Post #1816619

2026-04-26 16:46 UTC

I'd argue that the concept of a carbon footprint is not, inherently, a scam. You do have an impact on the world. Your carbon footprint is a real and genuine measure of that impact. And taking actions to reduce your carbon footprint is a way to mindfully track, measure, and reduce that impact. Oil company propagandists may have used this real thing - your carbon footprint - to shift blame away from the oil companies and redirect people's efforts to reducing individual consumption *instead of* working for political change. Which is bad. But the carbon footprint, itself, is not a scam - just the uses to which big oil put it. Plastic recycling, on the other hand, is fake industry propaganda from start to finish. And honestly, if I'm on my soapbox, I'll remind everybody that "reduce, reuse, recycle" is in order of preference. Recyclable paper bags may be better for the environment than single use plastic bags, but bringing your own reusable cloth bag to the grocery store is even better. Just because a single-use product is recyclable doesn't make it environmentally friendly.

Replies (1)

@grue@lemmy.world 2026-04-26 17:51

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook > > British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe. The term would literally not exist in the public consciousness were it not for BP using it to shift blame. But yes, the concept itself is valid.

Open ##1816622