Er, you don't need to spew CFC's into the atmosphere to damage the environment.

If a company knowingly understands that it is causing substantial levels of pollution in the manufacturing and/or use of their product and doesn't take measures to rectify that, then "Actively supporting" is indeed the correct term we can use here.

Thankfully though, many fabs and factories are rolling out carbon capture devices and installing solar panels, planting trees to reduce their footprint.

Don't conflate me with someone on the far left.

But I am also not wrong, industry wouldn't exist if life on this planet ceases to exist or gets severely impacted. - Right now our systems heavily rely on endless growth, that isn't sustainable on a planet which is finite in it's size and resources.

But the evidence is already fairly resounding that some currently inhabited areas of Earth are being negatively impacted by changing climates, resulting in pressures on those communities... And that is happening today, not 500+ years into the future... Or even 100+ million years. (I have already provided evidence for this.)

And you will take note that I never specified any time frames, obviously life isn't going to end tomorrow.

If it's an issue that is only supported by such a small insignificant minority and thus only has a small representation in political mandates by various representational democracies, then you really have nothing to complain about, right?

I think Sony has a good grasp of what "sells". - And if a green message makes them look good, then let them go at it.
Again, free market, capitalism and all that other stuff... If you don't like it, don't buy or support them as a company, vote with your wallet.

Being green is neither ideological or political unless people make it.

It is like maintaining a clean house, you have to live in it, you don't want shit spread out everywhere. - The planet is just a larger house with more people living under it's roof... The default position should be to look after it and maintain it appropriately.

Nah. On both accounts.

Well. You know that a slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so I don't need to touch on why that line of thinking is inherently wrong.

But if more companies start doing it, then good. - If you don't like it and you feel it's a minority stance being pushed on the majority, then you and those like you need to vote with your wallets.

The consumer has a ton of "power" over a companies direction. - Aka. Loot Boxes when their customer base starts to protest.

Many companies have and can profit from being greener.

Things like building your own energy production for your factories can save you a ton of money, especially as production can be rather energy intensive at times... Rolling out energy efficient LED bulbs and turning off computers in office spaces can reduce utility bills substantially.

Reducing paper usage and opting for electronic methods can not only make your business more efficient in retrieving/adding in data to a database, but you aren't having to invest as much in paper, ink and so on...

https://www.ledonecorp.com/top-ways-led-lights-can-save-your-business-money/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikekappel/2018/07/11/6-reasons-why-going-paperless-benefits-your-business/
https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/5511393/businesses-realise-the-benefits-of-solar-power/

Just because Sony doesn't profit from it today (You don't really have the evidence to back that statement up anyway), they likely have a long term business strategy inplace to work towards such a goal anyway.

I couldn't care if a company or business was Anti-LGBTQI, that is up to them as a business/organization to make and for me to decide whether I will support them or not on a case-by-case basis with my hard earned money, I'm certainly not going to spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about a companies political position on a topic, that's for sure.

Absolutely false. Carbon Neutral doesn't mean to ban hydrocarbons, it doesn't mean the stopping of CO2 production either.
It means that you are offsetting such outputs via other means... I.E. Planting Tree's or capturing CO2 and storing it underground.

It could also mean installing substantial green energy production to reduce the reliance on coal/oil power plants.

Political unions here have done some good for the average worker.

The issue is that the Pro-Industrialists and the Greens don't "work together" they work "against each other". - And that means progress stalls.

Both have valid points and perspectives, lets not disregard either side because you disagree with their stance.

Are you seriously arguing against the need for providing evidence for a claim? REALLY?

I stated in my prior post that I will be providing evidence for my claims and going forth I had an expectation for you to do the same, you failed to do so and thus only provided irrelevant opinion pieces and thus was discarded.

You can still fix that shortcoming however and make an appropriate reply that I will engage with.

Common sense tells me that you would respond with evidence, not opinions.

It's not arguing if it's common sense, apparently, and while I could 'fix' it, you went ahead and disregarded anything you saw as opinion, but also common sense points, as well as any questions. Any clear opinion or claims, I could give you and understand, but if you're going to ignore common sense and especially questions and just lump it all together, then why should I assume you would legitimately take any of it into account going forward, linked evidence to back up claims or not?

