Disclaimer: This is a joke. Ecofascism is obviously bad, kids. Don’t be that guy.
You must log in or register to comment.
Don’t do this, but remember: the richer a person is, the bigger the ecological footprint. You are higher on that list than you might realize. Especially ecofascists tend to forget that fact.
Yeah you know what would actually be better? Fixing legislation so that the 100 companies that create the majority of pollution stop doing that
Lmmfao, yeah good luck with that… (hint: the people who own those companies also own the government who makes the laws, there is no reforming capitalism, it’s designed that way)
I don’t disagree with this but the offered alternative is checks notes GENOCIDE
Genocide is happening right now in the current system. Some learned from past mistakes some didn’t. We can do better either way.
They own the people in government, not the government itself. Change the people, change the ownership.
The trick is you have to start small, cause the ones in the bigger positions rely on the small ones to maintain their power.
The problem is that to obtain those big pistons, you need the financial backing of those big companies. So eventually as an honest politician climbs the ladder, he has to sell out, or fizzle out. You can’t win federal elections without PAC money.
Until you hit critical mass on those small politicians, and they change the playing field. The problem is seeing them only as stepping stones on the way to greatness, and not as a power in their own right.
Even better than that is changing the system so the 100 companies are no longer around to create a majority of pollution.
The statistic that “Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions” is better understood as “Just 100 companies responsible for selling 71% of global fossil fuels”. It’s fundamentally saying that there’s a few large coal, oil and gas companies worldwide selling us most of the supply.
If you want those companies to stop polluting, that amounts to those companies not selling fossil fuels.
Which is honestly the goal, but the only way to do that is to replace the demand for fossil fuels. Cutting the US off from fossil fuels would kill a ton of people if you didn’t first make an energy grid 100% powered by renewables, got people to buy electric cars, cold climate heat pumps, etc.
That’s true! But I think more than one “front” can be open in this battle. And we also need the ones that can be won quicker or easier. Or at least start those too.
How do you think we could stop the pollution from those companies (most of which are oil producers) without also directly impacting normal people? There’s no way of getting at the structural that avoids individual change.
Individuals should change. We absolutely do not need the majority of products, and can still keep the modern conveniences without all the excess and waste.
Yeah - everyone is shitting on the top 1% here in Germany until they realize that half the population here makes it into that percentile and suddenly it’s the 0,1% that’s the problem.
It’s all about putting the blame on someone else so you don’t have to question if you might be a little bit responsible, too, with your lifestyle…
That’s not how math works. Half the population is 50% not 1%
I was talking about the global 1% since that’s usually what those kind of stats are aimed at
Are you implying that the climate crisis is a global issue? I thought it’s all about recycling
Recycling and liking pictures of polar bears.
Don’t forget sharing posts. Sharing is caring
They’re talking about the top 1% of Germany VS the top 1% of the world. If you reframe your thinking to be about the world instead of just your country, you might find your position as one of the 99% percent changing. I don’t make much in the USA, I certainly wouldn’t call myself rich, but just being employed, above minimum wage, and single means I’m probably above that threshold.
Especially ecofascists
Do you think so-called “ecofascists” are unaware of their contributions to climate change? Or do you just assume that based on their behavior?
You are right. Never trust a fascist’s propaganda. There always is a gap between their announced beliefs and their real ones.
Also much less important than the top by multiple orders of magnitude.
You could make a religion out of this
Least insane religion
There’s no need to kill anyone. As our climate collapses, that’ll start to happen on its own
Yeah but the people that will be dying won’t be the ones with the biggest carbon footprints. It’ll be climate migrants from underdeveloped areas or island nations.
That’s the saddest part.
A lot of it won’t happen on its own though. While direct deaths from climate-related things (floods, fires, wet bulb events, whatever) will happen, you can bet your ass that there’ll be a lot of murderizing too.
Business as usual
Oh yes, the default setting for a disconcerting percentage of humans is to get violent when things get rough.
We’ve been violent since we started.
