• bob_wiley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think going after industry makes more sense. Other than the idea of climate change, which for most people feels abstract, they don’t have much of an incentive.

    Going after industry, governments can create regulations the companies have to follow, and those companies pay people to solve those problems, and they’re going to solve those problems, because they want to stay in business.

    Why are we banning plastic bags at grocery stores, putting it on the consumer to source and buy grocery bags, when a majority of the stuff being sold at those stores comes in some kind of plastic container? Why not push companies to make non-plastic packaging, or have no packaging where it makes sense?

    Instead of telling people to get 1 less hamburger, put quotas on a meat production (or just standards to get rid of factory farming which will naturally bring the volume down). This will drive up the price and people will buy less of it. Now, instead of unsold meat being thrown away, there is less being produced in the first place.

    How about requiring them to find ways to reduce the amount of resources (energy, water, etc) that go into their production lines?

    How about a tax on low quality fast fashion that ends up in the trash after one wear, so it no longer makes sense to buy, and people can go for longer lasting stuff that isn’t made to be consumed and thrown away?

    If you want to change the behaviors of a population, you don’t shame them until they comply, you tweak the dials that lead to big change.