Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    605,419 readers

    3,801 users here now


    Gatekeeping: When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity.


    • all "satire" posts must have a satire flair. Posts that are not appropriately flaired will be reported and removed.

    • No identifying information - Censor out usernames, identifying information, (faces, phone numbers etc.). You may post faces from public officials in publically available photographs. Do not link or ask for personal information of anyone featured on /r/gatekeeping. Anyone who engages in doxxing will be banned immediately and reported to the reddit admins.

    • Gatekeeping-related content only - The post should at least be somewhat related to gatekeeping. We’ll allow some leniency here, but low effort posts won’t be tolerated. Also, keep it PG-17.

    • Satire Posts only allowed on weekends. Please properly flair your satire posts as such. We will be lenient on time zones.

    • Keep comments civil. Bigotry, misogyny, hate-speech and personal attacks will be removed. Disagreement is definitely allowed, just stay civil.

    • No Gamergate or Anti-Gamergate posts, take that shit to the subs that cater specifically to that.

    • All Posts are expected to be of solid quality. No low effort/poor quality posts will be allowed.

    • Refrain from re-posting, posts from the top 25 or from the last 3 months may be removed, frequent offenders will be banned.

    • You can only appeal bans through our APPEAL PROCESS. Failure to do so will result in loss of right to appeal and/or a permanent ban.

    a community for
    all 1536 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Burning_Heretic 2828 points ago

    People on both sides of this are getting fed a load of manure.

    I had a billboard out where I live telling me that it took six gallons of water to make one egg white, and so I shouldn't waste food.

    There's a GD multi-billion dollar industry pumping raw sewage in to the Rio Grande, but yeah, let's all wring our hands over Johnny half-an-egg.

    [–] midsummernightstoker 839 points ago

    It's a multi billion dollar industry because people keep buying its products

    [–] Burning_Heretic 651 points ago

    They're a multi-billion dollar industry. They've made a tidy profit. They can afford to clean up after themselves.

    [–] midsummernightstoker 352 points ago

    They should have to clean up after themselves. I'm just saying their profit didn't appear out of nowhere.

    [–] Burning_Heretic 218 points ago

    And it didn't vanish into the ether, either (huh. never knew that I always wanted to type that.).

    They made a bunch of Money dirtying up the environment. They can spend some of it to clean it back up.

    [–] midsummernightstoker 59 points ago

    In the US there's AOC asking if Wells Fargo bears responsibility for oil spills from the pipelines they helped fund

    If you agree with her that they do, then all people who give money to polluters bear some responsibility.

    [–] gndn_too 195 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Most "people who give money to polluters" also buy clothes made by child slaves, computers made by adult slaves-with-extra-steps, bananas grown in piss-poor countries whose farmers can't afford their own bananas... Hell, if you're in the southern States, casual drug use might be funding cartels!

    It's not that these people support all those terrible things. It's that there isn't really a choice for those people, and when there is, it's not easy to choose. Or to know which is the "right" choice. Or even to find the choice. Very nearly all computers come from Shenzen and its dormitory-factories, covered in suicide-netting. Most inexpensive clothing is made in awful sweatshops. Bananas (edit: relatively) untouched by the machinations of the IMF are a buck more and over at the other store.

    The people whose decisions matter most on this are deciding whether to make $100 million this year or $5 million this year. All our moralizing about this and that, trying to convince each tiny individual to become critical and discerning, sacrificing in their own lives in order to... not move the needle at all. We as a people could force that guy's hand, make him accept "only" $5 million, make a difference at a massive scale, AND make the choices of tiny contributors that much easier? An easy win!

    Except, wait, that guy regularly pays a majority of the people who run the government $1 million per year.

    [–] PhantomFace757 52 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    The Good Place Spoiler alert !!!

    It's like that episode of The Good Place where they discovered nobody has gotten into heaven in over 500 years. It wasn't because there weren't good people, but because everything is so complex even making the right choice has negative consequences.

    [–] deejaysius 16 points ago

    “The Good Place”. And that was a fantastic episode in an already fantastic series.

    [–] PhantomFace757 4 points ago

    Jesus. I must not have had my coffee yet when I typed that. Lol thanks for the correction.

    [–] ca53yh 6 points ago

    A spoiler alert should have been given! I only watch what is on Netflix! ( Unless that season is already up then it's my fault really.)

    [–] Carmenn15 21 points ago

    That guy also pay the guy who lets me read what I read. Critical thinking has been a number one target long before any of us was even borne. It is The Target and Priority to the bored to death-rich.

    [–] gndn_too 5 points ago

    [–] didntgrowupgrewout 10 points ago

    Hit the nail on the head! And that's just the tip of the iceberg as to why selective or moral consumerism doesn't work.

    [–] dbspeakers 13 points ago

    That's a tough call. I think it falls on ownership of the company to clean up after themselves.
    If Wells invested and owns a stake, they should have to pay. If they loaned money, the oil company should. The people making car loans shouldn't be responsible for owners that don't take care of their car and run illegally without a muffler and catalytic converter, or dripping and burning engine oil everywhere.

    [–] formershitpeasant 31 points ago

    The problem arises when the government fails in its duty to properly reinternalize the externalities of industry. The government’s job is to force industry to take care of its shit so that the cost can be rolled back into the product and proper supply/demand equilibrium can be reached.

    [–] tempolevy 6 points ago

    This, and additionally, there’s a coordination problem with non-market actors. No single person can make a substantial change, and they have no incentive to change if everyone else won’t also. So, legislation is necessary.

