I believe corporations are effectively supporting campaigns to push the burden of climate guilt on consumers. That isn't to say that the average citizen shouldn't be aware of (and seek to change) their patterns of consumption, but if most people are too busy scrupulously examining whether reusable shopping bags are better for the environment than plastic, well, no one notices the massive effect that global consumer product shipping (facilitated by Amazon) has on the environment.
That said, environmental scrupulosity is a thing. Would it be better for the environment if I didn't buy stuff from Amazon, and maybe just bought locally made goods and food? And maybe I shouldn't buy new clothes, but just continually repair what I have? And maybe I shouldn't use computers or smartphones because the raw materials are damaging to extract from the Earth?
But, to answer your question, I think we can most effectively blame an economic system that rewards continuous production and consumption, with emphasis on disposable, rather than repairable, items. Amazon helps facilitate that with free shipping and impossibly low prices. Yet, instead of asking us, as consumers, to reexamine our habits of consumption, we are asked to feel guilty about how much we recycle, or how much we drive. I could not own a car, and walk everywhere, but if I purchase nearly everything I need from Amazon, I suspect my "environmental impact" is no different from a person who drives to work everyday.
>but if most people are too busy scrupulously examining whether reusable shopping bags are better for the environment than plastic, well, no one notices the massive effect that global consumer product shipping (facilitated by Amazon) has on the environment.
This feels like a non-issue to me. If you're the kind of person who's "scrupulously examining whether reusable shopping bags are better for the environment", I doubt you're going to forget that ordering stuff from amazon involves a ship traveling half way across the world.
>But, to answer your question, I think we can most effectively blame an economic system that rewards continuous production and consumption, with emphasis on disposable, rather than repairable, items.
But is the economic system actually incentivizing disposable stuff in particular, or is it incentivizing producing what consumers want? The fact that amazon is strewn with "reusable" variants of everything imaginable (eg. reusable straws, reusable bags, reusable k-cups) makes me think it's the latter.
> Amazon helps facilitate that with free shipping and impossibly low prices.
Maybe the prices are indication of something? For something like straws, it might actually be better to manufacture 1 gram worth of plastic and ship it across the world, than it is to wash/sanitize a reusable straw which also involve labor and resources (eg. hot water).
>we are asked to feel guilty about how much we recycle, or how much we drive. I could not own a car, and walk everywhere, but if I purchase nearly everything I need from Amazon, I suspect my "environmental impact" is no different from a person who drives to work everyday.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. If you don't own a car, then presumably you're not driving to work. If you don't driving to work, that's one less thing that's contributing to environmental impact. Of course, if you're ordering stuff from amazon rather than going to a store, that loss might be offset by your amazon deliveries, but I suspect that you're still coming out ahead. The fact that the alternatives have environmental impact as well shouldn't come as a surprise either. After all, maintaining a first world standard of living is going to have some environmental impact associated with it, and it's unreasonable to expect otherwise.
That said, environmental scrupulosity is a thing. Would it be better for the environment if I didn't buy stuff from Amazon, and maybe just bought locally made goods and food? And maybe I shouldn't buy new clothes, but just continually repair what I have? And maybe I shouldn't use computers or smartphones because the raw materials are damaging to extract from the Earth?
But, to answer your question, I think we can most effectively blame an economic system that rewards continuous production and consumption, with emphasis on disposable, rather than repairable, items. Amazon helps facilitate that with free shipping and impossibly low prices. Yet, instead of asking us, as consumers, to reexamine our habits of consumption, we are asked to feel guilty about how much we recycle, or how much we drive. I could not own a car, and walk everywhere, but if I purchase nearly everything I need from Amazon, I suspect my "environmental impact" is no different from a person who drives to work everyday.
[Edit: formatting]