this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
533 points (80.5% liked)

Leftism

2107 readers
106 users here now

Our goal is to be the one stop shop for leftism here at lemmy.world! We welcome anyone with beliefs ranging from SocDemocracy to Anarchism to post, discuss, and interact with our community. We are a democratic community, and as such, welcome metaposts that seek to amend the rules through consensus. Post articles, videos, questions, analysis and more. As long as it's leftist, it's welcome here!

Rules:

Posting Expectations:

Sister Communities:

!abolition@slrpnk.net !antiwork@lemmy.world !antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world !breadtube@lemmy.world !climate@slrpnk.net !fuckcars@lemmy.world !iwwunion@lemmy.ml !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com !leftymusic@lemmy.world !privacy@lemmy.world !socialistra@midwest.social !solarpunk@slrpnk.net Solarpunk memes !therightcantmeme@midwest.social !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world !vuvuzelaiphone@lemmy.world !workingclasscalendar@lemmy.world !workreform@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

This is mostly on point, but it also reproduces the 100 companies 71% line.

100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions related to fossil fuel and cement production, not 71% of total global emissions.  

Of the total emissions attributed to fossil fuel producers, companies are responsible for around 12% of the direct emissions; the other 88% comes from the emissions released from consumption of products.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-100-corporations-do-not-produce-70-total-greenh/

It's unfortunately not true. Just widley quoted.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thank you, I was also misinformed about that number.

[–] set_secret@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think it's closer to 25% for fuel burning, not 12% where did you get 12?

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

[–] Maeve@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It would seem Industrial consumption of resources would be ≥ *collective individual consumption (possibly excluding ultrawealthy, depending on variables), but I’d need to at least see the abstracts of some credible studies.

Edited word

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

if they didn't dig it out of the ground it couldn't be used at all. they have the responsibility

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So individuals aren't responsible for making any inconvenient changes to their lifestyle but can still feel morally superior? Thanks bro, this is just what I needed to hear today!

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If we didn't use fossil fuels, literally billions of people would die within months.

We need to transition away, not stop cold turkey

[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

tbf, they didn't say to stop cold turkey.

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. It's the System that encurages them to dog it out that is to blame. A System that is build around exponancial groth. Those 117 companies wouldn't dig or pump that stuff out, consumers wouldn't live lifes that use up extraordenary amounts of energy compared to any other time in human history, goverments wouldn't make the GDP their holy grail, if not for the hyper capitalist framework that has enabled this to happen.

So, it you have to blame something, blame the bloody System.

And, btw., don't use the "the companies are responsible" line to excuse not changing how you consume and how much you personaly continue. I am not saying that you are doing so, but I've read it to many times by now.

Yes, BP pushed the carbon footprint idea. Yes, BP and any other oil company has to do chance their buisness model. That does not mean that All of us will not have to degrow the way we live. Every one of us needs to start acting in a more sustainable manor, from Individual to company to government, if we want to minimise suffering for future generations. If we don't (and honestly it doesn't look like it) their will be a systematic reduction in complexity anyway. The only question is if it will be by design or by desaster.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"I want food and to not freeze/overheat" is not a desire based on exponential growth, but is a desire that currently requires fossil fuels.

Much like the "9 million starve" number, the argument against fossil fuels is incredibly misleading.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Again, no one believes that change is possible overnight.

Such an idea has never been mentioned.

At any time, a current condition of society is due to a long succession of events preceding it, without which the particular condition would be different.

Our current predicament has been a long time in the making. We need to unify toward directing a succession of events away from dependence on fossil fuels, for achieving a transition to sustainable energy.

[–] SchizoDenji@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

It's reddit tier misinformation post.