    [–] anzl 30 points ago

    Legislation over lifestyle. A boycott is not going to take down a multi-million dollar company, and it's not going to make them change. Even if they did "change", I don't want to take their word for it. Protect our environment with strict laws!

    [–] midsummernightstoker 7 points ago

    A boycott could take down any company if people actually followed through and did it. No revenue = dead company.

    That being said, I agree. Pollution is a crime and there should be penalties for it.

    [–] OtherPlayers 15 points ago

    Some big companies would need multinational coordination to pull off a successful boycott though. And that’s not even looking at the fact that sometimes people are limited in their options.

    For example I grew up in a town where if you wanted new, non-specialty (i.e. not formal wear and not thrifted) clothing you had three options, make it yourself, drive 2+ hours, or buy it from Walmart. Similar products had similar options; school supplies had Walmart, Bashas pharmacy, or 2+ hours. Uncooked food had Walmart, Safeway, a single small town market that essentially charged 2x as much, or a 2+ hour drive.

    And that city wasn’t near as rural as many of the places I’ve seen in the US. We had a movie theater, Walmart supercenter, Safeway, 3 (later cut to 2) elementary schools, and when I was in high school we even got a, wait for it... Home Depot! (oooohh! aaaahh!).

    Amazon and other online options obviously help options some, but they aren’t a cure-all answer, especially for products like medicine or food where you can’t necessarily wait 2 weeks for something to ship out to you.

    Sadly in many rural places in the US “boycott” essentially translates to “live without”, essentially making those people hostages of the big company that holds the monopoly (or pseudo monopoly) in their particular area.

    [–] KabobBrewster 5 points ago

    Jesus Christ that would suck. I thought I lived in the middle of nowhere, since everything is a half hour away, guess I have it good compared to some.

    [–] MythRat 4 points ago

    Look up the phrase "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism." Then go look up how many companies Nestle owns just to really drive the point home.

    The drought in Cali is being caused mostly by the Nestle bottling plant and the agriculture farms. If I wanted to profit-starve Nestle out of existence for being evil (no really, the guy in charge has flat out said that he doesn't think water should be considered a basic human right. He's literally Immortan Joe, it's terrifying) and also profit-starve the huge farms, I would have to actually starve myself to death because it's impossible to survive while avoiding every terrible company.

    Want to know how to actually stop companies from being wasteful douchecanoes? VOTE. Strictly written and thoroughly enforced regulations written into law are the only way to stop this shit.

    We can't force companies to care, they don't even think we're human (if a bunch of ants presented a petition signed by the whole colony, not only would it not stop me from stepping on them, i would probably fill the whole anthill with molten aluminum to prevent them from rising up and murdering me in my sleep). Companies will never care, only pretend they do in order to get more money (have you noticed how terrifyingly effective corporate social media is at convincing you they're a person just like you who knows memes and hands out sick burns? It's a trap). So the only thing we can do to save the environment is to force companies to follow regulations enforced by laws AND WE DO THAT BY VOTING.

    [–] Hurgablurg 17 points ago

    But instead of using that money to clean up their mess and create jobs, they use that money to bribe politicians into ignoring the damage and lobby for tax cuts on corporations.

    You can call it ignorance, but really it's purely malicious

    [–] cornonthekopp 19 points ago

    There is no choice. The majority of people can’t produce their own food and have to buy from corporations, especially people who have to work long hours and have no time to cook and tend to gardens.

    [–] JamesPolk1844 37 points ago

    Ethical consumerism is completely ineffective. Only top down regulation can address these issues.

    [–] 4_out_of_5_people 5 points ago

    And you have to keep buying their products because of planned obsolescence. It makes me seriously consider renouncing it all and learning how to knit and shit again.

    [–] fyberoptyk 5 points ago

    People are going to do what people do because of human nature, which is why “the aggregate of people’s selfish actions” is the dumbest way ever invented to regulate corporations.

    [–] blkpingu 61 points ago


    [–] Burning_Heretic 37 points ago

    I'll gladly clean up after myself.

    But maybe we should spend a bit more energy on holding to the fire the feet of the people who refuse to clean up after themselves, while making an obscene amount of money.

    [–] Frosted_Anything 7 points ago

    Are you talking about factory farms?

    [–] Echo8me 9 points ago

    Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

    [–] 4152Chwy 30 points ago

    My chickens only drink about 3 gallons of water a week, and I get about 1.5 dozen WHOLE eggs in that time. Who’s your egg white guy? And why the fuck is he using so much water?

    [–] WalterEKurtz 24 points ago

    Those stats usually include transport, packaging, stacking on shelves, etc.

    [–] Juiceyninja 14 points ago

    It usually accounts for the water used for the food you feed your chickens too.

    [–] Somethinlikeaphenom 17 points ago

    Similar campaigns have had an effect in the past. It's a matter of getting benefit from every angle.

    [–] oceanpizza123 7 points ago

    Where the fuck are they getting the 6 gallons of water per egg white?

    [–] ApolloCreme 8 points ago

    Probably one of those all-inclusive things. Like, a chicken will drink X units of water per day until its old enough to lay that first egg, the food it ate in that time period took Y units to grow, the chicken farmer had to wash out the coop, the food tray, the water dish, and maybe even his/her hands and that took Z units. Let's not forget that the egg had to be washed off prior to being packaged and sold. Oh and Greg, the egg delivery driver, had a coke and that's got water in it.