Probably 90% over our whole species timespan
Or…
We could kill the people who are not only directly responsible for, but who are actively refusing to stop the climate collapse because they want to keep making money and lording over us all from their super yachts (after giving them the opportunity to surrender their wealth for redistribution and stop their exploitation of course, which they will refuse), and actually have a realistic chance of stopping it.
Go after who you want, but the climate yacht has sailed. Drop it to zero tomorrow and we are still toast.
You are talking about the average ppl. Probably 10 billionaires would have the same impact.
Or 100 westerners.
What’s going on with these comments. Is it tankies or campists?
Mate, it’s not tankie to acknowledge that we use far more resources per person compared to the rest of the world.
The rich far outweigh the plebians
It only takes ~30k USD to be in the global top 5%.
Yeah, but cost of living differs. Nonetheless, killing people without attributing the actual cause of pollution to the polluters (companies, private or state controlled) is meaningless.
Production will kill us all
Killing people for the environment is fucking stupid, agreed.
I’m not in favour of OPs picture.
Israel’s new propaganda wave: “We’re just environmentalists.”
Killing one or two people would have a substantially bigger impact if you get the right one or two people. So if you’re gonna, choose wisely
This is the eugenicist’s dilemma. You very rarely meet one who would advocate euthanizing themselves.
Probably because killing me has zero affect vs killing billionaires.
Sort by net worth descending and go from the top
I’m just going to leave this here:
Or kill a billionaire
What about a billion which includes all billionaires
Do we have a billion billionaires? I don’t think so.
No, the set would include them
Let’s just start with the billionaires, see how far we get and reassess as needed?
Let’s go for 2 now
Roger roger
Trees are actually oxygen neutral for most of their lives, their main purpose is in sequestering carbon.
Even if we planted a trillion trees it would only have a tiny affect on climate change. Same with killing large amounts of people. The only way we combat climate change effectively is getting off fossil fuels.
It’s disturbing that so many think that just more trees is the solution. It really shows how dumb and ignorant most people are.
But it would significantly reduce all waste and carbon as well!
Remember: we don’t have a lack of oxygen, we have a surplus of Greenhouse Gases and trash… So less humans is the way to go…
To take it seriously:
No it wouldn’t; time exists.Are we concerned about the amount of oxygen available now?
Well it did cause the first and largest mass extinction event so far…
Sure but anthropogenic climate change is an issue of greenhouse gas accumulation rather than a lack of oxygen, no? Rather than there being too many people literally just using too much oxygen.
CO^2 production consumes oxygen from the atmosphere; Carbon capture that doesn’t make oxygen will leave that issue alive and well.
I was joking. We wouldn’t be alive if that particular extinction even hadn’t happened.
Photosynthesis by ocean-dwelling cyanobacteria produces around 1/3rd of oxygen IIRC. CO2 causes ocean acidification which reduces their ability to grow, thus limiting O2 production. When it is hotter, plants ability to store carbon and photosynthesise goes down. So not right now, but O2 will be cause for concern in the future if we don’t turn away from fossil fuels.
Thanks, I’d never really considered the impacts climate change would have on oxygen. I looked into this a bit and it seems to also be the case that rising ocean temperatures also reduce the capacity of the water to hold dissolved oxygen, which causes a nasty feedback loop.
So while there’s not an immediate risk of atmospheric oxygen concentration dropping by any significant amount, there is a real concern of oxygen concentrations in the oceans dropping pretty drastically. This then accelerates climate change even further and could have longer term effects on atmospheric levels as well.
Good Guy Putin sending waves of Russians to die in Ukraine was just trying to help the environment all along.
Climate Refugee is confused!
It saved oxygen in it’s confusion.
Sure, but what about killing all people? That’s where we’re heading, and a lot of people are choosing to help with that. (I’m not saying that makes it ok, just asking for the fun of it).
Why are there so many sig figs in the amount of people killed vs. the trees planted?
The humans number was probably converted from metric.
