If you're talking about the future, and what could be, or what should be, based on how it will impact individuals or people in general, then abortion fits along with the environment here. They both tend to be a belief held by a portion of one side of the political spectrum, yet in this instance would be a contradiction, but may not apply to you specifically based on your own beliefs. I'm just making a point in general.

The decisions made in these situations, will effect the person themselves, as well as others, and potentially the masses. For the people who believe that a persons body is theirs to do with how they please because of how it may be effected by something, then they would likely agree with abortion, but should also agree with emissions. If a person is forced to pay more, which they can't afford because they are poor, for renewable sources of energy, is that ok? If it causes them to eat much less, low nutrition food, aside from the fact they aren't eating healthy already since they are poor, just to keep the power on, is that ok? That's one of many outcomes that could harm people physically or mentally if they were forced to use more expensive, less dependable, renewable energy, at this point in time or in the near future.

On the other hand, if we find out CO2 is the major contributor period, that we are the main source emitting it, and that it's certainly going to cause life changing harm to the masses worldwide, well then extremely tough choices are going to need to be made. Making those changes before we are certain however, would be like sentencing some people to do time for a 'crime', even though based on what evidence was presented, we can't ascertain whether or not they are definitely guilty. Innocent and free until proven guilty.

The 'easy' answer is to create or significantly upgrade a product that's renewable, that's quick to manufacture and install, and much cheaper than anything CO2 related. Which of course is much easier said than done. If that ever comes about, climate change awareness won't really matter much, because there will be little to no reason to use carbon emitting fuels.

At this point I can't shake the feeling that this discussion is just kept alive artificially and that everyone except for three people can see why this is beneficial while these three just talk for the sake of talking and create fear where there shouldn't be any. 

PS5 will consume less unneccessary power when in stand by? -> Get the pitchforks, they're trying to tear down every entire industry and all life as we know it!! Wait, what do you mean, that would be self-damaging? Stop bringing logic into this! I'm on to something here!

Let's not forget: if Sony wants to waste less power it definitely means that they are pro-abortion. I am an expert because I can make giant generalizations, so I must know.

Also, bad intentions may exist when altruistic actions are performed, which 100% means that Sonys intentions are bad.

I can't shake the feeling, and neither can I stop shaking my head...

And I am a Nintendo fan and I hate Sony, for crying out loud, and I even I understand this!

You won't be impressed with the answer but that's called "myside bias" so there you go ... 

A traditionalist wouldn't see promoting the banning of gay marriage as being political while progressives would decry it as being otherwise. When we're talking about going green via deindustrialization, it's the other way around ... 

Different people are just going to see things differently that way until a real consensus actually comes along and I don't believe being 'green' is actually this 'consensus' ... 

If you somehow can't acknowledge this then there's no helping you open up a channel for some discourse. Just telling off entire groups that they're somehow 'wrong' isn't going to help when you're just as likely subconsciously participating in another groupthink as well so that's only going to feed some more fuel for echo chambers in the end ... 

This is why I don't like the idea of having politics (whether right or left wing) infecting our everyday parts of our lives because it'll eventually become toxic and bite us back in the ass in some way. You probably wouldn't approve of Nintendo if they had a new habbit of promoting a very traditionalist view of the world since you'd find it to be annoying eventually and it could potentially get in the way of how you enjoy their content ... 

What I'm saying is that there's more benefit to avoid politicization in our daily lives since relationships are less likely to breakdown this way. Why keep inviting politically loaded topics like this for no benefit ? What Sony is doing are not healthy for their customers and it's not healthy for society either since it only promotes/accelerates the division of society into partisan lines ... 

For this reason alone, I don't want to deal with politics at all no matter which partisan side they come from and you shouldn't want to either unless you want to see those closest to you bringing up politics that are constantly diametrically opposed to your values. Would that NOT tire you out at all ?

We all have myside bias though. I do. You do. Everyone does. Nobody can be truly objective as we all see the world through a lens influenced by our own experiences and environment.

One point I do have to agree with both here and with GoOnKid is that this discussion has kinda reached the point of being tiring and in danger of going toxic, so in the interest of my own mental health, which isn't in a good place at the moment, I'm going to call it quits here.

I think you're reading too deep into this, and making direct connections where none were made. I never said PS was pro abortion, I just said some people believe in both of those values. Values which even those believers can't know exactly if they are indisputably right or wrong. Yet promoting yourself by using those types of values, is apparently supposed to make you look good. Well it will make you look good to those who believe what you believe, but if that isn't completely factual, especially based on the consensus, then you're basically virtue signalling to a group of potential consumers, or business partners, etc.

"“It makes sense for us to put headquarters functions in the U.S. because we have a lot of important business partners in the U.S. and a lot of changes in the industry we need to deal with promptly tend to appear there first,” a spokeswoman for Sony Computer Entertainment said."

"Industry veteran Hirokazu Hamamura, a director at Kadokawa Dwango Corp. , said earlier that the U.S. market is crucial for Sony to stay ahead of the competition because, in addition to its size, the latest trends usually originate there first."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sony-moves-playstation-headquarters-to-california-1453794813

If you take into account PS headquarters being moved to San Mateo, California, in 2016, bordering Silicon Valley, and what kind of politics and values that area and it's people have, it's not a surprise to see some of the things being implemented at PS since then.

Like I said earlier, being more efficient isn't really a problem, and can be a smart business move, if done wisely, but when you're promoting that and using it as positive PR, you're assuming the people agree with your values and will be pleased by your decision, when in this case, there's no guarantee what they are doing is largely beneficial to the masses.

If SNY isn't worth pointing out how they may be influencing or part of something larger, positive or negative, then we shouldn't be pointing out what oil companies or auto companies are doing. Each individual company isn't trying or capable of ruining the environment, but apparently, when all are combined, they are doing so. Each person isn't trying or capable of destroying the environment, but together, apparently we are.

Erm. I don't think you understand the ramifications of climate change if that is your line of thinking... It's certainly more unhealthy if no one does anything.

Sure, but that doesn't mean we should have to force our own viewpoints on other people with differing viewpoints ... 

It's no different to ideological brainwashing or propaganda ... 

Similarly, I don't think you've considered the ramifications of some of the solutions to climate change which calls for cutting back on the means of production/consumption ... 

We live in a very privileged age of abundance. Most people just want their new iPhones for the holidays even if it means selling/using dinosaur juice ... 

No reason to support being 'green' since that just empowers the symbolism of certain fringe political parties for all the wrong reasons like I mentioned previously ... 

It's not healthy being ignored by half of society because you're on a quest to demonize/dehumanize them for their so called 'wrongthink'. If you want to prove that you're 'right' so badly why don't you actually try convincing the other side of a realistic solution that they can get on board and back ? If you don't want being green to be seen as a political thing then the only way to do it is by reaching a true 'consensus' ... 

Such reducionism, perfect. This is exactly what is being said.

Ramifications? I think if we were to weigh up the ramifications of what either outcome will end up as... I think not doing everything in our power to prevent climate change from progressing is certainly the more pressing issue. - Lets not bloody kid ourselves, lives are on the line.

If you think needless massive austerity is the way to go then be my guest but by no means will it change the very fact that this is a political issue ... 

Sony should be ashamed of themselves for blatantly taking sides like this and risking damage to the fragile social state of our society ...

If it's division that western civilization so desires then we should have it in the not too distant future so that there'll be newly formed independent states based on political alignment ... (a divided world might very well end up being the right path)

Annoying enough as it is around here to see Trump getting mentioned for the wrong or irrelevant reasons ...