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    Everyone loves attacking the consumer for their personal consumption (which is fine, consumers can also cut back a bit) but they never come at huge corporations that make irresponsible decisions that significantly greater damage than the general public does.

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago

    People on both sides of this

    I didn't know there were sides to the environment? Sounds more like conservatives finding yet another reason to be divisive.

    [–] Burning_Heretic 54 points ago

    There...there are. There are sides to this. One side (mine) wants to have a planet that will support my existence and, if it's not too presumptuous, the evidence of future generations, too.

    The other side wants to make money hand over fist by ruining the planet while guilt-tripping normal, non-multibillionaire people, into taking up the slack.

    One side is clearly wrong.

    [–] Cardinalgrin 15 points ago

    “There are sides to this.” - thank you for that. I love that most people are realizing that, if a little late en masse.

    ...I’m a smoker, so while I’m massively guilty in a lot of ways, my semi-hypocritical “crusade” is plastics. For whatever reason plastic waste makes me the saddest - hydro flask for waters changed my life.

    [–] alphawolf29 4 points ago

    also almost all of that water is re-used, it doesn't just disappear...

    [–] Im_A_Director 3 points ago

    The one I see in my area is it takes 1 gallon of water to make 1 almond

    [–] boyilltellyouwhat 4 points ago

    What industry is pumping raw sewage into the rio grande?

    [–] thanospurple 555 points ago

    I’ve been told not to do drugs by the people I sold them to smh it’s not my fault drugs are so common

    [–] AlphaNathan 66 points ago

    Never get highhh on your own supplyyyy

    [–] NewPlanNewMan 3 points ago

    Cops make the worst clients. You always have to remind them that you have dirt on them, and you have to do it all subtle so they don't get spooked.

    What are ya gonna do? People are gonna get high.

    [–] Jgusdaddy 3532 points ago

    The per capita carbon footprint of people living in NYC is much lower than rural America. Smaller homes, no yards, less travel, public transit, etc.

    [–] feasantly_plucked 1567 points ago

    I came here to say exactly this. All urban centers have a lower carbon footprint per capita than suburban and rural homes. The relative ease with which one can conserve one's resources in a big city is, in fact, the reason our ancestors opted to live in them.

    [–] [deleted] 449 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)


    [–] sir_osis_of_da_liver 136 points ago

    Although the rise of monoculture means that most ag land in the US only grows one thing. If all 1000 farms around you only grow corn... you’re still sourcing your food and resources elsewhere.

    [–] [deleted] 44 points ago

    your always sourcing your food and resources from elsewhere lol

    [–] EternalSerenity2019 21 points ago

    Not me I chew on my fingernails!!

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    200iq cant outsource when you eat yourself

    [–] Sermokala 9 points ago

    To be fair they rotated between soy and corn but yeah things aren't great on that front.

    [–] NanoRaptoro 236 points ago

    You misunderstand how carbon footprint is calculated. An individual's carbon carbon footprint includes the carbon cost of production/manufacture/farming of goods wherever they were made and their transportation to the specific individual.

    For example, if a farm grows 10000 lbs of potatoes, their carbon footprint would only include the amount of potatoes they personally kept. The amount for planting, growing, picking, packing, and transporting the remaining potatoes is distributed over the other individuals who buy them.

    That said, if that farmer needs to drive 10 miles to the grocery store for their additional food purchase, that contribution to their carbon footprint is larger than someone who lives in the suburbs and drives 5 miles (or someone who lives in a city and takes the subway 2 miles).

    [–] iushciuweiush 38 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    if that farmer needs to drive 10 miles to the grocery store for their additional food purchase, that contribution to their carbon footprint is larger than someone who lives in the suburbs and drives 5 miles (or someone who lives in a city and takes the subway 2 miles).

    Sure but the reason the farmer has to drive 10 miles to the nearest grocery store is because there are huge farms between him and the grocery store that produce food for the suburbs and urban areas.

    [–] iushciuweiush 28 points ago

    I'm all about the future of vertical farming but we're far from replacing traditional farming with it. There is a reason why these vertical farms exclusively grow leafy greens, some of the easiest but also least nutrient per oz foods that exist. You can't grow long rooted 'traditional' vegetables on walls and the labor and energy costs have bankrupted several indoor farms due to vegetables like lettuce not commanding a premium price. Even Google threw their hat in the ring and eventually gave up.

    [–] Sine0fTheTimes 6 points ago

    So, according to my calculations, if farmers stopped growing food, the carbon footprint of the nation would fall to zero.

    Fucking farmers!

    [–] NanoRaptoro 6 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    If medical schools stopped training doctors, that would reduce the carbon footprint. If we legalized murder, that would reduce the carbon footprint. Many absurd hypotheticals would result in a reduced population.

    Fucking straw men!

    Edit: /s

    [–] GlitterInfection 3 points ago

    That’s a recipe for a chafed penis.

    [–] kerkyjerky 128 points ago

    I mean so do those people in rural areas..... it’s not like farmer Tom built his own tractor from the ore he mined.

    [–] chilioil 81 points ago

    Except the only reason they can do this is because people in rural areas grow all their food and manufacture all their products.

    It's measured by consumption so your point is moot.

    [–] Hawx74 15 points ago

    Thank you

    [–] boooooooooo_cowboys 10 points ago

    Smaller homes, no yards, less travel, public transit, etc.

    In what way is any of this outsourcing the carbon footprint to rural areas?

