Comment on I'm doing my part
OS2Warp@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Photonic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This image looks like right wing corpo propaganda to me. It not only does it divert the attention away from the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases, it is attacking a moderate leftist – who admittedly causes a relatively large amount of greenhouse gases.
But Taylor Swift is not making most of those flights on a personal basis. It’s to provide a service to fans. So in that sense we can regard the emissions as those of Taylor Swift the company. And in that sense they are much lower than many other companies who we often give a free pass.
So, yes hold the big emitters responsible, but let’s start with the 57 on the list and work our way down to Taylor Swift.
JDPoZ@lemmy.world 1 month ago
[deleted]SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Yeah, if you convinced Taylor Swift to stop using a private plane, it’s analogous to fast food companies switching to paper straws while keeping everything else plastic. It helps, but it’s just demanding a token solution instead of taking on the bigger problem.
spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Taylor swift is a left is just like my racist boss has a black friend and is thus not racist.
Photonic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I said moderate leftist, but you may have your own opinion about her
mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
There are no ethical billionaires
Photonic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I didn’t say that. But we have to be pragmatic and focus our energy on the worst offenders, because that’s where the most gain comes from.
JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
Why waste energy distinguish are you a level 4 or a level 5 offender. Our energy would be much better spend dealing with the root of the problem. That is a society allowing that level of accumulation of wealth. No matter if you are performing for your fans or flying to Epstein island.
OS2Warp@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
If you make a snappy meme about it, I’ll start using it.
Photonic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Didn’t make one, but I found this one: !meme corporate emissions
OS2Warp@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
thetentacle@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I’m blown away every time anew how some people on lemmy, like you here, effortless cut through obvious manipulation. Reflecting on the state of the internet it’s sadly delightful and refreshing.
Gloomy@mander.xyz 1 month ago
As i do every time somebody posts this article:
The headline is misleading. It’s not 57 “companies”. The original source speaks of “Entities”.
Number one on that List of 57? The former Soviet Union. Good luck holding them responsible. Next to several state controlled Actors like Gazprom (6th) or Saudi Armaco (3rd), some privat companies like ExxonMobile (5th), there are entities like Chinas Coal production from 1945 - 2004 (2nd) North Korea (57th) or Cinas Cement production (13th).
The list shows that oil companies cause a lot of emissions (but apparently not as much as the former soviet union). To absolutly nobodies suprise.
Next to holding them accountable for their emissions (and their lobbying, pro oil propaganda, etc) we need to find ways to reduce emissions in our lives. Those companies will only stop if their products is less and less needed.
Photonic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Obviously you can’t do anything about the former Soviet Union –although Ukraine is doing a pretty good job– and China is doing a good job moving away from coal.
It doesn’t matter whether the results are surprising or not, we need to move away from the narrative created by oil companies that the end user is at fault. And you’re not helping either in that sense. Oil companies have been doing whatever they can do hide the truth about emissions, lie to the public through propaganda and sow doubt about climate research.
Of course end users need to change something too, but that’s far less easy than it sounds. Especially the USA people seem to have absolutely no idea what they’re doing driving around everywhere in big trucks, even for short distances.
r1veRRR@feddit.org 1 month ago
It’s crazy how long that misrepresented study stays alive. The point wasn’t to find fault, it was to figure out how much comes from people in general. After all, nature does create it’s own green house gases.
By the logic of the study, the oil company that sold Swift her kerosene is 100% responsible for it. By that studies logic me, you and Swift are EQUALLY not responsible for ANY oil we use, ever. That’s obviously stupid.
Photonic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Just a different way of interpretation. Of course the user and producer share some of the blame, but now it’s the other way around, now Taylor Swift gets the full blame.
And the point is that the oil companies have actively lied to their customers about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, even though they knew about it since the ‘50s.
So if I sell you a box, and I tell you it’s completely safe, but the box explodes and kills a bunch of people, who, in your mind, is responsible?
RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world 1 month ago
the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases
That’s just nonsense.
- The top two providers in that list are the governments of USSR and China. They are not "megacorporations"
- It not a list of “emitters”. These entities are just “linked to” the emissions – i.e. they provided the fuel that someone else burned.
It’s completely ridiculous to say that it doesn’t matter that someone burns 1,000 gallons of fuel a day because a big company sold it to them.
Targetting individuals people or companies is useless. There’s over a billion co-contributers, not a handful. Systematic changes like a carbon tax are necessary.
