> That is not true. We all know China has poor environmental protections and low wages, and yet we choose to buy products made in China.
It's 100% true, and we often buy from China because overwhelmingly there simply aren't alternatives, the alternatives are prohibitively difficult to find, the alternative is another developing country with similar labor and environmental policies, or the alternative is laundered through a country with good regulation (a car is "manufactured" in America but all of its components--the bulk of its value--are produced in developing countries without regulation).
> And those consumers are also voters. The rules won't be fixed because most people don't care either as consumers or as voters.
Right, but they don't have the same access to politicians that corporations do. This is a different and worse systemic problem. Moreover, corporations run campaigns to shift public opinion away from effectual policy. In the 70s bottling companies ran campaigns which argued, as you are arguing, that litter was a consumer problem rather than a industrial problem (e.g., the "crying Indian" advert). The cigarette industry ran a campaign that insisted that the high rate of home fires are caused by a deficiency of highly carcinogenic flame retardants in home furnishings. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry currently runs campaigns which seek to make climate change an issue of personal responsibility ("we don't need legislation, we just need consumers to decide to switch to veganism and give up their cars").
> But a few powerful people could create huge changes all on their own. Hold them responsible is not pointless, it's our best hope for change.
I strongly disagree. Our best hope for change is public policy, notably border adjustments. If you want to protest at Cupertino, be my guest but that's wholly inadequate.
