• Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    This infuriates me.

    I would actually love to do more to REDUCE my carbon footprint, but it’s prohibitively expensive to.

    But billionaires (and millionaires) can literally greenify every aspect of their lives, even be carbon-neutral or carbon negative! But they choose not to.

    I think taxing the rich just isn’t enough. We need to CAP the rich. There should be no billionaires.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      They can spend millions trying to reduce everyone’s carbon footprints. Like literally they can lobby for trains and shit. But no they won’t.

    • tee9000@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Its designed to infuriate you. This is not personal emissions of billionaires, its including their businesses.

      • godlessworm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        brother, that doesn’t make it any better. these pieces of shit can do more pollution in 90 minutes than any of us will in a life time since it’s for their business? the one which is such a massive operation of exploitation and extraction that it earns them billions of illbegotten dollars, which is why they’re being talked about to begin with?

        “this infuriating shit was designed to infuriate you, don’t be infuriated, just accept it instead!”

        this is the same stupid shit argument as “um bezos can’t pay more taxes bc he doesn’t actually have all the money his networth implies, that’s not how networth works” as if people mad at jeff bezos or any of these other worthless rich parasites don’t know that, as if we need someone like you to explain some stupid shit to us

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is not personal emissions of billionaires, its including their businesses.

        The Oxfam report says that private planes and “superyachts” are contributing factors, as well as investments in polluting industries like oil and mining.

        Nowhere does it mention that their businesses are what’s contributing to their carbon footprint. They are explicitly talking about their lifestyle choices.

        So, I’m not sure where you got that info from, but if they are including businesses that these billionaires run, I’d be interested in seeing that data.

        Mind you, the majority of these billionaires are in software… a business that’s very easy to convert over to a carbon-neutral model, especially with their resources.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        A billionaire is a business themselves. One person can’t even passively possess a billion dollars without tons of support staff

        If you separate the direct actions of the person from the actions of the staff required to maintain and grow their wealth, you’re missing most of the reason why billionaires are so harmful to society

        • tee9000@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Either we need the figures to represent a billionaires emissions when dealing only with their personal benefit, or we offset the current figures with the benefit to society for their ventures.

          Im sure their personal emissions are bad enough. We dont need to make shit up. If willful ignornace had a physical form, it would be Lemmy’s mascot. Truth is the only thing that matters.

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            But again, it’s all for their personal benefit. A human Their money is managed to grow by any means, and that has a lot of knock on effects

            They generally either put their money in funds with the highest returns (which often use unethical and illegal but accepted practices, and the best ones require large minimum deposits), or they directly own large percentages of a company and use that influence when it suits them

            I see where you’re coming from, but I think the line is blurry. Their direct personal actions don’t capture the full extent of their actions, but this also assumes full responsibility for their ownership, where honestly it’s impossible to know what level of emissions the companies would have if the billionaire’s wealth machine wasn’t involved

            I wouldn’t say this is totally unfair to say though - at the end of the day they own what they own, and letting others do your dirty work doesn’t absolve you of responsibility

            The fact that their life would barely be affected if they added emissions to their criteria for investment makes this worse - these are the figures the billionaires should be looking at to make decisions

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              The line isn’t blurry, it’s disingenuous. Those companies hire thousands of people. They serve millions of people. Otherwise advocating against billionaires using this argument means you automatically argue against any modern solution to a problem. No stores, no supply chain, no agricultute, no medicine. Hell, you can’t even go for earlier periods - Genghis Khan was a billionaire and deserves flak for the gazillion horses his army used which contributed to climate change.

              • godlessworm@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                you’re just typing a paragraph to employ the “job creators” myth as an argument lol

                so being a middle man who does nothing but extract and capitalize on needs that people have makes you a job creator? pretty sure mcdonalds didn’t create hungry people and people would have needed to buy a burger regardless of whether or not mcdonald’s was a multibillion dollar corporation.

                i will admit, mcdonalds does create some hungry people tho-- their own workers, who they underpay by massive amounts.

                • Maalus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  What’s your point? There is no difference in 50 McDonalds locations and 50 independent burger joints when it comes to carbon footprint. If there is a difference, then it is in McDonalds favour - economy of scale, established logistics etc. Probably three different places need to pop up to offset one McDonalds beimg magically removed, each with its own AC, freezers, grills.

  • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Please don’t use this as an excuse for. “It doesn’t matter how much I emit then”.

    Use this as motivation for grassroots and political action aiming to stop the concept of billionaire from existing.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think I just found out I can reverse my entire life’s footprint if I can manage to blow smoke in one billionaire’s face.

            • otp@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              I feel like that’s missing the point of ACAB.

              The problem with cops is that there are good cops who generally behave well and genuinely want to serve and protect their communities. The reason they’re still bastards is because of the unions that they keep (and support). They have some bad apples, and not removing them from the bunch means the bunch gets spoiled.

              • Nik282000@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                The problem with cops is that there are good cops who generally behave well and genuinely want to serve and protect their communities do not report bad cops.

                They are law enforcement, enforce the law. No exceptions.

                • otp@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Yes, I agree completely. I was just explaining that it’s not ACAB because literally all cops are out there getting away with extrajudicial beatings. It’s ACAB because they don’t throw out the bad apples (aka. don’t report bad cops)

    • Zoop@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Fuck yeah! You get it.

      I’m glad you addressed this. As soon as I read the title of the post, I knew there would be people who use it as an excuse not to try to do what they can to reduce their negative affects. Which is so incredibly frustrating. Every! Little! Bit! Counts!

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Also I doubt anyone in this comment section is average.

      The average sits somewhere between us and the all the people in third world country who emit practically no carbon pollution

    • P1nkman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The only way to stop it is when we’re hungry enough, and it’s time to eat.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why should I restrict my limited lifetime on contributing pennies to solving this issue when there are mountains of gold right there doing nothing? I’m not bending over backwards unless the big ones bend with me — pretty fair stance to take, right?

    • edgemaster72@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      When no one was looking, Lex Luthor polluted forty million percent more than an average person. He polluted 40,000,000% more. That’s as many as four tens (times a million)%. And that’s terrible.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    At some point, things are gonna get bad enough that the masses will turn on them. That’s why they’re all buying islands and building bunkers. We should do it now, while it can make a difference.

    • Clent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Allowing to self exile to islands will make it easier to trap them. Simply destroy their means of leaving.

      Bunkers are even easier, burying them in trash.

  • Default_Defect@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    But I’m the asshole for not using the public transportation my city doesn’t have. Anyway, I need to get to the grocery store I should start walking now so I can be there before it closes in 2 hours.