Even my first point about the planet being on fire/greener, you point out the lack of linked evidence and how you expected it. Then when I explain why I didn't post the link, since I did earlier in the thread based on that point, while figuring you likely saw it since you were quite active, you said you did read it, which was why you responded with NASA links yourself. Why ask for the evidence again if you already knew what I was talking about and had gone over what I had already provided prior? I bother to link the NASA evidence to that claim, along with my explanation, and then you ignore absolutely everything else as if it was all claims and opinion?

An argument using only evidence, where you can't think outside the box and question any of it, especially what's clearly not unquestionable fact, where you can only stand firmly behind that initial evidence, will lead nowhere constructive. That's about as common sense as it get's as far as I'm concerned.

Look. Honestly.. If you aren't going to back your arguments up with evidence, I will disregard it with equally as much evidence, it's really as simple as that, complaining about it is not going to change that.

I for instance disagree with the bulk of political issues that Fatslob presents, which is perfectly fine, but I at-least take his arguments seriously because he often backs his arguments up with evidence or is happy to provide it when asked.

Nice marketing for sony, but when sony was interested in to be "green", they are producing alot in china and we know how china is lacking in environmental Protection.

What is 'substantial' is totally a matter of opinion ... 

At most only a legal argument could be had here defining levels of what is and isn't an acceptable amount of pollution ... 

I don't think life will cease to exist anytime soon and that also includes human life as well so the industry will be fine for the forseeable future ... 

Sure you can argue that some inhabited areas are being negatively effected by climate change but the undeniable trend is that the quality of life on earth in general has risen over the past several decades and I don't see climate change causing a regression in the distant future either ... 

Industrialization at the cost of pollution and anthropogenic climate change is well worth it to the people since it has arguably been proven time and time again that it is comparatively the bigger well of life than maintaining nature who more often than not is cruel towards human life ... 

That still doesn't erase the fact that their promoting a very extremist political stance and if they want to make their point heard then they should get a larger representation ... 

I would argue otherwise because there's no consensus regarding the issue and considering this is being mostly pushed by a very fringe political group ... 

A planet is a far more complex system than a house so I don't think that's an apt comparison there ... 

More companies getting political is often a sign of partisan dysfunction ... 

@Bold It does and it doesn't work work that way. A company that strongly controls the means of living such as hydrocarbon energy extraction or a health corporation means that consumers have next to no leverage against those types of businesses which are often monopolistic in nature because they provide goods/services with inelastic demand so consumers effectively have no choice but to support those businesses regardless of the political message they are sending ... (unless of course they're okay on living without amenities that makes life extremely convenient) 

@Bold Yeah, doing energy production cost effectively is easier said than done. It's not practical to be individually energy self-sufficient which is why not many people ever go off the grid or if they do they have sources of hydrocarbon energy nearby to access. The other recommendations are scraping the bottom of the barrel ... 

And hardly any corporations base their strategy on such speculative distant future. At most, many corporations don't plan ahead for more than 5 years because banking on certain trends happening is not a sound business strategy because it could backfire very quickly on them if the events unfolding aren't happening the way they want it to ... 

@Bold Sometimes it's best not to work together "if they don't want the same things" ... 

In some cases there is no room for compromise and this is where political unions should "split up" so to speak IMO ... 

Industrialists demand a world with the highest productivity while the greens demand a world with near endless environmental sustainability but these goals are not compatible with each other so this is case where the two should separate sovereign entities instead of being a unified sovereign entity ... 

Well. No. It's not a matter of opinion.
Substantial is anything of significance, size, worth or importance.

The acceptable amount of pollution should be one where there isn't a buildup/increase over natural levels, you might not give a shit about living in a toxic environment, that doesn't mean everyone else does.

Again... I haven't made the damn claim that life will cease to exist soon.

Er... Quality of life does get impacted in areas that are being impacted by pollution and climate change. Again, I have already provided evidence for this.
Rising sea levels forcing island nations to migrate elsewhere is a big fucking impact to their quality of life.

Polluted waterways preventing people from consuming one of the basic necessities for supporting life is a pretty big fucking impact.

Struggling to breathe in smog-thick atmospheres is a pretty big fucking impact.

