Comment

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨40⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago
There are no ethical billionaires

source
- Photonic@lemmy.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ 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.
  
  source
  - JustJack23@slrpnk.net ⁨4⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ 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.
    
    source
thetentacle@lemmy.world ⁨42⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ 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.

source
spicehoarder@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Taylor swift is a left is just like my racist boss has a black friend and is thus not racist.

source
- Photonic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  I said moderate leftist, but you may have your own opinion about her
  
  source
JDPoZ@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Bingo.

It invites hatred from a sizeable (though perhaps potentially less politically-aware) fan base that might otherwise be receptive.

Using someone as popular as Swift as a target for less-pop-culture-interested folks who are politically informed is clearly kicking the hornets’ nest to stir up in-fighting among the working class.

Next time use Bezos or one of the other folks who showed up in that “Dialog” secret society since they also use private jets in the same way someone like Swift does, but in addition are far worse in every other way and who also lobby with their billions towards worsening the world in every way imaginable.

source
- SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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.
  
  source
RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ 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.
source
- Photonic@lemmy.world ⁨56⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ 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.
  
  source
  - RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ 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.
    
    source
OS2Warp@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
If you make a snappy meme about it, I’ll start using it.

source
- Photonic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  Didn’t make one, but I found this one: !meme corporate emissions
  
  source