Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Through the corporations they own, billionaires emit a million times more carbon than the average person. They tend to favour investments in heavily polluting industries, like fossil fuels.
This is not a billionaire's climate emissions.
If the car I own tallies onto my carbon footprint, surely the corporations owned by the billionaires enjoy the same designation.
They're no different because of what they own.
You would have to take a look at who the stakeholders are at each company. Corporate "ownership" isn't the same as sole proprietorship.
Did you read the article at all?
They all get to enjoy the responsibility (as they all shared the benefits).
If you lend your car to your cousin for a cross- country road trip, does your cousin's road trip count as his emissions, yours, or should it be double counted?
Similarly, my 401k has an S&P 500 fund in it, which contains some fossil fuel stocks. Does my carbon footprint go up every month by whatever fraction of a percent of Exxon my retirement fund buys each month?
When you eat a steak, whose emissions are the methane the cow burped? Yours? The ranchers? Cargills? Walmart's?
Honestly, consumption-based accounting makes way more sense to me.
Double count that shit. We're not going to get out of this hole if we split hairs semantically.
Triple count it if you have a fleet of vehicles over 10.
Double count it for dual axles and ANY truck driving while not hauling a load greater than a passenger vehicle is capable of moving.
Consumption accounting is impossible when the only options available to the consumer fuck them over completely.
Cheap subsidized beef means I'm going to buy it to feed my family.
Cheap subsidized gas means I can keep polluting with little cost.
CAFE laws making vehicles fucking gigantic make it impossible to consume less fuel.
Companies and laws dictate our consumption not the other way around. Tax or kill the wealthy, then we can talk.
But it does make a title that gets clicks.
Yeah - at best they are morally responsible for not choosing to invest in something else but in the end as long as there's capitalism and people are creating demand for whatever polluting thing they procude someone else will step in
The Demand has to be slashed by making those products less profitable if the general public is not acting in their own interest because polluting is cheaper and more comfortable
Especially if people are just going directly to "eat the rich" after articles like this I really wonder what they think will happen if the oil-production is stopped completely from one day to the next? And that even assumes that noone will step up to continue the production - what if the state takes over the oil-company and spreads the emissions evenly among every citizen - would that solve the problem of climate change in their minds?
capitalism and people are creating demand for whatever polluting thing they procude someone else will step in
Capitalism is not why people like electricity, food, and entertainment. All of those things predate capitalism. The USSR contributed to climate change.
Anyone trying to make climate change a leftist issue is a moron. Every economic policy would contribute to climate change becaus every economic policy needs to guarantee heat, food, transport, etc.
I think there’s one big difference here: the capital holding class has fought tooth and nail against making solutions viable. They’ve pushed pro fossil fuel propaganda into everything from our commutes to schools. They’ve fought against acknowledgement of the realities of climate change and done nothing to try to move towards a more sustainable future, instead choosing to invest in lobbying against solutions to reduce demand such as carbon taxes, reduction of oil subsidies, increases in clean energy subsidies, and mass transit.
This is not a billionaire’s climate emissions.
Yes. It is.
“These people have an outsize political influence because of their enormous wealth, which they use to leverage local and national governments, gaining exemptions from taxes and privileges that allow them to pollute and to influence laws regulating pollution,” said Wilk, a professor of anthropology at Indiana University. “If you look at them as entities, some of them are rivalling states in terms of their influence.”
God. It makes me so fucking mad.
I wonder if there's some simple way to completely halt the emissions from those twelve.
I can think of only one (or twelve, depending on how you look at it)
End carbon emissions with this one strange ~~trick~~ brick!
The carbon footprints of the investments were calculated by examining the equity stakes that the billionaires held in companies. Estimates of the carbon impact of their holdings was calculated using the company’s declarations on scope 1 emissions – direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by a company – and scope 2, indirect emissions.
Scope 2 emissions are those from the products sold by the company. For example, if you fill your car up at Exxon, the emissions from you driving on that tank of gas is part of Exxon's scope 2 emissions. The fossil fuel industry is mostly scope 2 emissions, while a company like Amazon is mostly scope 1 emissions.
(The Gates foundation has $1.4 billion invested in fossil fuel companies like BP)[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/gates-foundation-has-14bn-in-fossil-fuels-investments-guardian-analysis]. If you look at that article, Gates has the second- highest carbon footprint on that list of billionaires. Reading that article, it seems very likely that Gate's emissions are mostly scope 2.
