1096
I'm doing my part (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
215 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases

That's just nonsense.

  1. The top two providers in that list are the governments of USSR and China. They are not "megacorporations"
  2. It not a list of "emitters". These entities are just "linked to" the emissions -- i.e. they provided the fuel that someone else burned.

It's completely ridiculous to say that it doesn't matter that someone burns 1,000 gallons of fuel a day because a big company sold it to them.

Targetting individuals people or companies is useless. There's over a billion co-contributers, not a handful. Systematic changes like a carbon tax are necessary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Definitely not nonsense. Perhaps you can try to read what is said if you make such a strong statement.

    1. It’s state-owned companies, not the entirety of the government. Why would they need to be treated differently?
    2. First: not all of them. For example, the vast majority of Chinese coal is also burned in China. And why not put the emissions created by the production of these oil giants on them? It’s their product causing the emissions after all. On top of that, they have been actively trying to obfuscate and manipulate the data on greenhouse gas emissions for the better part of a century now.

    I never said you don’t need to look at your own emissions, but the difference can only really be made by taking on these major corps. Ignoring or trying to downplay that is what’s ridiculous.

    And I agree with carbon taxes, but let’s make sure they hit corporations much much harder than individuals just trying to get by.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    It's nonsense because there's no way to read what you wrote and think it means anything other than a bunch of for-profit corporations are actually emitting that much CO2e. In reality they are just a link in the supply chain, and direct individual use is actually a huge part of emissions (making up the majority when indirect individual use is considered).

    1. State "companies" should be treated differently because they have different structures, motivations, scope, and controls
    2. It is not useful to focus on oil conglomerates because they are basically interchangeable. What is the behavior change you want from them? To all stop existing? To raise prices to discourage use? To collude into providing some correct amount of their product?

    How do you imagine one would "take on" a corporation? "Hey Exxon, you're bad for selling me gasoline. Stop doing that!". If you think we should take them on by buying as little from them as possible, then I guess we agree there.

    It can be difficult to control the incidence of a tax, but a carbon dividend should overall have a highly progressive effect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    So, holding companies responsible for the product they make and try to downplay the effects of isn’t right because there are more steps after them to create the emissions? While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products? Yeah that’s absolutely nonsense.

    1. Why? State companies are just as accountable. They’ve known about this since the 1960s. The goal is to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Time is of the essence, so we need to put our efforts where it matters the most.
    2. To all stop existing? No, as of yet they are still necessary for some chemical processes and back-up power generators for vital infrastructure like hospitals. But we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land. So they will need to drastically change their operations away from oil and gas. They can go into green hydrogen production or focus on EV charging stations. And yes, it helps to hit them where it makes a difference. Put emission taxes on every molecule of carbon they pump out of the earth. Because the only way it doesn’t end up in the air is to leave it there.

    Your reductio ad absurdum is ridiculous. Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them? The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes. Countries can accelerate the transition to green energy through their state-owned energy companies. We can sanction countries who don’t do their part.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products

    This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.

    State companies are just as accountable

    My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.

    we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land

    This is exactly my point -- how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?

    Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them

    What I'm pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like "taking on" the big bad 57 companies doesn't actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.

    The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes.

    100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?

    I don't think we've disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement's veracity, do you think saying "80% of emissions come from megacorporations" drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?

    Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.

    Nobody can fix the emissions of the past, and deterring the next coverup is the only thing we can do. But I do think some reparations are in order, especially to poorer nations who are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

    how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.

    Obviously, the change will have to come from the country’s government. But we can still sanction the countries and the oil companies.

    how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?

    Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.

    vague inflammatory language

    Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.

    Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.

    What inaction? It will cost us all a lot of effort to move away from fossil fuels. You’re just protecting the worst offenders who have made the consumers the scapegoat for decades.

    Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?

    Why would it have to be? I already said start at the top and work your way down.

    Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?

    A lot of people simply don’t care about their own personal responsibility, finger-wagging or hand-waving. They don’t care. It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem than go a snip off every twig individually. I mean, that conservative uncle of yours will never get no god damn ee-vee now will he?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?

    Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.

    You've answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point -- the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.

    Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.

    And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Pay attention to the response that you are getting -- people aren't about to take action; they are going to internally fester.

    What inaction?

    The inaction of useless discussion. Oh, here's a meme blaming "corporations" for everything; I can see emissions dropping already.

    Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?

    Why would it have to be?

    It wouldn't. That's my point. The list doesn't matter.

    I already said start at the top and work your way down.

    As you just pointed out, there is no need for that; we can address the whole problem at once.

    A lot of people simply don’t care

    Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?

    It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem

    It's more effective to direct your efforts towards organization and action instead of blame.

    We've already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let's work toward that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    You've answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point -- the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.

    Nope. There are more ways to make a company change their operations. Think of the EU making USB-C the standard charging port. And of course you can make companies pay for the carbon they dig out of the earth.

    And it is often counter-productive, even fatal.

    Uh… no it’s not. Do you know what’s going on inside your own body? Do you know how many viruses and bacteria are fought off through inflammatory reactions that you hardly even notice?

    Pay attention to the response that you are getting

    I’m just getting that response from you. Otherwise I got a bunch of upvotes for the comment.

    The inaction of useless discussion.

    Like this one? The point is that propaganda works. This was propaganda and I called it out. Most people reacted positively to that. And that will never be useless.

    It wouldn't. That's my point. The list doesn't matter.

    These things do not follow each other logically. Let me try to explain this to you: let’s say you’re on a tight budget and you can cut your costs by 15% by not buying anymore Dubai chocolate crap… or you can save 1% on buying fewer tomatoes, another 0.5% on buying less canned beans, another 2% by switching to a different brand of dairy products etc… where would you start your cost-cutting?

    Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?

    What on earth are you talking about? It’s not like I go around telling people to take as many flights as they can. Of course you try to get people to do stuff on a smaller scale. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reduce the emissions of the megacorporations as well…

    We've already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let's work toward that.

    The point is: who is going to be paying them? The companies who knowingly lied to the consumers and hid the facts or the consumers who were systematically made more reliant on the product these companies sold?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent