this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
1456 points (97.8% liked)

memes

10482 readers
2241 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 113 points 5 days ago

If only we had recycled harder

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (7 children)

This meme is not true and missleading. I know it fits the narrative of "companies bad". But it's not based on fact.

It's based on an article by the guardian.

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

The article is based on the Carbon Major Report.

It describes itself like this:

Carbon Majors is a database of historical production data from 122 of the world’s largest oil, gas, coal, and cement producers. This data is used to quantify the direct operational emissions and emissions from the combustion of marketed products that can be attributed to these entities.

As you can see, they speak about "entities", not companies. Who are said entities?

75 Investor-owned Companies, 36 State-owned Companies, 11 Nation States, 82 Oil Producing Entities, 81 Gas Entities, 49 Coal Entities, 6 Cement Entities

As one might realize, only 75 are Companies. Most of them are either States, or producers of Oil, Gas, Coal and Cement.

The 71 % is not at all about global emissions. This is wrong.

72% of Global Fossil Fuel & Cement CO2 Emissions

So it's 100 entities that are responsible for 72 % of the world's fossil and cement Co2 emission.

https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/05dfb9e1-ace2-4072-9fc5-7ed6f6eddfb2.png

Looking at them you can see how the top emitter are very much not companies. Also, it's historical Co2, a fact made prominent by the former Soviet union beeing the top emitter.

Let's look at some more findings:

The Carbon Majors database finds that most state- and investor-owned companies have expanded their production operations since the Paris Agreement. 58 out of the 100 companies were linked to higher emissions in the seven years after the Paris Agreement than in the same period before. This increase is most pronounced in Asia, where 13 out of 15 (87%) assessed companies are connected to higher emissions in 2016–2022 than in 2009–2015, and in the Middle East, where this number is 7 out of 10 companies (70%). In Europe, 13 of 23 companies (57%), in South America, 3 of 5 (60%) companies, and in Australia, 3 out of 4 (75%) companies were linked to increased emissions, as were 3 of 6 (50%) African companies. North America is the only region where a minority of companies, 16 of 37 (43%), were linked to rising emissions.

Here the report mixes state and private companies. The rise is most prominent in countries with state owned companies. Privote companies, as seen in Europe and North America, haven't increased that much.

So, all in all: The idea that 100 companies are responsible for the destruction of earth is plain wrong.

I know the ideas that companies are responsible and to blaim for the current state of affairs fits our world view (it fits mine!!), but please don't run into the trap of believing everything you read just because it does.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 60 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (20 children)

Honestly I'm starting to hate this narrative

For one, by far the most polluting companies are state owned coal companies in China and India. Then other state owned fossil fuel companies and then private fossil fuel companies.

So all those companies are just power generation. So it's not like they can just stop, people need the electricity.

And it's not like nothing is being done either. Like by far the biggest polluter is China's coal industry, making up 25% of global emissions, but China is also THE global leader on clean energy investment. They are currently building more nuclear power plants than the entire rest of the world has, they are making the biggest most powerfull wind turbines in the world, etc.

And if people would stop consuming cheap, disposable shite from China, then they wouldn't use so much electricity, so would burn less coal and also you wouldn't make a bunch of shit that's just going to end up in a landfill.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 5 days ago (5 children)

It's a multifaceted issue, but don't kid yourself

http://amp.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.

China weighs in at 14.5% for coal. Another 1-point-some-odd for their Petro Chem. The issue is that there are a lot of companies that make up the remainder.

Demand definitely plays a role in all of this, but I don't think pushing green initiatives is a bad thing from the consumers and one of the only ways we can encourage these companies to do their part

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ryedaft 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Power companies in Georgia, US are building more coal power plants. Consumers in Georgia, US don't have a lot of choice in how the electricity they can buy is produced.

