this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2026

724 points (98.4% liked)

Comic Strips

25177 readers

1645 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

Rules

😇 Be Nice!
- Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
🏘️ Community Standards
- Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
- Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
- Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
- Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
🧬 Keep it Real
- Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
📽️ Credit Where Credit is Due
- Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
- Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
📋 Post Formatting
- Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
- Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
- When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
  ✅ Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
  ❌ Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
📬 Post Frequency/SPAM
- Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 🖐) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 🖐) will be removed.
🏴‍☠️ Internationalization (i18n)
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
  Sí, por favor [Spanish/Español]
🍿 Moderation
- We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
- When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.

Banned Artists

The following artists are banned from the community.

Jago
Stonetoss
GPrime85

It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.

Web Accessibility

Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.

When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:

Markdown - Links / Images

Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)

Web of Links

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
!memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)

Other Comic Communities of Interest

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

dohpaz42@lemmy.world

TheTechnician27@lemmy.world

Harvey656@lemmy.world

slazer2au@lemmy.world

otter@lemmy.ca

cannedtuna@lemmy.world

18107@aussie.zone

otter@lemmy.world

724

It’s That Easy [Tommy Siegel] (lemmy.world)

submitted 12 hours ago by cannedtuna@lemmy.world to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Tommy Siegel | Bluesky | website

Transcript

Comic in 4 Panels:

Header: It’s That Easy!

Panel 1: The year is 1994. A dad with short black hair, in a blue shirt, red shorts, and white sneakers with calf high white socks, kneels with one arm resting on a knee and the other raised demonstratingly in front of a kid in a green ball cap, yellow shirt, blue pants, and green sneakers. There is a round metal trash can behind them.

Dad: Pick up your litter and save the Earth!

Panel 2: The year is 2004. Same dad, but in brown cargo shorts, brown shoes, and ankle high white socks speaking to the same kid. There is a green recycle bucket behind them.

Dad: Recycle and you can save the Earth!

Panel 3: The year is 2014. Same dad, but wearing a bike helmet, black athletic pants, and black sneakers to the same kid. A bike is behind them.

Dad: Reduce your carbon footprint and you can save the Earth!

Panel 4: The year is 2024. Same dad, but he’s in the same outfit from panel 1. There is a massive fire behind them.

Dad: Completely restructure global economic systems and you may be able to save a remnant of humanity!

top 44 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 5 points 24 minutes ago

Just pick up that trash and YOU'LL BE SHOT IN THE FACE BY A MASKED GROUP OF PARDONED JAN 6 TRAITORS IN ALL DIFFERENT HOMEMADE ARMY MAN COSTUMES, CHARGED WITH "ULTRA LEFT WING" TERRORISM AND DEPORTED, AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, WITHOUT A TRIAL, FOR WOKE MARXIST CANCEL CULTURE AND DOUBLE TRANS!!!!

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago

The individual action PSAs were a deliberate fraud perpetrated by the worst polluters.

[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 35 points 5 hours ago

I already reduced my carbon footprint. For some reason people get really mad when I try and blow up an oil refinery to reduce theirs.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 63 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

tbf the solution was always the last one.

it's just that they've been stringing us along.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

But that was unimaginable to those, who promoted environmentalism, at least in the west.

[–] Gaja0@lemmy.zip 0 points 18 minutes ago

Hot stove hurts. God is real or you go to hell. Communism is only good on paper.

People choose to believe the stove burns without ever actually touching it.

Our behaviors are linked to our brain chemicals. We burn through them at work and ration the remainder for ourselves and our family. We are tired, unfocused, and easily manipulated. We don't have the resources to challenge basic assumptions.

[–] Xerxos@lemmy.ml 78 points 10 hours ago (7 children)

One of the most brilliant (and evil) tricks that big corporations have used is to shift the blame for climate change to normal people: just recycle, don't use plastic straws, and buy our CO₂-neutral products, and everything will be fine!

While not unimportant, it's a very small change compared to the pollution of corporations and private jets. It's easy for them to pay lip service to the environment while the real pollution goes on unimpeded.

Environmentally inclined people feel like they do something and don't rally against the real problem. They just have to convince everyone to live like they do and the environment will be saved!

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 1 points 55 minutes ago

It's abusive victim blaming by psychopaths

[–] AbsolutePain@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

While there is some truth to this, this line of thinking is a trap because it removes responsibility from the individual.

Coorporations don't pollute the world for no reason. They do it because there's too many of us consuming too much crap.

Changing the whole system (regulations, etc.) is not a safe plan. Clearly it did not work out.

Stop buying so much crap online.

[–] KryptonNerd@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 hour ago

Additionally, those corporations aren't made up of robots. People work there and make the decision to cause this damage. It being done at work doesn't absolve them of their responsibility.

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

And even worse, it split us up again because if you point that out, the environmentalists are against you too. Because everything counts. Well yes, but..

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 hours ago

Billionaire oligarchs flying in to climate conferences every year on private jets by the thousands, where oil executives are regularly invited to give the keynote speeches, while not accomplishing anything policy-wise or binding to materially reduce the rate or impacts of climate change, is the epitome of greenwashing.

