"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.


I see a lot of ‘tear down the capitalists and The Man’ in the fedi; it’s certainly not lost on people here, case in point. And I even get a sense — at least from a little cherry picking my news sources — that citizens in the world also at least see where the problems mostly lie.



But it seems pretty clear to me, the industrial/political systems that run the world are so big, powerful, and entrenched in their processes that, if they don’t want to or can’t change, it will take a complete collapse of society (like nothing we know yet), and a long stretch of worldwide loss and struggle, before new social paradigms can take hold. There won’t be any viable foundation for it otherwise.

@wion we run on an extractivist production mode, where the extraction is much higher than the regeneration rate. Societal lock ins and path-dependency takes a toll. a non-open culture and the economical environment does its rest.
We had better futures decades ago.


And when you look at it through that lens, as I do, it makes sense that dialogue and efforts turn to individuals and local communities for small changes there — what can actually be done. These changes might be motivated by survival, or just a sense of moral and ethical good, but they will be insignificant as global ecology changers as long as the megalithic and global complex of growth economics and consumption still reigns.

@wion please do not misunderstand me, I do not leave the individual, the commune, the place-based entities out of the equitation. What bothers me the most is, that the consumption is shamed, blamed and pointed at, while the "production" is hardly addressed.
No matter how the change is motivated. It is not that you have to have the right reason to plead for system change. The change you are envision is more crucial.


I understand you and agree with your viewpoint on the problem. I don’t think you are sidelining the individual or local efforts.

What I am suggesting is, we may hear the disproportionately greater focus on the consumer because 1) that’s what the powerful capitalist systems want, and 2) there’s not much else individuals can do outside their yards except hold signs, throw rocks, make memes; none of it proven to be world-changing. The system itself has to collapse from within.

@wion @syndikalista coming in a bit late perhaps, but may i ask you to explain a bit further?

do you draw the conclusion that meanwhile people (as opposed to what you called the system) are absolved of any responsibility to act justly?

and what about this: if stuff collapses, do you think it'll collapse in a good direction, so to speak?


Understanding that the only ‘responsibility’ individuals have to do anything is what laws dictate or what their moral codes motivate them to do... Yes I think individuals (including families, communities...) should live as conscientiously as they can with nature and natural resources, but that’s about as much as can be said or expected there.



Certainly no one should think anything they do will fix climate at this point; it’s too far gone for low-impact tribal existence to matter. Change won’t happen until globalization crumbles and a lot of sacrifices in human technology (and human desires for them) are made. Hard to imagine society doing that willingly, but planetary ecology will make it happen regardless.



I like to think the other side of collapse (of human society as we know it) will be better for the planet and all remaining species, including ours, but getting to that point will be long and unpleasant.



i appreciate your determination to take the long, strange-making view.

i'm not sure, however, how to spell out what might be involved in planetary ecology making society as we know it collapse so that that event would have the function that it has, so far as i can tell, in your thinking.

if i understand you right, the event is one that takes place against the will, at least the effective collective will, of human beings.


> i appreciate your determination to take the > long, strange-making view.

Thanks. It’s my way to keep one foot out on conversations that risk derailing or dragging out.

My long stange-making view distilled to a line: live your life conscientiously and try not to stress over what you can’t control.

I’m done here.

@wion true, it's like quite a lot of insight all boiled and concentrated down into a single line - thanks! and hoo-roo

@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!