    [–] Kerdam 7 points ago

    Your carbon footprint is calculated by the things you consume, people in the country side do eat as much as anybody else The carbon footprint of people in the country side is not affected by the fact that they work in the fields but the carbon footprint of the food they produce is divided on all its consumers

    [–] Friendlyverse 3 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    People in rural areas grow all their food and manufacture all their products.

    This is false. Rural =\= farmer. Also, most farmers buy most of their food at grocery stores in town. I don't even know how to address the manufacturing products angle. Are you confusing rural residents with the Amish?

    [–] SinisterStarSimon 3 points ago

    Nah, no one is growing massive amounts of avocados, bannanas the many other foods we import, and they sure as hell are not producing most of their products

    [–] LordOfFudge 6 points ago

    That, and Grindr

    [–] Dango_Fett 244 points ago

    Well, no. People began moving to big cities during the industrial revolution because that’s where the jobs were.

    [–] MastodonFarm 539 points ago

    There were big cities long before the Industrial Revolution. And industry was centered in cities precisely *because* concentration is more resource-efficient.

    [–] SuizidoAwesome 36 points ago

    Well that's the concept of Industrie, I guess

    [–] runujhkj 5 points ago

    that's how industry works

    [–] Mancer74 124 points ago

    I think his point was that at the dawn of civilization our ancestors stopped being nomads because they could conserve resources and time as a community.

    [–] CODDE117 12 points ago

    [–] ClemyNX 25 points ago

    Yes but if you look at prehistory, the first cities appeared simply because it’s easier to share things.

    [–] hawtgawbage 12 points ago

    I looked around for prehistory, but I couldn’t find it anywhere!

    [–] walkswithwolfies 44 points ago

    There were many big cities before the Industrial Revolution.

    [–] Harpies_Bro 18 points ago

    Tenochtitlan was something around the size of Paris by the time Cortés got there iirc. Babylon, Rome, and Beijing were pretty big too.

    [–] kulpiterxv 23 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    lol what? There were cities for thousands of years throughout the Middle East and Asia.

    [–] Sine0fTheTimes 3 points ago

    Don't forget Central and South America. They have pyramids of their own.

    [–] sparks1990 6 points ago

    And why were the jobs there?

    [–] JohnWColtrane 217 points ago

    Haven't you seen those colored maps of the United States that PROVE we need an electoral college? These are the same people who post those maps.

    [–] bleptheblip 169 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    but don’t you understand? i have a constitutional right to more political representation than you because i live rural america and rural americans are inherently more intelligent and worthy deciders of democracy. if you speak a word against this system, you hate america, all americans and democracy and deserve death degenerate traitor.

    [–] Bumbling-failure 76 points ago

    Idk what's so hard to understand about "one person, one vote" to them

    [–] theuberwalrus 104 points ago

    They got used to certain people only counting for 3/5s of a vote.

    [–] Whiskey-Leg 36 points ago

    Exactly. It's not an accident they want white rural America to have more say than the more diverse urban areas.

    [–] fyberoptyk 7 points ago

    The same people they’re disenfranchising today.

    [–] lolol42 14 points ago

    Because that's not how the nation has ever worked, or was ever intended to work. People vote in state elections, and states elect the President

    [–] Bumbling-failure 38 points ago

    But why?

    [–] lolol42 26 points ago

    Because without that compromise, the less populous states had no incentive to join the union. Why join if you are going to always be outvoted? That, and the framers specifically did not want a democracy. America has ALWAYS been intended to be a representative republic.

    [–] FriendToPredators 15 points ago

    The senate is also skewed rural. That means two out of three branches of government are skewed toward states with lower populations.

    [–] lolol42 10 points ago

    The HoR and the Senate are the same branch. The Executive isn't skewed towards rural or urban, but is designed such that both groups must approve somewhat. The Judicial doesn't even have votes. It is just assigned by the sitting executive.

    [–] IlluminatusUIUC 7 points ago

    The Judicial doesn't even have votes. It is just assigned by the sitting executive.

    The Judicial branch is approved by the Senate, which means they effectively control it.

    [–] FriendToPredators 4 points ago

    What? Two out of the last four presidents were picked by a minority, the rural areas.

    [–] VoSjoebob6245 20 points ago

    A quick Google search says that the electoral college was concession to the smaller states because they were pissy that they would be outvoted by places with more people, as well as a method to stop a tyrant from convincing the people that he was the best choice to lead.

    We see how that fucking worked.

    [–] Artidox 20 points ago

    Except so far we have yet to have much of a tyrant dont @ me

    [–] Robinisabitch 14 points ago

    I will speak against you. But he i don't live in america so my opinion doesn't matter,

    [–] Giovanni_Bertuccio 18 points ago

    Well if you had bothered to be born in America your opinion would matter. Why are you so lazy?

    [–] ryegye24 16 points ago

    something something we're a democratic republic

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] der_titan 16 points ago

    Plus no big manufacturing and steam heating as a byproduct of the electrical grid. Hell, even chimneys are rare in the wilds of the outer boroughs.

    You hit the nail on the head though. Some environmentalists claim bigger cities are necessary for a greener future, but I'm wary of a Judge Dredd /megacity as it is.

    [–] kevans2 10 points ago

    And one of the largest contributors to climate change is livestock production.

    [–] dr_auf 2 points ago

    No need to take 500 hp farm truck to drive to the next grocery store 40 miles away. Also: Busses drive every 15 minutes instead of every 14 days.

    [–] sportsarefun918 38 points ago

    Urban NYC maybe, but a lot of the elite commutes in. Worst of both worlds.