"What menial lifestyle changes should we tell our consumers to adopt this year to keep them off our backs?"

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 6 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

The vast majority of emissions are to serve the desires of the masses. The "pollution of corporations" is mostly used in making stuff for ordinary people, not private jets.

[–] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You make it seem like these desires arise spontaneously. Corporations have been using advertising in a systematic way since the 20th century to induce demand and shift behavior patterns of the masses.

With your logic, all business decisions can be laid at the feet of common people. "Yes, shrinkflation exists and is terrible, but it is for ordinary people, so they are to blame." "Sure, companies sell bullshit insurance to consumers, but the people buy it, so it's really the masses who cause it." And so on.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Then you should direct your attention in two directions to deal with that, I think:

Criticise companies for advertising unnecessary consumption
Criticise people for buying unnecessary stuff

[–] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 2 points 41 minutes ago

Look, I get it. We've been fed a story about individual responsibility for generations. It's hard to break free from that mindset.

I experience this myself when I see cigarette butts on the side of the path when walking my dog. "Fucking smokers!" is my first reaction. But then I remember that people who smoke are suffering from an addiction they were tricked into and the only thing they get out of smoking is poverty, sickness, and possibly death. On the other hand, the immoral corporations who sold them the cigarette butt lying on the ground have made a tidy profit of the smoker, as well as the trash that the company generated.

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 3 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Yes and no.

With stricter ecological protections, corporations would be forced to decrease their carbon footprint. In their absence, the choice for the consumer is limited, and likely leaving you without a properly ecological option.

(Bad) Example: plastic straws. Before the ban, finding alternatives was difficult. Now suddenly it’s possible.

Same goes for computers with ecologically sourced rare metals. There is just no good option at the moment, and this will be the situation up until stronger regulations will come in effect.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

We could ban single use plastic containers globally, we have alternatives that work quite well. Bamboo can replace all plastic utensils.

Hell most of the plastic alternatives if scaled would likely be a carbon sink. Grow plants to make packaging, as plants grow they absorb carbon, packaging is discarded, then sealed away in a land fill trapping the carbon.

It probably wouldn't be net 0 given the industry around production and transport, but still a lot better than what we're doing.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 41 minutes ago* (last edited 39 minutes ago)

sealed away in a land fill trapping the carbon

This is generally not how it works and/or a bad idea. Anaerobic bacteria tend to reduce carbon compounds to CH₄ (as opposed to CO₂ - makes sense). It is a lot worse as a greenhouse gas, and it will eventually bubble up and escape from the landfills, we can't realistically seal them in the same way as ancient peatlands did for our current oil and gas reserves.

A better way is to recycle that packaging into mulch/fertilizer of some kind so that this carbon is absorbed, directly or indirectly, by newly growing trees.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 2 hours ago

Companies will basically do the cheapest thing they can get away with, so it is again down to the ordinary people to make sure that the cheapest thing isn't harmful. Sure, criticise the companies for doing shitty things, but that alone won't achieve anything, and nor will trying to shift the blame "back" to them.

[–] late_pessimistic@slrpnk.net 19 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Environmentally inclined people feel like they do something and don't rally against the real problem.

Actually we have already been lobbying and protesting and trying to change the system for decades.

The work might not be visible, but it's due to resource constraints, not because we are delusional and think that decreasing global CO2 emissions by 0.000000027% will fix the biodiversity loss.

[–] Xerxos@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 hours ago

Oh, I'm not saying that there are no activists anymore, just that the corporations successfully distracted large parts of the population by shifting blame to the consumers.

[–] creamfresh@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

private jets

that seems a bit too specific. what about all the other planes? ships?

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 46 points 11 hours ago

What was the post on lemmy earlier today? The solutions are very simple, the problem is the people profiting off keeping things broken.

[–] huey_m@piefed.social 15 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

"Just don't use AC (during a heat wave killing thousands) and you can save the Earth!" (2026)

[+] FishFace@piefed.social -7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If you use AC and you could instead be using passive cooling (managing the light fading on your house) and fans, without endangering your health, then you deserve criticism.

We need more AC for hospitals and schools and care homes and so on, not my friends who just didn't want to be a bit sweaty. Who then blast it at fifteen degrees below ambient instead of acclimatising a bit.

[–] huey_m@piefed.social 12 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Of course reducing energy consumption is always nice, but

then you deserve criticism.

Nah, this is the thing. This is pushing off responsibility for huge corporate energy consumption onto consumers. Even in very AC heavy America, it accounts for something like 7% of energy use. Imo, fuck telling people to just deal with the heat over 7% of energy use while private jets are allowed to flit around and data centers are gobbling up power, often very energy inefficiently. It's a comparative drop in the bucket.

You're doing the thing the comic is making fun of here.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 6 points 3 hours ago

Also, yeah, I hate when people blast AC 15 degree below ambient temperature, especially when ambient is at 44°C like last week and 'blasting' is 29°C /s

That is assuming a post was not about °F which would be a laughable difference in temperature completely.

