Do not cast fossil fuels into the fire, unless you want to fucking explode 🤯
fossil fuels
Submitted 1 year ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/55da9e8d-9b9a-4dd5-b688-32418f19c2fb.png
Comments
radiant_bloom@lemm.ee 1 year ago
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
It’s 57 doing 80% now 🙃🙃
theguardian.com/…/just-57-companies-linked-to-80-…
Capitalism working as intended
Gloomy@mander.xyz 1 year ago
Only the it’s not companies but entities which include China, the former soviet union and the Russian federation. This is such a fucking missleading title the guardian ran here.
gigachad@feddit.de 1 year ago
Maybe it’s a stupid question, but aren’t the companies that burn the fossil fuel responsonsible for the emmisions?
onlinepersona@programming.dev 1 year ago
Tell me, who are these companies making all the emissions for? Are the global citizens consuming goods from another realm that don’t require companies to make?
alleycat@feddit.de 1 year ago
No one but complete morons are asking to specifically make a product by emitting carbon dioxide. No company is emitting co2 for “the global citizens”. They make products to earn money. Emissions are an avoidable by-product no one asked for.
onlinepersona@programming.dev 1 year ago
No one but complete morons are asking to specifically make a product by emitting carbon dioxide
Agreed
Emissions are an avoidable by-product no one asked for.
…
How is this not a contradiction?
No company is emitting co2 for “the global citizens”. They make products to earn money.
How do you expect them to earn money without selling to global citizens?
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Lol you think a link is going to stop anyone scraping Lemmy data for AI training?
Jax@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
No, what it means is that if they can prove someone scraped their data and used it for commercial gain - they can sue them for real money.
blazera@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Consumer emissions and corporate emissions are the same emissions
match@pawb.social 1 year ago
except that consumers do not have meaningful control over the companies and the corporate leaders do
bleistift2@feddit.de 1 year ago
You have control over whether you eat pork or tofu, don’t you? You have control over whether you buy a new iPhone or a used FairPhone, don’t you? You have control over whether you plan a trip via airplane or via train, don’t you?
blazera@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Youve got all the control. Without you theyre not emitting anything
ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Maybe if you’re on shrooms or LSD, yeah “it’s all the same if you use what they make maaaaaaan”
But only if you ignore the power dynamics behind wealth, and are aware of the concepts of bribery, temptation, and unlimited influence.
Or the fact that people want greener options but they are intentionally unavailable, sabotaged, prohibitively expensive (but never subsidized), or publicly demonized in media with disinformation and propaganda.
Between consumers and corporations, only one gets to call all the shots
grue@lemmy.world 1 year ago
prohibitively expensive (but never subsidized)
…while the unsustainable options are, massively…
pumpkinseedoil@feddit.de 1 year ago
Sustainable energy is heavily subsidised in Europe. Thanks to that we have 80% renewable energy production in Austria (and buy some non-renewable energy from other countries but still, we’re on a good way).
Chestnut@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I think you’re being downvoted a bit unfairly because you’re strictly correct
That said, fossil fuel companies also spend a considerable amount of money and effort keeping us dependent on oil
The Drilled podcast and Climate Town have both done excellent reporting on this
grue@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I think you’re being downvoted a bit unfairly because you’re strictly correct
No, he’s not. Deliberately ignoring the larger context is blatantly incorrect.
Neato@ttrpg.network 1 year ago
There’s always a corpo-fucker in these threads.
blazera@lemmy.world 1 year ago
if you wanna reduce global emissions, you should at least know where it’s coming from. You hear how most emissions are coming from corporations, mostly oil companies, but that’s not quite it. If you went to their corporate headquarters you wont find the emissions they’re talking about. If you went to their oil drilling operations, you wont find them there either. The pipelines, the oil tankers, still no. Oil companies emissions are coming from your tailpipe. I mean it literally when I say consumer emissions and their emissions are the same.
Its important to know, think about it for a bit, you’re demanding oil companies to take responsibility for those emissions. Imagine they do what you want for a change, and they stop their emissions. That means no gas available to consumers. And oil companies are the biggest targets, but any corporate emissions work the same way, them taking responsibility for their emissions means halting what they produce. Because corporate emissions and consumer emissions are the same, consumers have to deal with the consequences no matter what, either by stopping buying themselves, or no longer having products available to buy.
uservoid1@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Isn’t casting it into the fire the main issue with fossil fuel?
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Lmao global citizens asking for that, when I bet most don’t give a shit
Johanno@feddit.de 1 year ago
Because oil companies paid millions or even billions for propaganda that climate change isn’t real or not their fault.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I think that’s mostly just Western world shit. I’m talking about the vast majority of the world’s population who aren’t as comfortable that they’d care or willing to worsen their quality of life or pay for more etc. They’re not victims of oil company propaganda, they are victims of their circumstances.