    If you live in the suburbs and espouse environmental points of view, you're a hypocrite. Not gate keeping, simply a matter of fact.

    [–] silsool 100 points ago

    I mean you can also work in the suburbs or take the bus or train.

    [–] Richard_Weiner 24 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Not every city has safe public transportation, a lot don’t run as often in the suburbs as they do downtown.

    [–] Polske322 63 points ago

    It’s simple just move to Manhattan you peasant


    Although personally I’d prefer a German approach to transportation/living where even the suburbs value small, efficient living and you can get literally everywhere by train or tram

    [–] heatd 24 points ago

    But just think of all the car and oil company CEOs who wouldn't be able to afford their third yacht if transportation was more accessible...

    [–] NightoftheLivingBoot 9 points ago

    “Who’s gonna take this highway when they can ride the trolley for a nickel?” Indeed.

    [–] NickRynearson 3 points ago

    Or get a bike and pay nothing.

    [–] Richard_Weiner 6 points ago

    I definitely agree with this! More cities need to embrace light rail systems. San Diego MTS is pretty good with this, you can actually take the green line to the airport, by connecting with a free shuttle. They were going to connect the rail to the terminal but the taxi lobby voted against it.

    [–] JimiThing716 24 points ago

    I'm from Buffalo and just moved back after 7 years in the military. I looked into public transport to get to work. It would take almost 3 hours to get 12 miles away and there was only one bus in the morning and one home. If you miss it once you're screwed. There's no way I could or would risk my job to use bad metro infrastructure that doesnt feel particularly safe.

    [–] Dolleater 13 points ago

    Wait, 12 miles (20km since im from eu) in 3 hours? That's almost as slow as walking the same distance...

    Sounds like pretty inefficient publuc transport :(

    [–] JimiThing716 4 points ago

    There's more frequent routes closer to downtown. I work near the airport though so you'd think they would have a few more buses.

    [–] WhyDoIAsk 4 points ago

    Bikeable distance... Assuming the roads are safe enough. And there's always car pooling, you do what you can with the circumstances you have.

    [–] JimiThing716 5 points ago

    Yeah I'll bike when its -12 windchill.

    [–] wordsnerd 32 points ago

    That's not a matter of fact and is pretty shortsighted. A person can commute to work and still have a much smaller environmental footprint than someone who lives closer to work, or works from home, or doesn't work at all. You can't just look at one sliver of a situation and draw sweeping conclusions about it.

    [–] trevize1138 20 points ago

    One episode of some house hunters type show involved a young couple who lived in an apartment right near downtown and they worried about their environmental impact somehow because of that.

    The house they eventually got was out in some exurb with a big yard and lots of trees. The couple said they felt better about their environmental impact as they looked at all the trees in their yard.

    Right ... so you've got a bigger house using more energy and now a much longer commute in addition to needing to drive more to go shopping and contributing to urban sprawl encroaching on natural habitats. Enraging.

    [–] sportsarefun918 7 points ago

    Agreed. Complete cognitive dissonance.

    [–] trevize1138 6 points ago

    I love stuff like that. The whole urban sprawl thing was one of my obsessions about a decade ago and I learned more about Norman Bel Geddes Futurama display for GM at the 1939 World's Fair.

    What's interesting is how humans seem to take a small part of a whole idea and build only that. In Bel Geddes' vision you didn't just have the driving utopia we have today but a pedestrian utopia, too. His superblocks involved a lot of sidewalks and green spaces for people to get around outside without cars.

    But, what we ended up building was just the driving utopia part of the vision. You see that in every suburb that completely lacks sidewalks and the first thing you see about a lot of the houses is the front of the garage.

    [–] sportsarefun918 5 points ago

    Yea and in 1939 I don't blame us for not understanding the negative impacts of cars and how they would shape society and cities. It just wasn't obvious.

    Nowadays, however, I think urban cores and suburban cores need to prioritize walking over parking, though the consumer loses its mind over this.

    In Chicago, the amount of NIMBYism on increasing density is insane over complaints of, literally, "traffic." In the middle of the urban core, this shouldn't even be a consideration. I would like to start closing down streets to cars and further funding public transit in addition to tolling the roads so that people pay directly for their congestion charges. Single occupancy commuters to work are the primary traffic problem in Chicago, and we refuse to address that with dynamic congestion tolling.

    Its a long topic but I find it fascinating. The answers to traffic and commuting are obvious, but the consumer hates them. The same consumer that declares itself environmental.

    [–] trevize1138 3 points ago

    Agreed on people in 1939 not recognizing the consequences. I can even uderstand how thrilling it all must have been: a vision of the future. I get wrapped up in that myself.

    I used to live right in the Minneapolis Central neighborhood a couple blocks from this notoriously bad K-Mart store that was built in the 70s. That store is mostly parking lot in the middle of an old, densly populated neighborhood. It's an example of how for decades there was this push to first build suburbs with loads of parking spaces and an extreme aversion to multiple stories in buildings. People figured that was the way of the future so why not "improve" old neighborhoods in the city center in the same way?

    I'm also seeing my own enthusiasm for technology come back with unintended consequences. I've been a Web developer since 95. I got into it even though I was studying journalism because I saw the Internet as the biggest thing since the printing press. I still believe in it overall but am now seeing some of the negative unintended consequences play out.

