• leftytighty@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    One problem with “voting with your wallet” like this is some wallets are bigger than others and it’s not always easy and affordable to do the sustainable thing. Add to this that powerful lobbies (oil and gas, dairy, animal agriculture) use regulatory capture and other means to make their products the cheaper option for the consumer.

    State action to drive green technologies down in price like that of China is met with tariffs and other protectionist measures that drive those prices right back up.

    This is yet another tragedy of late stage capitalism sucking all wealth out of the working class, people may want to live more sustainably but they have to buy the cheap, disposable, subsidized options. Voting with your wallet isn’t easy when your wallet is empty.

    I’m fairly privileged and I lead a vegan lifestyle, and I can pay extra to have some luxuries like the meat substitutes, vegan restaurants, or non-fast-fashion clothing. Others might be able to do the same, cheaper, but at a lower quality of life.

    If we tackled wealth inequality with any vigor at all, more people could do this.

    • danciestlobster@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s true, and a big part of why what is possible for everyone varies. There is some silver lining, chicken is cheaper than beef and significantly lower carbon footprint, some vegan options can be very cheap too if there is time to cook.

      But yes, for this who have the ability and inclination to vote with wallets, great, with acceptance for others who don’t have that option