Gabu@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Unfair comparison – Isildur was a great leader, defeated Sauron and resisted the dark pull of the One Ring for decades. Corporativist scum, on the other hand, brings no benefit to anyone.
CluckN@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Use paper straws so Whole Foods can sell individual slices of candied bacon in sealed plastic bags.
PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I mean I feel like 90% of that would require inventing a way to achieve trans oceanic shipping without the use of fossil fuels, and the answers to that have basically been ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Kanda@reddthat.com 1 year ago
I think they did that in the time of Columbus
FMT99@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah just build a wooden frigate that can handle 100 megatons of containers, simple.
twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
I honestly don’t think we need to settle on trans oceanic shipping as a hard requirement.
Also, in terms of transportation-based emissions, personal vehicle usage accounted for 58% of the total emissions in the US in 2019. This number doesn’t need to exist. The fossil fuel industry has structured cities the way they are and lobbied against efficient transportation in order to make themselves more money.
Like even if we’re accepting trans oceanic freight as a given, which I don’t think we should on the scale we do now, emissions could be drastically reduced mostly be better planning of transportation.
Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 1 year ago
58% of a total that doesn’t include the emissions outsourced to manufacturing companies in the third world.
buzz86us@lemmy.world 1 year ago
100%
ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 1 year ago
Orc archer team, take my energy
Spzi@lemm.ee 1 year ago
This meme is so wrong it is deliberate misinformation. The Guardian made an article which is probably this meme’s source. It even linked to the original source, the Carbon Majors Report. But blatantly misquoted the CMR. For example, CMR says something like “100 fossil fuel producers responsible for 71% of industrial GHG emissions”, but The Guardian (and meme posters) omit the italic bits.
What do they mean with producers? Not companies like Apple or Heinz, but simply organizations which produce fossil fuels. Duh. Shell, BP, but also entities like China’s coal sector (which they count as one producer, although it consists of many entities). CMR also states 3rd type emissions are included. Which means emissions caused by “using” their “products”, e.g. you burning gasoline in your car.
So yes, the downvoted guy saying “Consumer emissions and corporate emissions are the same emissions” is pretty spot on in this case, albeit most likely by accident. Rejected not for being wrong, but for not fitting into a narrative, which I call the wrong reasons. Please check your sources before posting. We live in a post-factual world where only narratives count and truth is just another feeling, because of “journalism” and reposts like this. Which is the infuriating part in this particular case. I guess you want to spread awareness about the climate crisis, which is good, but you cannot do so by propagandizing science and spreading lies.
All that from the top of my head. Both the ominous TG article and the fairly short report are easy to find. In just a couple of minutes you can check and confirm how criminally misquoted it was.
geogle@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There’s a second more obvious component that people neglect in any statement like OPs.
merc@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Exactly. If you eat bananas that arrive in a port on a ship, that ship spewed out a lot of CO2. If everybody changed their habits and ate something locally grown instead, those emissions would not happen (but other emissions might happen instead). Every CO2 emission by a profit-driven company is going to be the result of a person buying one of their products.
We live in a society, and the amount of difference one person can make is pretty small. Often all of the options available to us are bad. But, this meme is worse.
The ridiculous aspect of this meme is that it shifts the blame onto companies, and allows people to pretend that their lifestyles and choices deserve none of the blame, and instead it’s just some evil companies that are ruining the world. The unfortunate fact is that in this modern society, if you’re living like a typical European or North American, even if you think of yourself as an environmentalist, your lifestyle probably results in a ton of CO2 emissions.
Spzi@lemm.ee 1 year ago
That’s true. A lot more could be said about this, on various levels in various directions. Ultimately I don’t think this systemic crisis can be solved on a consumer level. The attempt leads to the status quo; different subcultures with some people paying extra to calm their consciousness, while most don’t care or cannot afford. I’m afraid if we try to work with individual sacrifice against economic incentives, the latter will win.
It’s also true that some companies use their economic power as a political lever, to influence legislation in their favor. Or as a societal lever, to sway public opinion in their favor. I guess this meme here tries to address that. I honor the motive. Just the chosen vehicle is broken. With mountains of evidence supporting the cause, however, there are plenty of other, perfectly fine vehicles available.
Kanda@reddthat.com 1 year ago
Tfw companies only exist because customers buy their stuff
usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Sure, but why aren’t these companies having to pay for the damage they cause? People wouldn’t buy their stuff if it was the true price.
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
they wrote a new one, which is about industry in general theguardian.com/…/just-57-companies-linked-to-80-…
birthday_attack@lemm.ee 1 year ago
This new report is the same story all over again. From the linked report:
The vast majority of emissions attributed to these companies, nearly 90%, are those emitted by the consumers who buy the crude oil/natural gas/etc. But news outlets are obscuring that fact in their headlines, which makes it seem like the gas companies themselves are wholly responsible.