus.

Yeah it will be expensive, but those companies can actually afford it.

@adrianheine or asked differently, if noone is responsible for the current (except the sum of all individuals), why do anything at all?

@syndikalista that drastic livestock reduction thing is pretty important though..

@syndikalista I agree that we need systemic changes. The main function of individual action is showing support for systemic changes.

But many people misinterpret “100 corporations cause 71% of emissions” as meaning "corporations cause 71% and we only 29%." That is not what the number says. The other corporations are responsible for 29%. It mostly shows the destructive concentration of corporate power.

We are also responsible for 100%. The richest 10% of us of much more than 10% of emissions.

@syndikalista Recycle the assets of those corporations to make something better. Compost the rich and use it to feed vegetables for the vegan food.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
ACP 🎉🍰

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!