While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products
This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
State companies are just as accountable
My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land
This is exactly my point – how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them
What I’m pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like “taking on” the big bad 57 companies doesn’t actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes.
100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
I don’t think we’ve disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement’s veracity, do you think saying “80% of emissions come from megacorporations” drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?
Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.
You’ve answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point – the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.
Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.
And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Pay attention to the response that you are getting – people aren’t about to take action; they are going to internally fester.
What inaction?
The inaction of useless discussion. Oh, here’s a meme blaming “corporations” for everything; I can see emissions dropping already.
Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
Why would it have to be?
It wouldn’t. That’s my point. The list doesn’t matter.
I already said start at the top and work your way down.
As you just pointed out, there is no need for that; we can address the whole problem at once.
A lot of people simply don’t care
Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?
It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem
It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards organization and action instead of blame.
We’ve already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let’s work toward that.
This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
This is exactly my point – how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
What I’m pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like “taking on” the big bad 57 companies doesn’t actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
I don’t think we’ve disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement’s veracity, do you think saying “80% of emissions come from megacorporations” drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?
Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
Removed by mod
You’ve answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point – the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.
And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Pay attention to the response that you are getting – people aren’t about to take action; they are going to internally fester.
The inaction of useless discussion. Oh, here’s a meme blaming “corporations” for everything; I can see emissions dropping already.
It wouldn’t. That’s my point. The list doesn’t matter.
As you just pointed out, there is no need for that; we can address the whole problem at once.
Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?
It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards organization and action instead of blame.
We’ve already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let’s work toward that.
Removed by mod