• lugal@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • candyman337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah you know what would actually be better? Fixing legislation so that the 100 companies that create the majority of pollution stop doing that

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        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)

          • umbrella@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Genocide is happening right now in the current system. Some learned from past mistakes some didn’t. We can do better either way.

        • Zorque@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • Zorque@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Even better than that is changing the system so the 100 companies are no longer around to create a majority of pollution.

      • Pipoca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

      • TheGreenGolem@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

      • orwellianlocksmith@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • meliaesc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          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.

    • hh93@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      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…

      • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Half the population of Germany makes it into the global 1%? So 40 million Germans are in the 1%, a group that is 80 million people in the world?

        People severely estimate how many Westerners there are. The US alone is like 4 or 5% of the world population. If you’re in the west, you’re in the top 15% of the world, but not likely the top 1%

        • hh93@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I was talking about the global 1% since that’s usually what those kind of stats are aimed at

        • nyahlathotep@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

    • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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?

      • lugal@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        You are right. Never trust a fascist’s propaganda. There always is a gap between their announced beliefs and their real ones.

  • edinbruh@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I feel like this argument is way too imprecise, to the point of being basically untrue. That’s probably based on the average emissions or something like that, but people are not the same and “emission responsibility” is wildly different.

    Imagine killing 34k exploited African people, the world’s climate won’t even notice that. On the other hand, killing 34k middle class Americans or Europeans would probably be a little more effective, but still won’t fix anything. Now, killing 34k high-profile megacorp executives would definitely be much more effective, but would also collapse some economies, leading to various climate unfriendly events (like riots, war and shit).

    But the simplest empirical evidence is: COVID killed 6 million people and the climate is still shit.

    Source: I made it the fuck up, I’m talking out of my ass

      • Pipoca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Bullshit.

        The investments of just 125 billionaires emit 393 million tonnes of CO2e each year – the equivalent of France – at an individual annual average that is a million times higher than someone in the bottom 90 percent of humanity.

        That is to say, if you multiply the emissions of the gasoline sold by ExxonMobil by whatever percentage of ExxonMobile that’s in Bill Gate’s portfolio, you get an absolutely ridiculous emissions number.

        But that seems to assume that if it weren’t for those dastardly billionaires investing in oil companies, we’d all be living in 10-minute cities with incredible subways connected by high speed rail, powered entirely by renewables, and heated by geothermal heat pumps. And I honestly don’t beleive that.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Considering that the oil companies bought up the trolley companies, and shut them down, I would argue that without those particular billionaires, we would still be building walkable cities the way we did for centuries, until they decided that cars should be essential, but a luxury at the same time.

          Edit: this is specifically applicable to the US

          • Pipoca@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Sure - blame Rockefeller, Henry Ford, etc. for that. Also e.g. Robert Moses, not that he was a billionaire. But they’re all dead. They’ve been dead.

            Is America’s suburban sprawl the fault of Bill Gates in particular? Or Bezos, Musk, or Dell?

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Do they have any investments in the oil sectors? And Musk is absolutely trying to keep cars and kill mass transit. He admitted it. Bezos definitely has invested in making our cities the unwalkable hell scape that the oil companies started.

    • Risk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      The meme is about saving oxygen, not reducing CO² emissions.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      I kind of appreciate your sourcing. The same citation is used by many, without disclosure.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Planting 20 million trees wouldn’t have much of an effect on the climate. Definitely not for the next 10 years.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Hemp/ Cannibis/ Marijuana are the best crops for carbon capture. Not only do they store 80%+ of the carbon in their roots, one acre of hemp will capture 10 times the amount of carbon as one acre of trees, provided the hemp is harvested at least once a year, and the roots are stored at the bottom of the ocean or something. You can harvest that acre up to 4 times a year in some parts of the world, and hemp can be used for food, fuel, clothing, rope, paper, shelter, concrete, and a ton of other stuff.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    There’s no need to kill anyone. As our climate collapses, that’ll start to happen on its own

    • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Go after who you want, but the climate yacht has sailed. Drop it to zero tomorrow and we are still toast.

  • angrymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    You are talking about the average ppl. Probably 10 billionaires would have the same impact.

  • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    11 months ago

    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

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Trees are actually oxygen neutral for most of their lives, their main purpose is in sequestering carbon.

  • CJOtheReal@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    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…

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • M137@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s disturbing that so many think that just more trees is the solution. It really shows how dumb and ignorant most people are.

      • benjiman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          CO^2 production consumes oxygen from the atmosphere; Carbon capture that doesn’t make oxygen will leave that issue alive and well.

    • bananabenana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • benjiman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Good Guy Putin sending waves of Russians to die in Ukraine was just trying to help the environment all along.