Comments by "" (@billionai4871) on "Levi Hildebrand"
channel.
-
@mrcsrkcrz That is a pretty easy way to blame the consumers for the problem. I think a better way to describe the goal of a consumer is "to enjoy life", to one really thinks that just surviving is enough when you have the option to do more than that. So:
1. Consumers want to enjoy life as much as possible. To do that they must survive and ensure that the planet can sustain life;
2. Governments want to be re-elected. To do that, they politician not only needs to survive (getting the clause above) but also needs their voters to survive as well, double reason to make sure that the planet survives
2.1 A politician's desire is to maximize their own money, and one way to do that is to continue to be elected
3. Companies want to maximize profit for shareholders. For that, the share holders need to survive, they need to ensure the politicians that give them tax benefits survive, and need the consumers who give them money to survive; triple reason to want the plant to be good.
Companies should be the the thing that tries the hardest to be green, but since that is not good for short-term profit, they tend not to. Governments in theory should be next, but what a politician really wants is more money, so if a company bribes them hard enough, they'll let that slide because once again, short term profits are king. That leaves the consumer, which needs to spend time they could be enjoying life to instead have to read up on and understand complex proceses of supply chain and networks of influences. And since the consumers do it for free, companies and politicians have even more reason to push that blame onto us and remove themselves from the equation by implying that "if you cared enough, you would spend the extra time researching/working a second job to afford the more expensive version". Don't fall for that propaganda BS
61