[–] spidermanchild 5 points 5 days ago

What kind of politicians are people voting for at the state level in GA? Separately, they're also blowing ass loads of money on nuclear.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Why are the people not on the hook for electricity usage but they are for cheap crap? The corporations reselling the cheap crap are far more culpable. The problem is still capitalism.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I agree so very much.
People around me fly on holidays by plane like two, three times a year, still eat meat, shower twice a day and buy shit they don't need from Amazon, because they can. This needs to stop! Will it save us? Of course not, but who else is going to stop the global suicide machine? Trump? The fossil destroyers? Do you want to protest another 70 years or go blow up a pipeline?
We are billions, we have the power of "No, thanks, I don't want that" every fucking day but the endless consumption of stuff is too tempting. Instead, we sit at home, comfortably warm, well fed and lonely, in front of our seethrough plexiglas RGB LED computers and point fingers at corporations that are exactly as greedy, selfish and irresponsible as every single one of us.
NO THANKS! This could be the easiest global movement, no violence, no riots, yet corporations would be powerless. But you'd need to change, and you don't want that.

Edit: If you downvote, please tell me where I'm wrong and what's your counter-proposal in this actual situation right now.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (14 children)

Where you are wrong is that the majority of humans don't have access to those luxuries of choice since around 50% of the world is still below the extreme poverty level. Where else you're wrong is people like me that have solar panels, and electric transportation and access to mass transit that I use regularly. We also don't have much of a choice, because we don't make the markets those companies do.

Those companies are the only ones that have a choice because they control so much market share that no one else has enough power to make a change.

I already eliminated my carbon footprint, and it hasn't done shit, because Starbucks has their own private jet that the CEO is using 3 times a week to fly between San Francisco and Seattle, because fuck the plebes.

The only solution I see at this point is mass protest and starting to assassinate CEOs, shareholders, and boards of directors, in self defense.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Sixtyforce 37 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Humans self describe as intelligent. That always stuck with me.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Humans are so naturally stupid that they almost make AI seem intelligent.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 days ago

Certainly that goes a long way to explain why so many think LLMs are actually intelligent.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

This but sort of unironically.

Those 100 companies dig up coal, oil and gas. It's us that apparently can't break ourselves from it.

It's all very well us going out and going "oh, you little poor brown people that don't know any better: you shouldn't be using this stuff, it's killing the planet" when we've spent 150 years enriching ourselves off the back of it, and can't even stop using it ourselves. The USA's main export and import is still oil.

We're completely fucked, and it's very convenient blaming China when we've moved all our manufacturing there, but we were all responsible and we did precisely fuck all when it mattered. If a political party promised to stop using it all, they wouldn't get in. We wouldn't vote for them because we know we rely on it and costs of everything would go up in the short term.

I'm all for getting rid of fossil fuels, but I'm acutely aware that it's just so I can breathe slightly cleaner air while the planet boils. Globally we're still fucked.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago (2 children)

We technically do. The day we don't need to buy their crap is the day we are free from our chains.

Don't let your dreams be dreams and just do it

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago (2 children)

If only it was that simple. We still have to eat, drink, clothe ourselves, get around...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

We give them the ammo, they pull the trigger. We basically just choose the type of ammo. Buying from Nestle? That's a .50 BMG. Beyond Burgers? .22 LR

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 days ago (5 children)

This always gets me. They are producing stuff that we the people buy. They aren't out there just for the fun of things. Inb4 Lemmy's famous misreadings, yes it is an issue, yes we need regulation (which we will have to start again from scratch, hopefully in 4 years), yes we need renewables. But this simplistic "it's just 100 companies" is misleading AF.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 5 days ago

Those 100 companies have made it so it's incredibly difficult not to buy from them.

Groceries? There's like 10 companies that own all of the food supply. Good luck figuring out which one's have child labor, and a horrendous environmental impact. They've very purposely masked that image.

Oh wow, everything is recyclable! No, those companies just slapped that logo on all of their products so we can ignorantly wish-cycle their garbage. Most of it ends up in the landfill.

Don't want a car? Our cities are very deliberately designed to require cars. There is a very strong private agenda against good public transportation.

