|
David Ho@davidho.bsky.social |
Behold $1300 socks. It's not fashionable to talk about consuming less as a climate solution because our economy is based on selling us crap that no one needs.
6 replies 4 reposts 23 likes
|
Michael R Lambert
@mrl53.bsky.social
[ View ] |
“ Anything missing at the scene ?” “ Just his socks “
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
jon "RNC security perimeter enjoyer” schuster
@jschuster.bsky.social
[ View ] |
At that price they'd better pedal the damn bicycle all on their own
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Profit Greenly
@profitgreenly.bsky.social
[ View ] |
In some sense these are a climate solution. They've likely got similar embodied emissions as $10 socks but they extract an additional $1290 that the foolish buyer now won't spend on gas, airlines, etc.
1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
bogusaurus
@bogusaurus.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Is there a multi-pack
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
Lauren
@l-aurian.bsky.social
[ View ] |
These are dumb but they’re probably better for the environment than cheap socks that fall apart. Also, everyone needs socks. Concentrating on individual consumption takes the focus off the real polluters, which is why BP championed the idea of the individual carbon footprint.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Arseny Khakhalin
@khakhalin.bsky.social
[ View ] |
But don't luxury goods technically have lower carbon footprint per $ spent, as you mostly pay for nothing, and nothing has no CO2 cost? (I mean, effectively it just pushes the effect of $ forward to the beneficiary of this business who can spend it on cars, of course, but they may also not?)
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes