I agree on regulation. There is an interaction here you have to acknowledge though. Again I’ll use the example of overfishing. When scientists have recommendations to government about fishing regulations, invariably, the government will take the number scientists say is the limit above which ecological damage will occur, and a number that fishers say they want to fish, and choose a number in between. Convincing individuals to support these initiatives (that will force them to change their habits when the upstream dependency of those habits changes) is the same education that would convince them to change their habits in the first place.
I also must insist that you’re misrepresenting my opinion. I don’t expect every individual to research everything they interact with as you insist. I merely ask that they do the best they can, instead of sticking their head in the sand as too many do currently. I would never fault ignorance, but I will fault willful denial.
Market forces are there, sure. There is no denying that having a demand leads to these practices. But regulators who are compromising between sustainability and corporate interests, aren’t truly regulating. Regulators need to have hard stances on these things and it should be up to the corporations to deal with the limits. Consumers are going to have to deal with products having seasons again, limited availability, or higher prices. The system will stabilize, but it’s going to end up there anyway as the climate changes or resources get depleted.
And I apologize. I didn’t mean to misrepresent your opinion. I ended up on a bit of a rant there that was only sparked by a notion in your opinion.
People only need to do the best they can, for them, in whatever situation they are in. I get frustrated with the messaging that corporations push that it’s up to us as individuals to be responsible and prevent climate change or save the planet when it’s our collective responsibility as a society through government regulation.
I agree on regulation. There is an interaction here you have to acknowledge though. Again I’ll use the example of overfishing. When scientists have recommendations to government about fishing regulations, invariably, the government will take the number scientists say is the limit above which ecological damage will occur, and a number that fishers say they want to fish, and choose a number in between. Convincing individuals to support these initiatives (that will force them to change their habits when the upstream dependency of those habits changes) is the same education that would convince them to change their habits in the first place.
I also must insist that you’re misrepresenting my opinion. I don’t expect every individual to research everything they interact with as you insist. I merely ask that they do the best they can, instead of sticking their head in the sand as too many do currently. I would never fault ignorance, but I will fault willful denial.
Market forces are there, sure. There is no denying that having a demand leads to these practices. But regulators who are compromising between sustainability and corporate interests, aren’t truly regulating. Regulators need to have hard stances on these things and it should be up to the corporations to deal with the limits. Consumers are going to have to deal with products having seasons again, limited availability, or higher prices. The system will stabilize, but it’s going to end up there anyway as the climate changes or resources get depleted.
And I apologize. I didn’t mean to misrepresent your opinion. I ended up on a bit of a rant there that was only sparked by a notion in your opinion.
People only need to do the best they can, for them, in whatever situation they are in. I get frustrated with the messaging that corporations push that it’s up to us as individuals to be responsible and prevent climate change or save the planet when it’s our collective responsibility as a society through government regulation.