Then there's the pollution. These companies pollute so much more than we know. Whether that's dumping forever chemicals into our water, or taking private jets everywhere. It's not like the label on your T-shirt tells you that.

Finally find a good company? They'll buy it up, lobby against it, or coerce them out of business. Just look how many companies Luxottica has destroyed.

There's layer after layer of obfuscation to hide what these companies are doing. It's not just a matter of picking Product A over Product B. We rarely have much choice, or the information to make better choices.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'll GLADLY buy the alternative that doesn't do those things. When it exists. One day.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think the idea was "reduce consumption". As a society we buy tons of stuff, way more than 50 or 100 years ago.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

When planned obsolescence isn't the cornerstone of the modern market, we might have the choice to consume less. Currently you cannot buy any product that hasn't been intentionally designed to create as much waste as possible. That is on the companies, since they are legally people.

Corporate death penalty needs to be levied against the largest corporations before they kill us all with their greed. We don't need them. They need us.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

I agree with you on planned obsolescence, but I think there's more to the story. The quantity of things/conveniences in our lives is greater than at any point in history. We have two younger kids and the quantity of... junk they have is astounding. As parents, we've sought out lower quality/throw away/gimmicky toys for things like goodie bags at birthday parties. Sticky hands, silicone squeeze toys, etc. To some extent, the internet is contributing to this since shipping and handling aren't free and buying a single fidget spinner for $5 doesn't sound like a good deal when you can get a bag of them for $8.

There are also plenty of instances of people replacing perfectly functional items because the newer version became available. People buy them for status or for a perceived increase in convince/quality. This is true for compute/tech, but has been extending into things like smart home (replacing a functional light-bulb, switch, doorbell, thermostat etc for a IoT device). I get that some people are into these things, but it seems disingenuous to say that the only thing driving this is planned obsolescence.

We have to move toward less carbon intensive means of production, but we also need to figure out how to change the endless stream of "better/faster/newer" that people feel compelled to purchase.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Have you somehow missed just how car-centric just about everything is? I mean, most public space out there is taken by roads and public transport is generally insufficient.

Granted, there are much better countries in this than others.

Ditto on other things imposed on people such as planed obsolence: Can you still buy a fridge that will last you a lifetime? Does your 15 year old original iPhone still work well? How many of the electronics out there are not repairable?

Then there's all the pressure to make people consume, using techniques from Psychology (you can go read all about how the nephew of Freud introduced into Marketing techniques from Psychology back in the 50s). Absolutelly, people should be stronger and wiser than that, but most are not and just claiming that "it's people's fault" when others take adavantage of natural human weaknesses is just victim blaming.

Absolutelly, Consumerism is a big part of the problem and it's a lot down to individuals to do less of it, but lets not deceive ourselves that the environment we're all in not only promotes it massivelly and relentlessly, but plenty of decisions which were taken for us by others mean individuals often don't even have a choice not to buy new junk or ride a personal-polution-device, and in Capitalism those decisions were taken mainly by large Companies directly or by the politicians they bought.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

As you said, plenty of countries are better in terms of public transportation, but most people still insist on driving cars even in places with good public transportation coverage.

And the biggest counter to the "it's not a personal issue, it's companies who don't give options" is diet: eating meat is far worse for the environment as well as more expensive than a plant based diet; but people hate the idea of eating less meat and they love to mock vegans.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago

The average person spends most of their time at work where they don't control how environmentally friendly they are.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I can't find the quote but don't expect poor people to want to stay poor. They will do whatever it takes to rise out of poverty. This privileged and naive attitude of 'don't do that it's bad' won't work.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

This is why we must lower the standard of everyone who isn't poor.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The problem is GDP measurements leave out all the inconvenient but equally important stuff like sustainability, environmental concerns etc. Green GDP is the way to go but it's still a relatively new concept that needs to be spread out and adopted far and wide, but alas, only when the last fish has been caught and all the rivers poisoned will we realize we cannot eat money.

load more comments
view more: next ›