World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
The impact of eating meat is way bigger than the few private flights you are talking about, though those obviously shouldnt exist as well.
It’s true that for an average Brit, eating beef 3x a week is worse for the environment in a year than their annual holiday to Greece.
But billionaires aren’t just taking “a few private flights” they’re taking flights more often than I eat meat in the first place.
I’ve cut down on meat and my water and electricity usage, I haven’t been on a plane in 10 years. I use the car about once a month. I recycle, reuse, repurpose, I very very rarely buy new things. I’m chronically ill and living in fuel poverty. I’m anaemic ffs. How much more are the poor expected to do when then rich do nothing?
There are many problems in the world. Some people like to focus on the ones with the largest impacts, where you can personally do something about it (like veganism). Others like to focus on those where few cause grossly disproportionate harm, as they seem more addressable (like private jets).
Debating the merits of focusing on one problem over another is interesting, but in my mind the time for it is not when media is being shared that bolsters a cause without coming at the expense of any others. It hurts all movements when people always undermine issues, pointing to another more important from their perspective.
I highly doubt that most people think you aren't doing enough for the environment. And I don't understand why you'd assume that as the implication of this article.
I see this a lot. Someone asserts a truth (eating less meat is good for the environment), some prick pivots to assert that there are other things society can do (the rich take too many trips in private planes!) And every time it happens, it comes from someone who doesn't like the first assertion and is trying to point at another problem they feel makes their behavior look less stupid and selfish.
It reminds me of a child caught misbehaving, who points at another child and snitches on them, hoping to distract their way out of trouble. "You can't be mad at me for stealing a cookie because Jimmy stole three!"
An enlightened person would make the changes they can control, instead of pointing at ones they can't as if it absolves them. Hell, even just admitting they don't want to is less dishonest.
It's true that there are many things that society can do to prevent environmental disaster, and the wealthy are certainly not the only ones who need to make changes. But let's not forget that billionaires have a disproportionate amount of wealth and power, and they use this power to influence government policy and corporate practices in ways that benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of society.
For example, billionaires have been major beneficiaries of tax cuts that have shifted the tax burden onto the middle class and the poor. They have also used their money to lobby for policies that weaken environmental regulations and promote climate change denial. And they have used their control over corporations to exploit workers, drive down wages, and ship jobs overseas.
. They are actively shaping the system in ways that benefit them at the expense of everyone else. And this is why it is so important to hold them accountable. Sure, we can all make changes to reduce our environmental impact.
But these changes will have a much greater impact if they are made by the wealthy. For example, if billionaires stopped taking private jets, this would have a much greater impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions than if the average person gave up eating meat.
So, to answer your question, I it's a global responsibility and everyone including the billionaires living their lives above us all must start acting to help humanity as a whole. We need to make changes that we can control, and we also need to hold billionaires accountable for their actions. Only by doing both can we hope to make a real difference in the fight against climate change and other environmental problems.
But let's not kid ourselves. The wealthy are not going to give up their power and privilege without a fight. They will use their money and influence to try to derail any efforts to hold them accountable. That's why it is so important to build a mass movement of people who are willing to stand up to the billionaires and demand that they be held accountable for their actions.
The rich are certainly not the only ones who need to make change, but you can't ignore that they must be held accountable for the damage they do to the world. They have a disproportionate amount of money and power, and they use this power to bend society and governments into their image.
Are you referring to me as “selfish” “prick” “childish” “dishonest” “stupid” and unenlightened?
Let me put it into perspective for you, "self-proclaimed enlightened geniuses". Let's say you own a house. I start charging people to dump garbage at your house. It starts leeching into the soil, mold starts growing on the house, and I get rich doing it. I tell you the problem would get better if you stopped producing any trash. Then I take my private jet to my private island and start throwing my trash on someone else's property.
That was a really well written response and I enjoyed your insight. As for why I took personally - I was just having a bad day/week/month. Life is really fucking hard right now.
Hope it gets better for you mate. Virtual hug from a stranger.
Good summary. For me it is disproportionate harm. I am not going to yell at some regular person for liking fried chicken when their employer is flying on a private jet.
So if billionaires put out a statement that they will never stop private flights, and governments announce that they won't legislate on it, what's your plan? Destroy the planet out of spite?
Well first off I would suggest that they go in a submarine. Preference for one that doesn't have all those pesky regulations in the design.
After that just put a 20,000% fuel tax on private jets. I fly commercial, and my job matters a whole lot more, so can they. If Musk or Zuck doesn't show up to work tomorrow things would run slightly better.
We don't need them. They need us. They are not super geniuses they are lucky.
You missed the other person's point. It's not a game and the consequences of ignoring the problem are likely to be massive.
Also, you know who will be the absolute last to feel pain from stuff like climate change? The wealthy. The overwhelming majority of people that will be affected aren't privileged and in fact the least privileged are going to suffer the brunt of it.
You're not going to punish the rich and powerful and make them regret their choices with this approach. By the time they're even feeling moderate discomfort, you'll be long gone.
Right so the rest of us should suffer when there is a low hanging fruit we can pick.
This isn't about punishing people. You want CO2 to go down? Go for the easy wins before you go after the harder to achieve ones. A ban on private jets would hurt effectively none of the human race. There are over 8 billion of us. It wouldn't even impact a percent of a percent. But yeah if given the option of taking someone in developing world's motorcycle away or make Bezos have to fly first class I know which I am picking.
Interesting how so many people here want to ignore the rich people who got rich off destroying the environment and instead want normal people to pay the price for their greed and destruction.
Perfect is the enemy of good. Trust me, I am very irritated by the complete lack of giving a fuck shown by billionaires and large companies.
But I also know that when it comes down to it the only thing they actually care about is money. And I am one of the people that provides them with that money by choosing to buy their products. Sure, it will take a significant amount of us to make a noticable impact but vegan alternatives have been becoming much more popular and prevalent because there is increasing demand. It's happening. The dairy industry obviously feels threatened with their stupid wood milk campaign and desperate attempts to ban anyone else from using the word milk.
That is something I actually have control over. I can vote accordingly to try to stop rich assholes from destroying the earth, but I don't control it alone. At least when the earth dies I can say I tried.
Perfect being the enemy of good is the exact problem here. There is a much bigger reduction in emissions by reducing meat intake, compared to already eating low amounts and going vegan.
It's easier to convince people to eat less meat. That should be the focus
In a mastodon thread this week we estimated that banning private jet usage globally would save about 100 million tonnes of CO2, while normal Americans would save 4.5 billion tonnes by reducing their consumption to global average levels.
Disproportionate harms are annoying but a tiny minority acting disproportionately still matters way less than how normal people act. Banning private jets is pointless if nothing else changes.
Because something doesn't fix a problem completely nothing can be done, yes?
Also I wonder how many times I have been stuck on the tarmac because of some private jet using my taxpayer funded airport.