338
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 16 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

What people fail to see is that we need billionaires to consume all the wealth we make, otherwise we wouldn't know what to spend it on. ^/s^

[-] Fandangalo@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The math here is the sort of thing that drives apathy for me to make small incremental changes. If the superrich can dump ~250 avg. emission years over the course of a year, why should I do anything besides lobby against this mode of transport or other large consumers? Maybe it’s a “spirit of the thing,” but changes in my life seem so negligible compared to how ruinous some individuals are acting.

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago

The "turn the water off while you're brushing your teeth" crap on TV was a corpo psyop. Individual responsibility is a myth concocted and propagated by the very people who have actually been causing the vast majority of the damage.

[-] the_artic_one@programming.dev 13 points 23 hours ago

There are 801 billionaires in the US out of about 335,893,238 people. If everyone else were to reduce their carbon footprint by even a tenth of a percent then there would be significantly less carbon in the atmosphere than if every billionaire in the US were to reduce their carbon footprint to zero.

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

Ok now do millionaires

[-] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 9 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

This is also assuming that the 300+ million Americans have the same size carbon footprint, which is probably not true if you think about it for more than a second. I doubt the bottom 60% of earners in the country have the purchasing power to create that much waste through excess consumerism at this point.

Most of those "Shein/Temu/Aliexpress" hauls or 10x vacations across the world in a year you see on social media are not done by middle or lower income people/families.

This is very much a top heavy issue.

[-] Fandangalo@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago

Sure, but the individual contribution vs. companies / state-owned organizations is like 70% come from 100 companies / orgs. So the individual percentage is still negligible.

I’m not disagreeing with the math. I’m saying when you want to make changes, you start with the most meaningful funnel. If you have 2 factors contributing to a problem, factor 1 contributes 70%, factor 2 contributes 30%, going after factor 2 seems like a waste of time. 1%s contribute 1000x the amount of the average. Who should be making lifestyle changes here?

#voidscreaming

[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

I can’t get 3 people to agree on lunch. No way are we goi g to all agree on carbon footprint reduction actions.

It’s easier to stop 801 people vs 335 million.

[-] return2ozma@lemmy.world 61 points 1 day ago

Billionaires should not exist.

[-] heavy@sh.itjust.works 14 points 23 hours ago

What really irks me are people that think there's such a thing as a "good" billionaire. Had an argument one time because I said all billionaires are inherently shitty, and my colleague was trying to convince me that Bill Gates is actually a good person.

Get real son, the path to billionaire is paved with blood.

[-] capital_sniff@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

Bill Gates the Microsoft guy? The one that just demolished competition? The same company that ran afoul of US antitrust law? Bill Gates the guy that had a non zero number of African nations ask him to stop helping, that guy?

[-] glitchdx@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago

bill gates being less shitty than most does not make him good.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago

What? No. I'm so glad billionaires are a thing. They're doing all of that polluting on my behalf!

I mean there's only 24 hours in a day...

[-] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

And they are collectively shortening our lifetimes too so we pollute less so they can keep their jetliners running during a lunch break in France!

[-] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

This is such a dumb stat. Y'all just want to blame consumption on someone other than yourself.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 7 points 23 hours ago

The stat clearly shows billionaires are doing far more consumption. Seems more like you want to blame consumption on someone other than the worst offenders.

[-] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

🤷‍♂️ I'm not going to try and pump up numbers that are consumption of consumers. It's dumb 🤷‍♂️

[-] hark@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

The billionaires themselves are pumping up the numbers.

[-] RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago

I'll blame the consumption on me when it's my mega yacht, private plane, fleet of cars and whatever the fuck else.

[-] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is such a weird comment to make. Why is the stat dumb? There are many words to use to describe a stat, dumb doesn't mean anything. You don't even explain why.

How does that help me blame consumption on others? You're confusing "i want billionaires to stop polluting too" with "I can pollute because look at this dumb stat". And we all know where you got the latter and why you think people are like that. Projections as usual.

Why be a billionaire apologist? Whatever you want billionaires don't help you achieve it, and are arguably worse for you in every way. It's really weird to defend them, especially on this topic

this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
338 points (100.0% liked)

News

23281 readers
3458 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS