• cactusupyourbutt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    yes and no. the good part here is it does something (small) for the environment.

    the bad part is that it puts the onus on the average person, whereas a majority of pollution comes from the industry

    • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hot take: the onus should be on everyone - both industry and people. Single use plastics is a real, very serious issue. It may be relatively small regarding global warming, but it’s not small at all regarding other serious problems we’re making for our planet.

      • Marcy_Stella@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Additionally if no one is buying products from heavy polluters then it doesn’t make sense to burn the fuels. It either requires people to take action and change their buying habits or for governments to tax carbon to both make the environmentally friendly options economically viable to most people and to get companies to reduce emissions so they can stay competitive.

        Air travel is more difficult to get environmentally friendly at this time due to the limited options as electric consumer planes are still in the testing and development stage and would struggle with international flights however train travel in Europe can be a solid option over plane travel but from a US perspective air travel is still generally the best way to go as trains are just not the best in the US and a car trip will take longer then both planes and trains and emit more fossil fuels per trip per person.