What’s more realistic? Getting billions of people to change or a few dozen companies to change?
Fossil fuel companies have spent a lot of money making the world dependent on them. Some of us may have the luxury of not giving them money but the majority cannot.
Fossil fuel companies know that. That is why they paid a marketing team to shift the responsibility onto the consumer.
What’s more realistic to change? A few dozen companies or billions of people?
Obviously it is easier to change the companies. That is why fossil fuel companies pay marketing companies to shift the responsibility onto billions of people. Because they know it will never succeed.
So whether you are a fossil fuel shill or not, you are doing the work of a fossil fuel shill.
Tell me you’re a fossil fuel shill without telling me you’re a fossil fuel shill
Tell that to the marketing team BP hired to say the same thing you’re saying.
I can’t afford those things just like most of the people impacted by climate change. But maybe that’s the point of redirecting the focus to those actions.
So you’re repeating the BP talking points.
Voters influenced by foreign actors…
Because we can afford both.
BP oil company pushed the idea that our individual carbon footprints matter so that everyone can share the blame of what the fossil fuel industry has done.
Don’t fall for it. Only corporations pollute enough to matter. Only corporations can provide alternatives to fossil fuels. Only corporations can make a meaningful reduction to greenhouse gas emissions.
The most significant difference individuals can make is to create political and legal pressure by voting and protesting.
He has the concept of a plan!
Economic models keep most numbers fixed to simplify their math. They call it ceteris paribus.
So when economists claim that increasing wages will reduce the amount of jobs, they came to that conclusion by keeping corporate profits fixed while doing their math. So any business expense is paid for by reducing workers or wages.
In the real world corporate profits are not fixed and have grown faster than wages for decades.
Keep that in mind if an economist ever tries to claim increasing wages will reduce the quantity of jobs.
This post was brought to you by Buc-ees™️
The fossil fuel industry has spent a lot of money making us dependent on them. They have been so successful that the majority of us would not be able to survive without their products whether it be to get to work, power our cities, heat our buildings, etc.
So what’s a realistic approach to the problem:
Getting billions of individuals to change across the planet? Which requires most of them and their families to die?
Or
Changing a few dozen companies?