But nice try downplaying their significance.

Are you being serious? That pollution is worth it? Say that to the millions of people dying all around the world every year.
Say that to the endless amounts of people suffering through ailments like cancer.

You really lack some empathy.

Supporting the natural environment is not an extreme position, never has been, never will be.

There is consensus regarding climate change and the damaging effects of pollution.
Evidence for this has been provided prior.

Sony doesn't control the means of living... And to be honest, you just sound salty because you can't get your own way. The world is pushing towards a greener direction, which is a damn good thing.
In saying that, even monopolies can topple over when consumers vote with their wallets, simple as that, the remnants of past businesses are everywhere.

Never claimed you had to be energy self sufficient. - It is all about balancing your carbon foot print, that's the entire point.
And the evidence also states you can make/save money in the process. Win win.

Lots of companies and organizations are rolling out solar here, my own fire station had a rollout of solar years ago to equalize it's carbon footprint... Our street lights are all energy efficient LEDs, we now have a thermal solar and wind power generation... List goes on.

We are also one of the cleanest places on Earth, which means our aquaculture produce tends to be highly sought after... And Eco-tourism has been booming with swim with the sealions/sharks and so on.

Money can be made by going green, shame you can't see it.

Nah.

You just showed us that it is a matter of opinion ... 

To you, an increase over natural levels is not acceptable but that doesn't mean everyone else will agree with that stance ... 

Still doesn't change the overall world trend that the quality of life has been increasing ... 

As far as sea level rise is concerned, according to a 2014 IPCC report on page 1191, the high-end estimate mean sea level rise is 0.83 meters by 2100. It's more realistic to expect a mean sea level rise of ~0.5 meters by 2100 so the impact of sea level rise over 80 years will largely remain imperceptible even to island nations ... 

With industrialization, we can expect to use water treatment facilities so what's your point about polluted waterways ? 

Smog is a health concern but people now have better healthcare access due to industrialization so it more than balances out the odds ...

Show evidence that millions of people around the world are dying directly due to human pollution ... 

Even with diseases like cancer and in particular skin cancer, just over 100000 people die each year from it but you'd be hard pressed to attribute a significant amount of the causes of ailments being down to anthropogenic climate change ... 

I lack empathy but somehow you're constantly implicating that less industrialization is somehow supposed to be more humane when that goes against common knowledge ? In that case how dare I advocate for more pollution to increase human life span, increase electricity coverage/uptime, improve healthcare, and ending poverty/world hunger indeed, oops ...  

Yes it is since mother nature is less compassionate than you think it is so it's only fair to bend it to do our bidding ... 

Modern civilizations like ours only exists to exploit nature for human purposes ... 

If only it were a good thing since nature has not ever been a very good caretaker for humans so it's only fair that we take matters into our own hands when nature doesn't have our best interests since it couldn't care less whether we were alive or not ...

Consumers will vote with their wallets alright, they'll probably vote to keep themselves alive if it means kowtowing to electric generation companies to keep the lights on because people can't afford to get on their bad side even if it means ideological conflicts ... 

@Bold How do you effectively achieve this without being energy self-sufficient or maybe going nuclear ? Both of which are certainly going to run over budget ... 

I think it's the only reasonable proposition ... 

I've been following the discussion but didn't want to post anything since I didn't see a point but it's really starting to become ridiculous. Aside from a few extremists (like Greta) noone is talking about stopping industrialization. I don't understand where you get this impression from. You said it yourself - using water treatment falicilities for example. That's exactly the point!

You can have industrialization without excess polution. Whether it's by introducing filtration falicilites, using alternative sources of power (e.g. solar, wind energy) or whatever else you can think of. It's not either or. Will it cost more in the short-term? Sure. But in the end it will benefit everyone. And that's what we all should strive for.

It doesn't even matter whether climate change is caused by humans or not. In every single case less polution is better.

You still have to produce energy to run those plants which will inevitably cause pollution on a large scale so you're still likely making a trade-off ...

There will obviously be some pollution. It doesn't matter what we do we will pollute to a certain extent. The goal is to avoid unmanageable pollution that harms us. Currently we're not at that point and measures should be taken to lower it significantly.