News

the point people are generally making when they complain about corporations comprising the majority of the emissions is that they have the majority of the actual control in the situation, there's not really a real alternative that exists to a lot of these other options that's viable for people to actually partake in, short of moving out into the countryside and deciding to start homesteading, which also takes a lot of resources to start up. And then also that, because the corporations have a lot of the control, and the consumers can't realistically do jack shit, it makes more sense to put the focus on them and regulate what they do.

lots of people can't live without a car right now because they don't have access to public transit. lots of the food supply that exists right now is energy inefficient because it's profitable for the corporations to rely on publicly subsidized highway infrastructure and underpaid non-union trucking and guarantee consistent delivery times compared to huge idiot precision scheduled rail operations. some people can't switch over to a non-coal power plant without cutting out basically all electrical use from their life (not sustainable) or ponying up for solar panels on their roof (can't be done everywhere, potentially makes the grid less stable, expensive even with tax credits, can't do it if you're renting).

none of that is shit that they're really given any say on outside of occasional city council meetings which realistically affect very little about their local community, and like an election every couple years. I don't think there's an equal share of responsibility there, and I don't think the people even really have the ability to take responsibility for it. even just looking at it pragmatically, even if they had the ability to do so, they probably won't. it makes more sense to attack the head of the pyramid there, to attack the concentration of power.