No one is holding a gun to the owners of industry and forcing them to over produce. People can only buy what is available to them. The onus of responsibility is on the producers to produce sustainability, not for consumers to not buy their products and hope that producers change. Especially under the current system where there is no alternative means for consumers to acquire their goods or services, as the means of production are currently privately owned by the bourgeois.
People need things. People will have to buy things that are available. Systemic forces dictate what they can afford and what is convenient for them. Asking people to go without is not a feasible request to ask of millions of individuals when the alternative is making a minority of a few hundred owners cut the bullshit.
Your position is incredibly ignorant to the systemic forces behind why industry is the way it is. Industry induces demand through public manipulation and media, as well as through infrastructure and other systemic forces that dictate people’s lives. Industry will still create things because just being on a shelf is a chance for profit, even if people don’t buy it. They KNOW most of their product gets trashed but they don’t care because it is still profitable to do so and the system will always ensure that it is profitable at the expense of everyone else through the suppression of wages and working conditions if sales don’t meet expectations.
You do know that, in the US alone, we throw away up to 40% of our food supply annually because it goes bad on store shelves? Been this way for decades but we still have egregious issues with the food production industry being a major contributor for the climate crisis. Your suggestion of forcing the responsibility onto consumer is just unreasonable and proven not to be effective.
So, to your question, who should be assigned the CO2 credits for the production of a product? Obviously, it should be the producers not the consumer.
No one is holding a gun to the owners of industry and forcing them to over produce
They’re not overproducing, and when it happens by accident their shareholders punish them for wasting money.
The onus of responsibility is on the producers to produce sustainability, not for consumers to not buy their products
Bullshit, that’s a way to avoid responsibility for your own decisions. Your purchasing drives their production. If you stopped buying they’d stop making.
People need things
People need some things, but people need less than they buy.
People will have to buy things that are available
People need less than they buy, and should be conscious of how much they buy, what they buy, etc.
Systemic forces dictate what they can afford and what is convenient for them.
True, and it’s hard to change the entire system at once, but you can slowly bend it. In the 1980s Apartheit was just how things were done in South Africa. Since they were a sovereign country nobody could force them to change without invading them. But people boycotted them and shamed them. By people thinking about whether or not their money supported the Apartheit regime, they managed to change it.
Your position is incredibly ignorant to the systemic forces
Your position is extremely lazy, using those systemic forces as an excuse to do nothing, or to do whatever you want because you pretend you can’t change the system.
just being on a shelf is a chance for profit, even if people don’t buy it
Sure buddy. Things on a shelf turn a profit when nobody buys them. If that’s the kind of economic analysis you do, no wonder you’re so confused.
I doubt it would have been if you started off immediately denying decades of science. The entire reason we are going through global climate change is overproduction and the pollution caused by it.
You then make excuses towards the owning class that their overproduction is “accidental” and “punished by shareholders” which is an absolutely wild claim to make.
Following that you demonstrate a lack of basic understanding of economics and how profit margins work, that products are priced multiples of their production costs to ensure that even if only a fraction sells the company remains profitable in the long run. Loss is a thing in projections. They anticipate that a percentage of their product will not sell. It’s called shrink.
You then go on to try assigning blame onto individuals instead of understanding that this is something that is systemic in nature. It is an archaic, draconic mentality that is utterly infeasible of a strategy when you have even a basic understanding of sociology and human psychology. Which I am not equipped to tutor you in.
You then end it with a lackadaisical insulting of my argument by just calling it “lazy” for engaging in a critical analysis of the systems which control our lives.
Sorry, but if that’s how you argue, there is nothing constructive that will come out of that conversation. I’m just gonna get angry arguing with someone who clearly lacks education that I am ill equipped to provide. My degree is in wildlife conservation and ecological science, not education. I’m no teacher. I couldn’t hack it even if I wanted to.
No one is holding a gun to the owners of industry and forcing them to over produce. People can only buy what is available to them. The onus of responsibility is on the producers to produce sustainability, not for consumers to not buy their products and hope that producers change. Especially under the current system where there is no alternative means for consumers to acquire their goods or services, as the means of production are currently privately owned by the bourgeois.
People need things. People will have to buy things that are available. Systemic forces dictate what they can afford and what is convenient for them. Asking people to go without is not a feasible request to ask of millions of individuals when the alternative is making a minority of a few hundred owners cut the bullshit.
Your position is incredibly ignorant to the systemic forces behind why industry is the way it is. Industry induces demand through public manipulation and media, as well as through infrastructure and other systemic forces that dictate people’s lives. Industry will still create things because just being on a shelf is a chance for profit, even if people don’t buy it. They KNOW most of their product gets trashed but they don’t care because it is still profitable to do so and the system will always ensure that it is profitable at the expense of everyone else through the suppression of wages and working conditions if sales don’t meet expectations.
You do know that, in the US alone, we throw away up to 40% of our food supply annually because it goes bad on store shelves? Been this way for decades but we still have egregious issues with the food production industry being a major contributor for the climate crisis. Your suggestion of forcing the responsibility onto consumer is just unreasonable and proven not to be effective.
So, to your question, who should be assigned the CO2 credits for the production of a product? Obviously, it should be the producers not the consumer.
They’re not overproducing, and when it happens by accident their shareholders punish them for wasting money.
Bullshit, that’s a way to avoid responsibility for your own decisions. Your purchasing drives their production. If you stopped buying they’d stop making.
People need some things, but people need less than they buy.
People need less than they buy, and should be conscious of how much they buy, what they buy, etc.
True, and it’s hard to change the entire system at once, but you can slowly bend it. In the 1980s Apartheit was just how things were done in South Africa. Since they were a sovereign country nobody could force them to change without invading them. But people boycotted them and shamed them. By people thinking about whether or not their money supported the Apartheit regime, they managed to change it.
Your position is extremely lazy, using those systemic forces as an excuse to do nothing, or to do whatever you want because you pretend you can’t change the system.
Sure buddy. Things on a shelf turn a profit when nobody buys them. If that’s the kind of economic analysis you do, no wonder you’re so confused.
Lol okay. Sure buddy. Not even gonna bother reading the rest if you’re gonna go with this off rip.
Wow, you are truly clueless
It’s a shame you feel this way because I feel like further debate between you two would’ve been very productive for discourse.
I don’t really 100% agree with either of you, but you both made valid points from my perspective and you both clearly give a shit about the world.
I’ll respect how you feel though, I just wanted to express my disappointment.
I doubt it would have been if you started off immediately denying decades of science. The entire reason we are going through global climate change is overproduction and the pollution caused by it.
You then make excuses towards the owning class that their overproduction is “accidental” and “punished by shareholders” which is an absolutely wild claim to make.
Following that you demonstrate a lack of basic understanding of economics and how profit margins work, that products are priced multiples of their production costs to ensure that even if only a fraction sells the company remains profitable in the long run. Loss is a thing in projections. They anticipate that a percentage of their product will not sell. It’s called shrink.
You then go on to try assigning blame onto individuals instead of understanding that this is something that is systemic in nature. It is an archaic, draconic mentality that is utterly infeasible of a strategy when you have even a basic understanding of sociology and human psychology. Which I am not equipped to tutor you in.
You then end it with a lackadaisical insulting of my argument by just calling it “lazy” for engaging in a critical analysis of the systems which control our lives.
Sorry, but if that’s how you argue, there is nothing constructive that will come out of that conversation. I’m just gonna get angry arguing with someone who clearly lacks education that I am ill equipped to provide. My degree is in wildlife conservation and ecological science, not education. I’m no teacher. I couldn’t hack it even if I wanted to.