Comment

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

Sort:hotnew top

RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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
- Photonic@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  So, holding companies responsible for the product they make and try to downplay the effects of isn’t right because there are more steps after them to create the emissions? While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products? Yeah that’s absolutely nonsense.
  
  Why? State companies are just as accountable. They’ve known about this since the 1960s. The goal is to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Time is of the essence, so we need to put our efforts where it matters the most.
  
  To all stop existing? No, as of yet they are still necessary for some chemical processes and back-up power generators for vital infrastructure like hospitals. But we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land. So they will need to drastically change their operations away from oil and gas. They can go into green hydrogen production or focus on EV charging stations. And yes, it helps to hit them where it makes a difference. Put emission taxes on every molecule of carbon they pump out of the earth. Because the only way it doesn’t end up in the air is to leave it there.
  
  Your reductio ad absurdum is ridiculous. Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them? The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes. Countries can accelerate the transition to green energy through their state-owned energy companies. We can sanction countries who don’t do their part.
  
  source
  - RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
    
    While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products
    
    This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
    
    State companies are just as accountable
    
    My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
    
    we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land
    
    This is exactly my point – how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
    
    Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them
    
    What I’m pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like “taking on” the big bad 57 companies doesn’t actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
    
    The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes.
    
    100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
    
    I don’t think we’ve disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement’s veracity, do you think saying “80% of emissions come from megacorporations” drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?
    
    Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
    
    source