Completely halting Gates emissions, as calculated this way, would involve just shutting down whatever percentage of BP he owns. Gas prices would get higher, without actually solving any of the underlying issues causing that demand, like car-centric urban design. It'd likely do nothing, as other gas companies would start to pump more in the medium term and emissions would quickly go back up.
I hope it's a delicious way!
The secret's in the sauce....
sure, just have to close down all the industry. the millions of people employed in those industries will just have to find a different job. simple, innit?
I think the message that want to be passed by this article is probably pro-oil industry. It gives a false impression that we could tackle ecology not by changing our habits but just be mad at a few billionaires. And this is factually false.
Unlike wealth pollution is more equitably shared among people. Here in order to demultiply the calculated pollution of billionaires they introduced thier industry and the pollution of their employees somehow.
And while it is expected these people pollute more. Getting rid of them will not reduce the pollution as one could expect.
unfortunately everyone, even not the wealthiest will need to change how they live to have a visible impact on pollution. broadly speeking, not just CO2, as we have a lot more ecological problems than global warming. Note the focus on global warming alone is also a strategy to hide the real changes that need to ne made in order to prevent humanity to hurt itself too much by destroying its own ecosystem.
Edit: As I am being downvoted it looks people probably misunderstood my message. I would gladly get rid of super rich people. But while this would help, we would all still need to make efforts. Until we accept that we should change our way of life, we will not solve our balance with our ecosystem.
I think the message that want to be passed by this article is probably pro-oil industry.
It's not even that
They specifically say that the numbers wouldn't be this skewed if you didn't count their companies as their own personal emissions.
It's just a stupid article all around.
Cart before the horse. Get rid of the billionaires, then work on individual consumption. Some of us have been recycling and trying to save the environment most of our lives while Taylor Swift flies her private jet to Italy to get a gelato.
Billionaires generate obscene amounts of carbon pollution with their yachts and private jets – but this is dwarfed by the pollution caused by their investments,” said Oxfam International’s inequality policy adviser Alex Maitland.
Through the corporations they own, billionaires emit a million times more carbon than the average person. They tend to favour investments in heavily polluting industries, like fossil fuels.
Private jets aren't great, but they're objectively a tiny part of emissions. According to the EPA,
If we banned private jets, we'd decrease emissions by somewhere under 2%, assuming we're just banning the larger luxury private jets Taylor Swift is chauffered in, not the recreational 2-4 seat single prop aircraft that pilots own. Taylor Swift's jet was in the news for polluting as much as 1,184.8 average people. That's not equitable, but objectively it's a pretty small part of the problem.
Passenger vehicles are 58% of transportation emissions. If you include freight trucks, they're 83% of transportation emissions. Insisting on eliminating 2% of emissions before we even think about reducing 58% of emissions is the definition of putting the cart before the horse.
The problem with driving isn't with individual people deciding to drive instead of walking 2 hours to get groceries. It's the car-centric Euclidean zoning and sprawling (sub)urban design that makes driving the only practical option. If you can get the average person to drive 4% less by e.g. giving them a neighborhood pub they can bike to in 5 minutes, you've done more to decrease emissions than by grounding every private jet.
I mean, don't get me wrong - we can do both at the same time. But Taylor Swift's emissions are objectively more a matter of equity and optics than substance. You don't fix climate change by hyperfixating on eliminating 2% of emissions.
I think we shouldn’t wait for the billionaires to disappear to make efforts.
Saying as long as billionaires are polluting I can still pollute as usual is simply dismissing our own responsibility.
Even though, I agree, billionaires should be the first to make the largest effort.
while Taylor Swift flies her private jet to Italy to get a gelato.
That would have a negligible impact on climate change
Almost everyone has a negligible impact when taken individually, that’s no excuse. Flying is terrible, private jets even more so.
All human air traffic combined is 2% of emissions. A private jet is not a big deal.
Calling out private jets from rich people is a conservative tactic to make wealthy people who advocate for climate policy look like hypocrites. It's a nonsensical position that was never intended to be thought through. It's a kneejerk slogan for the boomer hordes.
We all know the solution. It’s only 12 of them. It can’t be that difficult.
Can't wait to be rid of Taylor swift music
2.1 mili homes
I'm... quite sure they do worse than that.
Good luck finding any resources to do a damn thing about it.
I'd be interested in knowing how much more emissions come specifically from private plane owners. Not just billionaires, but celebrities that use their planes to fly short distances
Roughly 0%. The combined total of all air traffic, 6 million flyers every day, is about 2% of emissions
All private plane use is going to be a tiny percentage of that already small percentage.
That seems way too low...