But I have no control over the leak part. I have no option to pay more to close the leak. In fact, most consumers don't even know about the leak. So I'm entirely unable to make a choice. It's irrational to expect that anyone would prefer to go vegan over just fixing these leaks.
This problem will remain till we have a proper carbon tax globally.
You can always vote for the politicians that are willing to go after the gas leaks, you can choose to buy from companies that are sourcing from leak-free gas pipes or use renewable energy sources etc.
Just because you don't have direct access to the pipelines so you can close the leaks with your bare hands doesn't mean that you have no power over it. None of us have any control beyond 2 meters of our existence because that's how far away we can reach with our hands but because we live in a society the things we say or choices we make have impact everywhere on the globe.
That's also why we can eat things that are further away than a few meters from us and the leak in question is from the machinery that facilitates all that.
> You can always vote for the politicians that are willing to go after the gas leaks, you can choose to buy from companies that are sourcing from leak-free gas pipes or use renewable energy sources etc.
None of these things are true for me. I'm not allowed to vote where I live and even if I could, the US election system doesn't offer a practical voice that reflects this (the broken voting method is arguably is the biggest problem the US needs to solve). I also only have a doctor gas company. So my alternative would be to switch my furnace, water heater and stove to electric. That's actually on my wishlist, but now we are talking significant money. People who live in apartments or even condos likely at best have control over the stove.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't take responsibility. In fact I've moved to a largely vegan diet both due to carbon emissions and animal cruelty concerns. I feel guilty every day and wonder if my positive contributions outweigh the damage that my existence does to our environment and the harm and pain climate change will ultimately cause for other people as well as coastal cities behind uninhabitable, we see unrest over climate refugees, famines, etc.
This assumes the leaks are unavoidable. They’re not. There’s lots of technology the companies can use to find and fix the leaks. However the lack of regulation/enforced regulation means that it’s a race to the bottom. When I see these companies being proactive and pressing for legislation that raises the bar, I’ll buy the personal responsibility argument a little more.
> All of these things are done so that you can be provided with cheaper consumer goods
Why would you assume that irresponsible practices that are bad for the environment but save companies money always reduce the price for the consumer when they could keep raising the price of their goods to the highest price point the consumer will tolerate and simply pocket the money they save by destroying the environment.
doubtful, but even when that's true you still don't have to reduce prices by the same amount as you save harming the environment. You only have to make your prices competitive with everyone else. It's why collusion and price fixing exist.
Foxcon's worker's deaths are a cost of doing business of delivering iPhones to YOU the consumer. Their blood is on YOUR hands.
Or you know, Foxcon and the pipeline companies are responsible for what they do.
Add in the fact that we have regulators and environmental regulations that we voted for and funded to try and stop things like this shows that the average person does not want this to happen.
> Foxcon's worker's deaths are a cost of doing business of delivering iPhones to YOU the consumer. Their blood is on YOUR hands.
Correct. If you bought iPhones from someone you know is driving people to suicide with their business practices, you're at minimum accepting that.
If there's an alternative to the iPhone that doesn't do that, then yes you should indeed be triggered to consider switching. To not have to consider it is to think you're not the one paying money to the party to run the business process they do, which drives people into suicide.
Of course culpability is not on a spectrum. Of course Foxcon directors are much more responsible than you as a consumer. But to act like you have no influence in the matter would be false.
Unless you have no other options. But in your example you do. And reducing your gas usage long-term also absolutely reduces the amount of gas infrastructure required, and the amount of gas leaks. Mad-made gas leaks and consumer gas usage correlate, perhaps not perfectly, but they obviously correlate strongly. Just like child labour and demand for diamonds correlate. Just like iPhones and worker suicide (versus say, a lower correlation for the Fairphone) So yes, it's entirely normal to consider green alternatives to gas as a consumer because in the end, the leaks exist because pipes were built for us because we demand gas.
Does that mean it's the only solution to these leaks? No. But apart from voting in elections or otherwise driving political change, (encouraging others to) voting with your wallet is one of the few influences you have to solve these problems.
>Foxcon's worker's deaths are a cost of doing business of delivering iPhones to YOU the consumer. Their blood is on YOUR hands.
Is it not? If you buy conflict diamonds do you get to wash your hands and say "there isn't any blood on my hands because it's the local warlord's choice to use child soldiers, not mine"?
Do people go out of the way to buy conflict diamonds? or is it more people try to buy cheap diamonds?
Even if you don't go looking for cheap diamonds, how can you be sure your diamond is conflict free?
>"Nearly nine years after the Kimberley Process was launched, the sad truth is that most consumers still cannot be sure where their diamonds come from", Global Witness founding director Charmian Gooch told BBC World Service's World Business Report.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-16027011
For fungible goods, you can not guarantee where and what made the product you are using. That is why we (try) to have systems in place to do so.
> Do people go out of the way to buy conflict diamonds? or is it more people try to buy cheap diamonds?
I don't think apple is going out of their way to find sweatshops either.
>Even if you don't go looking for cheap diamonds, how can you be sure your diamond is conflict free?
Are you arguing for nihilism here? ie. "we can't really be sure that even conflict free diamonds are conflict free, so it's fine for me to buy diamonds from a random diamond dealer in Sierra Leone"?
> I don't think apple is going out of their way to find sweatshops either.
Apple goes out of their way to find the lowest cost manufacturing that gets the job done. I think apple doesn't care what the conditions of workers are as long as they can pocket the money they save by selecting the manufactures that cost them the least. As long as people continue to buy iphones their factories could be fueled by burning children alive in furnaces for all they care.
I think the point is that the leaks are only hunted and fixed if it is economically beneficial and not environmental beneficial.
This is something that the consumer has no direct control over.
Leaks are not required to provide me gas. It's just an unfortunate side effect that can be addressed and drastically reduced if prioritized.