Also, there are people who blast heaters in winter, too. Where I live now this is not that much of an issue, but you can't just decide not to use any heater when it's below -20°C outside

[–] FishFace@piefed.social -4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Users of private jets deserve criticism as well, and proportionally more criticism than those using AC - however in my circles, the ultra-rich are criticised a lot while my friends actually buy AC (even extremely inefficient single-hose units) rather than feeling adequately admonished.

You cite the low percentage of US energy consumed by AC as a reason not to call it out, yet flying accounts for 4% of global emissions, and private aircraft (so, little Cessnas as well as private jets) account for under 2% of that. source. The global baseline is 0.08% of emissions, and yet you think a use case with 7% of US energy consumption is too insignificant to criticise?*

I think two things are going on here:

The unfairness of the situation means that you want people who are having such a hugely disproportionate effect as individuals to give up their lifestyles before that of ordinary people in developed countries are affected.
The huge array of things that cause emissions mean that each individual sector has a very small contribution, which makes action in any one seem pointless... unless there is some clear resonance with it, like it being the exclusive province of the ultra-rich.

But the fact is that we can't afford to wait for the ultra-rich to have an uncharacteristic selfless turn because the world is on fire right now and we'll be waiting until we're dead. (They'll be fine). And we certainly can't rely on the ultra-rich to shoulder the burden, because the burden is too big. Even though each mega-wealthy person contributes a grossly outsized amount to climate change, their total contribution is not that significant, because there are so few of them. Suppose the top 0.1% each contributes 100x more than the bottom 90%. Well, 0.001×100 = 0.1, i.e. the bottom 90% together contribute 10× more than the top 0.1% together. Illustrative numbers, but if we only do 10% of the work to combat climate change, we will all be fucked.

So, we can't afford to think like that. We can't afford to think like the comic wants us to think, even though it's understandable.

*These figures aren't directly comparable without more information - it's likely that 7% figure is a percentage of electricity usage, not total energy usage, for example, whereas the 0.08% figure is directly emissions. The figures for aviation are global, and the US will have a proportionally higher responsibility. But come on - we're off by about 100× here, and those factors are just fiddling around the edges.

[–] huey_m@piefed.social 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

yet flying accounts for 4% of global emissions, and private aircraft (so, little Cessnas as well as private jets) account for under 2% of that.

So in other words, the unnecessary actions of a very, very limited few alone consume nearly a third of the entire country's use of a pretty basic comfort.

I see this as rather damning if I'm being honest.

But the fact is that we can’t afford to wait for the ultra-rich

No, the fact is reducing a portion of 7% of energy use (because again, we're excluding health reasons and such which are ever more relevant in 40+C summers) will not have any noticeable impact on climate change. It just won't. And let's keep in mind this is in the shadow of many deaths here in Europe this summer... nah man, we just do not share the same principles here, I flat out disagree that's in any way a good take.

There are some cultural changes that can make a big impact; if we convinced most people in the industrial world to only eat meat once a week or go vegetarian entirely, this would definitely make a large impact. AC use will not. For the most part, systemic change is the only thing getting us out of this. And yes, our odds of accomplishing it don't look good... you not using AC in extremely hot weather will have no impact on that outcome at all, not measurably anyway.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 20 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (3 children)

Also 1994, don't use ac refills that are bad for the environment. (Freon)

1984, don't use these aerosaw cans that will kill the ozone layer.

Make sure you have a catalytic converter to not hurt the environment.

1964 Oil companies noted oil will have marked climate changes by 2000. (We just didn't do enough to stop it)

[–] overcast5348@lemmy.world 17 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 1 minute ago) (1 children)

I man, the Montreal ~~product~~ protocol absolutely succeeded at protecting and eventually repairing damage to the ozone layer. So, if nothing else, that one's a win on multiple levels.

It's just that the powers that be decided that they didn't want to go through all that hassle again and the "people" decided that they were done sacrificing.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 1 points 15 minutes ago

The attempts to repopulate populations of beavers and American buffalos are going great as well.

I don't normally recommend YouTube channels, but if you are ever feeling down about everything there is a channel called Good_News https://m.youtube.com/@Good__News Which tries to capture all the decent bits of things that do occur while everything else looks bleak lol

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 6 hours ago

These are three different environmental dangers though

[–] ISOmorph@feddit.org 8 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

*aerosol

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 1 points 14 minutes ago

Thanks that looks a lot more correct. I'm usually responding quick and don't take the time to actually fix things, lol

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Hang on though, I want to hear more about these ‘aerosaws’. They sound cool.

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 4 points 8 hours ago

I can only picture Half-Life's manhacks.

I don't think they're cool.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 hours ago

I kinda feel like the years are all 10 too late. I definitely remember “reduce reuse recycle” as more of a 90s thing and the city I lived in got a recycling program around 1994. The no littering thing was already well engrained by then.

[–] Tiger@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

2030: Run

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 49 minutes ago

run

[–] lena@gregtech.eu 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

That sounds like a movie name

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 9 points 9 hours ago

Think recent events have shown you can't outrun nature

[–] cranakis@reddthat.com 7 points 11 hours ago

I actually said something similar to the 2024 pane to one of my teenage kids just the other day.