I don't have data but I was always under the impression that consumer use of fossil fuels (ie gas) was a drop in the bucket compared to enterprise use of fossil fuels (shipping trucks/boats/planes, private jets, etc).

The whole "reduce your carbon footprint PSA" was just a ruse.

▲

johnny_canuck 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The whole "reduce your carbon footprint PSA" was just a ruse.

It is especially true in the context of this war when the US is attacking oil infrastructure which is causing catastrophic environmental damage: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/world/middleeast/iran-oil...

Similarly related to the paper straw meme that has been circulating the last while.

▲

abustamam 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Ugh don't get me started on paper straws! At least EVs are a cool way to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, however ineffective it may be at scale. But nobody likes paper straws.

▲

Qem 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Also: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/30/carbon-footpri...

	▲	abustamam 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yikes. I never really thought about the environmental impacts of war mainly because no one seems to talk about it. Now that I know about it, it just infuriates me that anyone could even criticize any individual person's usage of fossil fuels.

▲

Mashimo 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But the companies have a large carbon foodprint to deliver a product or service for the consumer.

When I buy a large SUV / Truck, and never drive it, is that not counted negative towards my carbon foodprint?

▲

abustamam 4 days ago | parent [-]

> But the companies have a large carbon foodprint to deliver a product or service for the consumer.

I agree that that's _why_ they have a large carbon footprint, no company is just burning fossil fuels for fun. But it doesn't change a) the fact that they do have a large carbon footprint, and b) entire cities could ban gas cars and everyone could take public transit and it still wouldn't make a dent in the global carbon footprint.

As I think you're alluding to over-consumerism as a cause of companies having a large carbon footprint, that's part of it. But unless everyone just stops consuming, it's not gonna change anything. If it were legislated that big companies needed to reduce their carbon footprint by X% by Y date I think that would be the most effective, short term at least.

> When I buy a large SUV / Truck, and never drive it, is that not counted negative towards my carbon foodprint?

I don't know why it'd be negative. Zero or neutral, at best, but not negative. Negative would entail you're somehow removing CO2 from the environment.

▲

Mashimo 4 days ago | parent [-]

Oh my bad, I used negative wrong.

I mean if I buy a car (and never drive it) and have a phone, ipad and computer that I never use. Is it not ME who has a huge carbon footprint?

	▲	abustamam 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Compared to coal companies fighting tooth and nail to keep their industry relevant and the govt acquiescing instead of focusing on renewables, I don't think any individual can be considered to have a "huge" carbon footprint.