Yes, let's focus of men vs women instead of individuals vs corporations.
I thought we were past this "it's the individuals fault despite corporations producing the vast, vast majority" bullshit.
this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
73 points (92.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6759 readers
540 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Who is buying the products from those corporations though? I totally agree that the problem is caused by corporations but afaik there are only two ways to get them to make better choices: governmental regulation or avoid buying products from the bad offenders. Regulation can only go so far when all the companies have factories in another country. Individuals need to avoid buying products from those companies and shift to the ones that are more environmentally conscious, but that means having an informed populace that has extra money to spend, so we’re fucked.
No. Individuals make up <1% on their own. You want to make a difference? Target the 99%. This is just bullshit propaganda like telling us recycling is our duty instead of corporations producing less junk.
corporations producing the vast vast majority
Care to give some citations? Cause a large chunk of greenhouse gas emissions can be chalked up to individual choices. Eating meat (14% of ghg ) and driving (16% of ghg in us) being the top two. I guess you could argue it's the auto corporations fault for lobbying congress against investing in public transport, but no one is forcing you to eat meat.
I understand corporations are the biggest problem for the planet but you can't just put it all on them and not look at the ways your lifestyle is also contributing to climate change. Even if we nationalized every major polluting company and somehow got them to net zero we'd still have a problem if everyone is driving a huge pickup truck everywhere and eating beef everyday.
And who lobbies for lower emissions regulations so that they can sell bigger polluting trucks while consumers constantly say "where's my small car?"? Who lobbies the government to give them subsidies that make the meat so cheap that it's the best option for the consumer vs plant based protein?
Everything a person could do in these instances is being done in the opposite direction 1000x more and you sit here and go "but people!"
But sure, I'll just whip out my checkbook and lobby some politicians and change this myself. And I'll eat less meat while the people going to the climate conferences all fly their own private jets to it and create more pollution in a day than I will in a lifetime. That'll really show em!
while consumers constantly say "where's my small car?"
On a Honda or Toyota lot, there are still plenty of small affordable, fuel efficient cars to be bought in the US, people just aren't buying them and are choosing to pay twice as much for an SUV
meat so cheap it's the best option for consumers vs plant protein
It's not, the cheapest diet there is is rice and beans, and you can buy those at literally any store that sells food. Beans are half the price per grams of protein compared to chicken, way less compared to beef and pork. .
People aren't driving big cars and eating meat because there are no other options or it's too expensive. There are plenty of other options, and its more expensive to buy an SUV or eat meat, they choose to because they like it and don't know or care about the climate costs.
Bro, did you seriously compare small sedans to a small pickup that people are actually asking for?
....I'd continue this but it's clear your comprehension is lacking.
The research article cited by Ajit Niranjan is worth consulting directly, because a concept brought up by Berland and Leroutier, the researchers, that hasn't been worked into the Guardian article is intersectionality.
Indeed climate change is a systemic issue which requires systemic solutions therefore focusing on what we as individuals can do is shortsighted. However, it's also important not to discount the part individuals play, collectively, in the systems that power the climate crisis. I believe observing the disparity whereby men consume more due to their consumption habits is fascinating! Why do men consume in ways that are more damaging to the environment? Perhaps the corporations producing the vast majority of carbon emissions are actually capitalizing off of the gender dynamics in our society by marketing meat and cars as manly. In doing so, they increase profits, and we all suffer the environmental and social consequences.
To paint an accurate picture of the mechanisms leading to humanities carbon emissions, it's important not to discount the role of power structures that are seemingly unrelated at first glance. More often than not, those power structures are used by the instigators of the climate crisis.
I'm surprised it's that low. In the US, at least, men drive ~60% more than women (which is also the real reason that car insurance costs more for men).
Men are also heavily socialized (and propagandized) to believe it is manly to eat lots of meat.
Would riding a cow help or hurt?
Interesting, although I'd be even more interested to know how it varies across countries, the gender differences in France are pretty different to say, Norway or Saudi Arabia.