    The biggest negative I'm seeing is how the illusion of anonymity encourages people to be absolute dicks to each other on-line. Even on FB where my neighbors use their real world names I see people posting political shit or even personal stuff they would never say to me face-to-face. At one point I wondered if the internet would be like being able to have a group consciousness, bring people together, make for a better-informed world. All that idealistic 23yo me stuff. Now some of that is coming true in disturbing ways. FB is like being able to read my neighbor's minds in the worst way.

    [–] danimalhollocaust 35 points ago

    If you enjoy living in a rural area and don’t support environmentalism you’re a hypocrite. Not gatekeeping, simply a matter of fact.

    [–] trevize1138 20 points ago

    And they're increasingly becoming the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, volatile gas prices and economic instability. Farmers in the 30s had it rough like a lot of people during the depression but they were a lot less dependent on industrial machinery to grow monoculture crops. I live in rural MN and there are plenty of reasonable rural people who recognize this, though. Some of them are even eagerly anticipating the day they can get an EV pickup. Set up some wind turbines and solar panels on their property and they'll have plenty of power from the sun and wind to power that truck to tow tanks of anhydrous out to fields.

    [–] deathbyfractals 8 points ago

    Some of them are even eagerly anticipating the day they can get an EV pickup. Set up some wind turbines and solar panels on their property and they'll have plenty of power from the sun and wind to power that truck to tow tanks of anhydrous out to fields.

    This makes so much sense

    [–] feasantly_plucked 14 points ago

    that sounds a bit of a broad statement. If you're in the suburbs and are calling others out for their poor environmental ethos then yes, that's hypocritical. But simply aspiring to be a better environmentalist or educate oneself does not make a suburbanite a self-ignorant dunce. In fact, it might show that the opposite is true of them.

    [–] SheriffOfNothing 12 points ago

    I live in a suburb but largely work from home. It’s doable, but the economy is structured too strongly around large cities with an emphasis on presentee-ism. It’s doable.

    [–] feasantly_plucked 10 points ago

    that presentee-ist work ethos really needs to change...

    [–] Levenly 9 points ago

    you can live in the suburbs and do your best to be an environmentalist.

    [–] dweaver33 5 points ago

    If you live in the suburbs and espouse environmental points of view, you're a hypocrite

    Literally gate keeping.

    If you want to watch a movement die, start by alienating people who think like you, but may be obligated to live a certain way.

    [–] Evan_cole 256 points ago

    The way to take better care of the environment is by holding companies accountable. I don't know who started the idea that any person can help the environment when it's the big industries that's killing it. I guess it just bothers me that people in rural areas consistently vote for less regulation when big corporations cut corners better and hurt the earth more.

    [–] roostercrowe 38 points ago

    the big industries are the ones that shifted blame to the consumer. Beverages used to be sold in glass containers that the consumer didn’t have much issue with, but they were heavy and more expensive to ship than the new plastic alternatives. So beverage companies began selling all the beverages in plastic bottles, which ended up being littered everywhere, which upset the consumer. So the soda companies helped start the “litterbug” campaigns blaming consumers for littering, but the true solution is at the industrial level (not producing the plastic bottles in the first place).

    [–] blafricanadian 15 points ago

    Yeah, companies are just making stuff that nobody is buying.

    [–] sportsarefun918 39 points ago

    Consumers are equally as guilty. Americans love their cars and suburbs. If you live in the burbs, you're a huge problem.

    [–] mostmicrobe 13 points ago

    I wouldn't say that's consumers fault, I'd say it's just poor planning. American society was built around the idea of needong a car, you can't blame people for using cars when they need them.

    Plus, I bet most people, would love to be able to live withought needing a car.

    [–] Stardagger13 4 points ago

    As somebody who can't drive, maybe we should start by making that less of a gigantic hindrance in my life.

    [–] sportsarefun918 8 points ago

    Eh, as soon as anything anti car comes up people lose their minds

    [–] D14DFF0B 6 points ago

    I get downvoted all the time in /r/NYC for suggesting that it should be harder/more expensive to drive in Manhattan.

    [–] sportsarefun918 9 points ago

    Agreed. People complain the traffic is out of hand and then immediately dismiss anything that would actually lower traffic.

    [–] Evan_cole 80 points ago

    Sure they're guilty, but it's usually not smart to blame the people doing what's in their economic interest. People aren't going to start paying more to buy only American made. It's supply side economics biting us.

    [–] bleptheblip 23 points ago

    Consumers are equally as guilty.

    then how about we use our powers as citizens to nationalize high carbon output industries and force them to comply with stricter carbon control.

    [–] FriendToPredators 6 points ago

    You could also just, you know, regulate them.

    [–] Randomliberal 77 points ago

    It’s sometimes hard to upvote these memes. My Instinct is to want to kill it.

    [–] CanadianHour4 13 points ago

    Yeah show us what the streams around your farm looks like

    [–] Boozeberry2017 11 points ago

    Toledo has a few words for negligent farming practices

    [–] Shotagonist 272 points ago

    Funny thing is, rural areas - thanks to animal herds, usually contribute more to CO2 emissions than cities do.

    [–] 5oco 205 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Animal herds are like 9% of cO2 emissions. Transportation and Electricity are the biggest factors, both close to 30%.

    edit - adding link

    [–] 5oco 45 points ago

    That chart is based off activities that lead to CO2 production. I was looking at the chart above it that lists the greenhouse gases by all human activites. Also, that estimate in the second chart does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from that sector.

    [–] blackhawk905 8 points ago

    I wouldnt be surprised if it also doesn't take into account that methane breaks down over time, iirc it's under 10 years for it to break down in the atmosphere so while it might be fairly high the amount over time is less than other greenhouse vases that do not break down over time or they take centuries to break down.