Photonic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Definitely not nonsense. Perhaps you can try to read what is said if you make such a strong statement.
- It’s state-owned companies, not the entirety of the government. Why would they need to be treated differently?
- First: not all of them. For example, the vast majority of Chinese coal is also burned in China. And why not put the emissions created by the production of these oil giants on them? It’s their product causing the emissions after all. On top of that, they have been actively trying to obfuscate and manipulate the data on greenhouse gas emissions for the better part of a century now.
I never said you don’t need to look at your own emissions, but the difference can only really be made by taking on these major corps. Ignoring or trying to downplay that is what’s ridiculous.
And I agree with carbon taxes, but let’s make sure they hit corporations much much harder than individuals just trying to get by.
RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It’s nonsense because there’s no way to read what you wrote and think it means anything other than a bunch of for-profit corporations are actually emitting that much CO2e. In reality they are just a link in the supply chain, and direct individual use is actually a huge part of emissions (making up the majority when indirect individual use is considered).
- State “companies” should be treated differently because they have different structures, motivations, scope, and controls
- It is not useful to focus on oil conglomerates because they are basically interchangeable. What is the behavior change you want from them? To all stop existing? To raise prices to discourage use? To collude into providing some correct amount of their product?
How do you imagine one would “take on” a corporation? “Hey Exxon, you’re bad for selling me gasoline. Stop doing that!”. If you think we should take them on by buying as little from them as possible, then I guess we agree there.
It can be difficult to control the incidence of a tax, but a carbon dividend should overall have a highly progressive effect.
lime@feddit.nu 1 month ago
taylor swift’s private plane is a 1947 boeing b-47 stratojet?
girl’s got style.
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I thought that was a lobster disintergrating at first
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Everything looks like a lobster disintegrating when your only tool is a lobster reintegrator.
JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
Jeff Bezzos:
Image
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 month ago
So I’ve wanted to do this for a minute…
But how many paper straws would you have to use to offset one of these explosions? How long would it take to offset one of these explosions through straw use?
Writing this now I was surprised by the results…
Source for plastic v paper straw data
So apparently plastic straws are actually more carbon neutral than paper straws, but for the purposes of this analysis I’m going to carry it through to find out how long it takes to create equivalent emissions.
Paper straws:
Image
Call it 1430 grams of emissions per straw (which is wild btw)
Plastic straws:
Image
Call it 610 per plastic straw. Still wild for something which weighs less than a gram.
This is also from the thesis
Image
So yeah… not great.
Gonna be using 825 tons of carbon dioxide emitted from Hank Green’s video.
I think Hank is working in US standard units here… which is also weird and annoying but whatever… We’re getting to units of rocket explosion per straw so it’s fine…
And I’m going to be using 500 million straws per day, which is cited in the thesis from a 2017 study and repeated elsewhere in other studies on this.
Image
It’s not great but what even are we doing here…
I don’t know how we get a plastic straw versus compostable straw use rate (what proportion of straws are still plastic versus how many are now paper or some other alternatives)
But we get 820 additional grams of emissions for each straw swapped.
500 tons to grams is:
838238016
Divided by the difference in co2e foot print per straw…
838238016 / 820 is about 1022240, in other words, about a million.
So for about every million straws swapped from plastic to paper, one giant fiery rocket explosion of CO2 emissions occurs.
The US consumes straws at a convenient rate of 500 million a day, so if ALL of those straws were converted to paper, we’re setting off about 500 of those explosions per day.
skisnow@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I was always given to understand that the straw thing was because plastic straws get out and fuck up wildlife, but that message seems to get buried in handwringing over climate change so often that I suspect bad actors are at play spreading all these memes.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Idk. It’s not at all clear to me why or what’s the point of these very performative acts.
There is almost no way it represents any practical differences to wildlife. It seemed to me something companies could “do” as a form of visual way of communicating that they were “doing something”, and it’s something that was done in sync, with no real consent of the consumer. It’s not like people were driving this. It was very much from the corporate side.
mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Does that include the co2 generated by the incineration of each straw at the end of their life? Assuming you’re in a region that can incinerate trash instead of landfilling it.
JustJack23@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
I am not sure if that makes me feel better for the explosion or worse for the straws.
But that is awesome!
Ichiro_kun@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This is just… Crazy bruh… 😭
spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Have you noticed the intense UV this summer? I think he legit ripped a hole in the ozone layer with that explosion.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Somebody contact the investigative journalists at the Washington Post!
Oh…wait…