Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sitting_Squirrel t1_ivtkaf1 wrote

I'm not entirely sure what this statistic actually accomplishes. If coca cola is the biggest distributor by volume, of course they're the largest contributor. If coca cola was to be broken up into small privately owned businesses, the same issue would exist, it would just be insignificant on an individual level (all business' statistics would have to be combined). This just seems like a pointless argument that really doesn't address the actual issue.

Edit: Sorry, I know I got off track

6

LiteVolition t1_ivtnjg2 wrote

I think it’s a fair thing to point out yes. Large company, large footprint. It’s not very useful data you’re right in my opinion.

2

haboo213 OP t1_ivto88b wrote

I believe the arguments that climate change activists would make is that because the company is large and have the most control over themselves, they should take the lead and be environmentally conscious, especially since they have promised it.

Comparing corporations to collective governance actions, it would be akin to saying that since international laws are at a standstill, it is those who pollute the most and make the greatest impact (eg China) who should start by reducing their carbon footprints since they have the ability to control themselves and would make a significant positive impact by doing so.

(Separately, even though I made the chart, I'm not sure if i agree with the position taken by these NGOs here and posted it with the view of hearing from Redditors and I definitely see where you're coming from.)

−2