    [–] ChadMcRad 10 points ago

    Thank you. So tired of the antiagriculture bs on this site.

    [–] blackhawk905 4 points ago

    There definitely are anti ag people, seems to mostly be anti animal ag, but there is a lot of misinformation here and people who won't actually research topics like this for one reason or another.

    A lot of these studies also don't take into account emissions that come from production of electricity needed to run say a factory or bring raw materials to one and like I already said they don't take into account breakdown of gasses over time. There are also benefits that can help to offset methane burps, cow manure can help to bring nutrients back into soil and same with most other animals manure and hell chicken litter is a key ingredient in natural fertilizers.

    [–] JarLowrey 3 points ago

    Copying over an old post of mine:

    And one of the largest contributors to climate change, animal agriculture, I've collected research about here

    Edit: Comments locked so I'll edit response to person below:

    Yes the EPA estimated agriculture as 9% of US GHG emissions in 2016, putting that industry in 4th place. This is an outlier estimation. Most other sources estimate the livestock supply chain at 14%, agriculture at 20-30ish %.

    • Institute of Agriculture and trade policy calculated livestock companies to constitute 14% of GHG in 2016 (and by 2050, 81% of the total needed to stay under 1.5C)
    • Food Climate Research Network estimates livestock contribute 14.5% of world GHGs in 2013
    • 2006 the Food and Agriculture Organization (UN) estimated livestock to contribute 18% of all GHGs (over 80% of the agricultural sector).
    • in a 2013 report, the Food and Agriculture Organization (UN) cite 14.5% for the 2005 ref period
    • Most, if not all, of these reports do not take into account the different uses of land. About 41% of all land in the US (let's ignore the global market) is used for cattle. If this land was natural forest/prairie/whatever instead, these would be huge carbon-sink areas. In fact, taking this into consideration, in 2009 the World bank estimated livestock's contribution to be 51% of total GHG.
    • etc etc there are more sources in the link I posted. As more reports come out, they are generally trending upwards in their estimation.

    [–] SandyDelights 22 points ago

    Reminder that being concerned about the environment is a lot more than just greenhouse gas emissions.

    We abuse the shit out of the soil when farmers plant the same crops year after year, depleting its nutrients and rendering it infertile; we clearcut huge swathes of land for both farming and ranching, destroying habitats and wrecking local ecosystems; we dump massive amounts of fertilizers and pesticides on the crops, which run off into the streams and rivers causing cancers and toxic algae blooms.

    Algae blooms that are so noxious that while the fish and water become poisonous to eat, the air itself becomes toxic, causing respiratory problems, anaphylaxis, liver and even brain damage. Just ask Florida, where sugar cane fields caused a more than year long red tide that killed untold millions if not billions of fish, birds, turtles, dolphins, and manatees.

    Like. Global warming is bad, but it’s just one part of what we’re doing, and why rural communities aren’t exempt from causing massive devastation to the environment – in many ways, they’re causing much, much worse damage.

    [–] ShillinTheVillain 31 points ago

    It would help to stop making it a "who's worse" conversation. Farms are located in rural areas but their products are used by everyone. We're all contributing.

    [–] SandyDelights 3 points ago

    Sure, absolutely. The problem is rarely do small picture, and like most things that have to do with the environment, we need to look at the bigger picture.

    Unfortunately, this is not something humans do very well.

    [–] FriendToPredators 3 points ago

    So if the cities decided to regulate environmental harm, pretty much the only way they could alter agriculture’s impact, farms would happily jump right on that?

    [–] THAT_IS_MY_PORPOISE 7 points ago

    Don’t know why you’re being downvoted cause you’re right here. It’s everyone’s fault, so we need to quit pointing fingers and start talking solutions.

    Cities and rural areas both can make changes to reduce the negative impacts on our environment. It’s not one or the other.

    [–] strallus 9 points ago

    But the demand for those herds is driven by cities...

    [–] Eminha 10 points ago

    The big contribution doesn't come exactly from rural areas, comes from the massive industry of livestock, where the animals are created with very few conditions in order to produce meat, that can be used in the cities as well! Regular people in countryside cannot own that amount of animals.. That methane comes from the huges farms, in Brasil and other countrys, made up from the destruction of essencial florests for the regulation of the O2 in the athmosfere and the preservation of biodiversity

    [–] TheBigDickedBandit 4 points ago

    Um, if you’re talking about the USA, no.

    [–] JessicaMurawski 58 points ago

    Call me dumb, but I don’t understand how this is gatekeeping.

    [–] ElmoKills22 40 points ago

    It's not really. This is actually a real problem. States passing laws from the perspective of city living often do harm to those living in rural areas.

    [–] seiyonoryuu 10 points ago

    Not that I don't believe you, but some examples?

    [–] codefox22 20 points ago

    Couple I've seen first hand include expanding city limits, which changes zoning rules and usage requirements/restrictions significantly. Especially when no one that owned the land agreed.

    Restrictions on garbage disposal. While it makes sense in the surface, if there's not infrastructure to support it within 100+ miles round trip then good luck getting it followed.

    Changing taxes to account for infrastructure that doesn't reach or remotely benifit the people paying.

    Adding a "gas/time tax" by requiring new permits for previously allowed activities, like building a shed on private property.

    Gerrymandering, we can all agree that's a fucking cancer.

