this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025
640 points (97.6% liked)

Canada

9613 readers
2307 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CileTheSane 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Multiple things can be true at the same time. Multiple courses of action can be reasonable.

Of course. And your original statement was only placing blame on individuals, which is the type of attitude that helps these companies get away with the all the environmental damage they cause. 80% of the cause should also be 80% of the focus.

[–] Sunshine 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

People continue to use the big 6 banks that finance the fossil fuel industry when they could switch to credit unions instead.

https://bank.green/

[–] CileTheSane 2 points 2 days ago

Right, so the focus should be on the big 6 and how they finance the fossil fuel industry to raise awareness and encourage people to switch.

Putting the blame on the individual (you need to reduce your carbon footprint) and expecting them to research every business and product they interact with on a regular basis means

  1. the research won't happen because nobody has that kind of time, and
  2. if they do try to do research on their own who knows if they'll actually research their bank.
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, it was not only placing blame on individuals. That is your interpretation of it.

[–] CileTheSane 1 points 1 day ago

No, it was not only placing blame on individuals. That is your interpretation of it.

Me: let's stop blaming individuals.

You're immediate reply: "But who else is to blame? Seriously..."

Hard to interpret that any other way. But okay, where in your original post do you blame anyone other than individuals?