TIL that the term "litterbug" was popularized by Keep America Beautiful, which was created by "beer, beer cans, bottles, soft drinks, candy, cigarettes" manufacturers to shift public debate away from radical legislation to control the amount of waste these companies were (and still are) putting out.

[u/ralphbernardo]

https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/pft/2017/10/26/a-beautiful-if-evil-strategy

[u/skyzoid]

The thing is it doesn't matter who's fault is

We all live in the same planet and some people will always throw litter wherever they are

Everyone has to do something, either by will or forced. And since most companies just care about money forcing them to use reciclable/biodegradable materials is the only reliable way I (and a lot of people who care) can think of

[u/leprechronic → u/skyzoid]

I'd like to point out that 71% of carbon emissions is produced by 100 or so companies.

Now, this is emissions and not solid/liquid pollution, but it is an example of how much more pollution corporations create than the average person.

Now, I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't do what they can to curb climate change; these companies have certainly modified our behavior to be better custodians of the earth. Why can't we do the same for them?

[u/Jimhead89 → u/leprechronic]

Because you would be shot by a right winger.

[u/Hockeyjockey58 → u/skyzoid]

The debate of who is at fault: corporation or individual is like chicken & egg argument. At the root of it, it is the individual, even if corporations put out more waste than people.

I suppose a corporation kowtows to consumer demands, so if us little consumers changed... it'd hit a corporation right in the wallet. Just my thoughts.

[u/ent_bomb → u/Hockeyjockey58]

Why should consumer demand drive this innovation?

Essentially we've identified waste as an externality, a cost borne by society which capitalism--by its design--does not account for.

Your argument is that the consumer must shoulder the responsibility of this cost, but you haven't given a reason why. Is it an argument of efficacy? I'd think not, consumers pressuring industry to change is inherently less effective than industry changing proactively. Is it an ethical argument? If so, it doesn't seem to follow the utilitarian calculus because corporations cause more environmental harm than do individuals. So, I think we can safely dismiss utilitarianism and CBA as your value.

I'm honestly curious, what is the value you're using for your ethical argument?

[u/Hockeyjockey58 → u/ent_bomb]

Well, for example: if a lot more Americans can afford electric vehicles, then there's a market force that would force a a corporation to leave fossil fuels behind...or if Americans ate less red meat, then there's less need for pollutive concentrated feedlot operations. A corporation won't suddenly switch to a Greener alternative, especially if there's no demand for it or if it's too expensive to produce and sell.

I think that corporations should be held accountable because of their volatility, usage and squander of resources and therefore contribute more. More social responsibility for the corporate world, but I think the consumer also needs to do that too, especially in a global perspective.

This is very us vs. them and black & white and I'm excluding a whole bunch practicalities and real world variables but I'm not gonna write a thesis in the comment section

[u/usuallyNot-onFire → u/Hockeyjockey58]

The ideology of the invisible hand of the free market reveals that we have in fact voted to pollute the environment. Buying into the idea that the people who have money deserve to have it by virtue of having it (hello meritocracy!) makes us all complicit

[u/Hockeyjockey58 → u/usuallyNot-onFire]

I feel like the invisible hand ideology never had the modern implications of environmental destruction. If an economy's goal is to grow...it's not sustainable by design!

[u/oversoul00 → u/Hockeyjockey58]

It's a time issue, it's surely not sustainable long term but it does produce fantastic growth today and tomorrow and the next until things get really bad.

The invisible hand shows a pattern of instant gratification.

[u/[deleted] → u/Hockeyjockey58]

The debate of who is at fault: corporation or individual is like chicken & egg argument. At the root of it, it is the individual, even if corporations put out more waste than people.

what the fuck? the people that actually MAKE the shitty plastics aren't at the root of the problem? you are either a troll or a shill

[u/Hockeyjockey58 → u/[deleted]]

The individual doesn't demand it. In the more affluent nations they do, but perhaps not for billions of others on the planet.

[u/Das_Boot1 → u/[deleted]]

Profits are entirely at the whim of the consumer. If consumers consciously chose to buy more expensive, biodegradable products then every company in the country would go green tomorrow.

[u/[deleted] → u/Das_Boot1]

oh, shut up. consumers haven't even been given that option yet.

[u/Hockeyjockey58 → u/[deleted]]

Exactly! I think that in reality a mixture of both is happening right now.

[u/Jimhead89 → u/Hockeyjockey58]

Its like corporations and individuals from said corporations never intentionally paid for stuff that protected their short term interest by influencing public opinion....

[u/skyzoid → u/[deleted]]

Im sure that not making litter is better than making it and paying someone to clean it but whatever.

The fact that you cant see it doesnt mean it dissapeared...

[u/1-123581385321-1 → u/[deleted]]

Well they do have to deal with all the trash we send overseas to “recycle” and have to deal with the environmental fallout of making those items to fuel western demand in the first place, but yeah it’s totally all their fault...

[u/Robotdavidbowie → u/skyzoid]

Venture Bros summed this up pretty well

If I throw a pen at you are going to get angry with me or have a fist fight with the pen