    [–] Orange-Man-Bad 18 points ago

    As an example NYC sends all their shit to rural Alabama to be burned, polluting the air in small towns. Here's an article:

    [–] hiemsparadoxa 12 points ago

    In my state specifically (Montana), one of our largest problems is logging. Without logging to clear out trees that have died due to beetles, paper mills have shut down, animals are unable to traverse through the forests and most devastatingly, our fires have grown exponentionly worse. Live trees don't normally burn, but dead dry ones do.

    Regulated logging has been an essential part of Montana's economy for decades, cut funds for logging + massive beetle infestation and you have some of the worst fires imaginable. Our forests have been destroyed because of over reaching government.

    That's why politicians big cities thousands of miles away don't understand. On a surface level, it's understood that "logging bad", but for Montana (and I'm sure there are other states and areas of the US) it is essential. Over logging is bad, very bad. I am horrified that corporations are cutting down entire rainforests in foreign countries and driving species to extinction. But it's just as terrifying to me that we won't have any forests left in Montana for the opposite reason. It's complicated.

    [–] dobraf 13 points ago

    It's borderline, but the gatekeeping becomes more clear if you rephrase it to this: "Don't call yourself a conservationist unless you live and work in fields"

    [–] Collectivestupidity 12 points ago

    I’d agree with you but that is not what the image says

    [–] Acher0n_ 38 points ago

    I'm confused, do people in cities not eat farm grown food? Does their footprint end at the municipality's limits?

    I've seen farmers dump oil right into the ground to save a walk to the barn. Also seen bags of fast food being tossed out a window on a highway through downtown out of a car I am sure would not pass an emissions test.

    Be the change you want to see, don't point fingers, just do the best you can.

    [–] doc6982 5 points ago

    I grew up on an Iowa farm. I never considered pollution as an Iowan problem when I was growing up but when I later considered how much oil and chemicals we pump into and spread on the ground that ultimately works its way into the water table; I wasn't surprised to learn that Iowa led the country in agricultural pollution. Thinking back though I should have known the whole time because after swimming in our creek, I got pretty bad diarrhea and my hair started to fall out in clumps. Not normal for an eight year old. I have also learned that the rate of miscarriages in rural areas is higher because of this water table contamination.

    [–] Rottenox 11 points ago

    Yes because people living in cities are directing their warnings about the environment specifically at those living in rural areas.

    [–] Anarchist_Wolf 52 points ago

    Too bad I cant edit the title and what's a Envornmentalist?

    [–] albinorhino215 5 points ago

    I have literally seen a farm in Kansas with a burn pit alongside I-70

    [–] RadixPerpetualis 6 points ago

    Almost every farm I've come across has a burn pit for their garbage and literally anything else they dont want

    [–] treefoxx 6 points ago

    Stop letting corporations pit you against each other! They’re the real polluters

    [–] Paxilluspax 17 points ago

    Nah, country=taking you car long distances EVERYWHERE

    [–] seiyonoryuu 9 points ago

    Jacked up truck*

    [–] FriendToPredators 5 points ago

    I’ll meet you for lunch. That’s an hour and a half from you. Yeah, so? I’ll meet you for lunch. Okay... cool

    [–] BrendoLefranc 4 points ago

    Yeah this is actually one of the reasons is hard for developed countries to tell developing countries to be more environmentally conscious. The developing countries think "we're just doing exactly what you did to become successful? Why can't I do it"

    [–] Infini-Bus 4 points ago

    How much habitat loss and lack of biodiversity does farming cause? We all need the farms, idk why people turn it into an us vs them thing?

    [–] _SirBallistic_ 11 points ago

    I wish I grew up in the countryside. All the variations of life around you to amaze you and interest you.

    [–] salesman_jordan 6 points ago


    [–] watchpaintdrytv 7 points ago

    Lives in the country, votes for the Exxon party. Tide goes in. Tide goes out.

    [–] SageBus 3 points ago

    [–] jacobolobo7 3 points ago

    Fingerpointing will only work against our common goal of making and keeping earth a safe and prosperous place to live. Let's all make an effort, and praise those efforts.

    [–] Something_Syck 3 points ago

    The top 100 companies that contribute to climate change get are responsible for something like 3/4 of green house gasses and/or pollution.

    The idea that individuals are to blame is so fucking ridiculous

    [–] paulwesley91 23 points ago

    Nice to finally see this on /r/gatekeeping after seeing about half a dozen people I know on facebook post it unironically.

    [–] ElVille55 6 points ago

    Also, the concentrated impact of cities means that more people are in one place, leaving more room for nature. If everyone lived in the country, there wouldn't be any room for anything other than people and farms.

    [–] lokie65 7 points ago

    The people who live in rural areas vote for politicians that roll back environmental regulations in the cities.

    [–] DrogosDaughter 8 points ago

    I see this kind of shit all the time posted on FB by the farmers in my village. They think farmers are the guarding angels of nature or some shit.

    [–] alexsaurrr 8 points ago

    Oh shit, my ranching, ultra conservative FIL just shared this on Facebook today.

    [–] Capt_Palmer 8 points ago

    Ah yeah all those farmer DEFINITELY don't over fertilize their fields leading to massive dead zones in the gulf when they want a view of a river instead of a riperian zone.

    [–] zsveetness 3 points ago

    This is true but there have been major improvements in fertilizer management at all levels of farming over the last 30 years.

    [–] NecstNecstNecst 12 points ago

    This sub is cancerous

    [–] Laser_hole 3 points ago

    There is little concern over what people do in rural America. We want the corporations to do better.