Tyson Foods and the federal government refuse to show their math for a new sustainability label.

  • alienanimals@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    To say Exxon was just, “fulfilling demands” makes them seem like good people. They KNEW they were causing climate change 50 years ago. They suppressed the information. Many Americans are dependent on their oil. It’s all part of the design of our roads, infrastructure, jobs, etc. These corporations only care about their revenue streams, not the streams of water and how clean they are. Hoping the majority of consumers band together to do the right thing simply will not work. The corporations and the executives need to be held accountable or we will continue to flounder on climate change.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      Unfortunately it goes back further than that. We knew anthropogenic climate change was a thing in the late 1800s, and the oil companies started doing the research in the early 1900s. They knew by 1910 that they were flirting with disaster. Which just allows everyone to say, “nope, not changing anything personally, because those decisions were made before I was born.”

      I agree that it’s unfair that we have to modify our consumption when it makes so little impact. Hopefully meat in vats is actually better for the environment, but I’m not counting on it for the first generation. It is finally being served in a couple restaurants so that’s a first step

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      To say they’re filling demand is a morally neutral, and objectively correct, standpoint.

      Many Americans are dependent upon their oil

      This is the actual problem to solve, and why you should support carbon tax-and-dividend.

    • Bolt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m not defending fossil-fueled energy production. When the product is energy it’s inexcusable to produce it in such a grossly irresponsible manner.

      But if “coal energy” specifically was the product, and consumers overwhelmingly directly choose it rather than available renewable energy, then yeah I’d cut companies a bit more slack. When the harm isn’t in method but the product, and people are choosing that product instead of alternatives, then much of the blame rests on them.