• SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Through the corporations they own, billionaires emit a million times more carbon than the average person. They tend to favour investments in heavily polluting industries, like fossil fuels.

    This is not a billionaire’s climate emissions.

    • hh93@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah - at best they are morally responsible for not choosing to invest in something else but in the end as long as there’s capitalism and people are creating demand for whatever polluting thing they procude someone else will step in

      The Demand has to be slashed by making those products less profitable if the general public is not acting in their own interest because polluting is cheaper and more comfortable

      Especially if people are just going directly to “eat the rich” after articles like this I really wonder what they think will happen if the oil-production is stopped completely from one day to the next? And that even assumes that noone will step up to continue the production - what if the state takes over the oil-company and spreads the emissions evenly among every citizen - would that solve the problem of climate change in their minds?

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        capitalism and people are creating demand for whatever polluting thing they procude someone else will step in

        Capitalism is not why people like electricity, food, and entertainment. All of those things predate capitalism. The USSR contributed to climate change.

        Anyone trying to make climate change a leftist issue is a moron. Every economic policy would contribute to climate change becaus every economic policy needs to guarantee heat, food, transport, etc.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think there’s one big difference here: the capital holding class has fought tooth and nail against making solutions viable. They’ve pushed pro fossil fuel propaganda into everything from our commutes to schools. They’ve fought against acknowledgement of the realities of climate change and done nothing to try to move towards a more sustainable future, instead choosing to invest in lobbying against solutions to reduce demand such as carbon taxes, reduction of oil subsidies, increases in clean energy subsidies, and mass transit.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, look… an “enlightened centrist” has shown up to whitesplain that capitalist parasitism is actually poor people’s fault.

        Yawn.

        • hh93@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m as left as you can get without being straight up communist - I despise neoliberalism and think that countries should to a lot more to make billionaires nonexistent via redistribution of money and higher wealth- and inheritance-tax but for this issue it’s just not enough if everyone washes their hands in innocence and only points to them

          sure their personal lifestyle is much shittier than the one from the average person but pinning the emissions from companies they own on them is just making things far too easy on the average person

          People need to vote for a green transition and not for some shortsighted utopia of “if we just remove the billionaires climate change will be fixed” - that’s not the case as long as demand is still there

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I despise neoliberalism

            No. You don’t. If you did, you wouldn’t literally be regurgitating one of the fundamental tenets of neoliberal ideology - individual responsibility. Need to be reminded of this?

            but pinning the emissions from companies they own on them is just making things far too easy on the average person

            See that part up there? You know, the part where you blame capitalist parasitism on poor people?

            People need to vote for a green transition

            Riiiiight… how is this whole “voting harder” thing going for you?

            • hh93@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t say the single person is responsible - I say the population as a whole is - and for that to happen there needs to be a massive shift on the individual level as politicians won’t vote against most of their population.

              It’s less about the individual responsibility for climate change but about a motivation to become politically active and get more people on board - leading by example is just a very low-level approach that everyone can do.

              I’m not pinning anything on poor people - I’m just saying that pointing fingers will do literally nothing and I think we should work within the current democratic systems which in turn means that everyone is at least a bit responsible for who they vote for. And voting and advocating for a party that promises to cut down emissions of everyone is the most logical thing as just removing the billionaires won’t fix a thing if polluting isn’t made more expensive which definitely WILL influence everyone.

              It just seems very immature to use this thing as a “get out of jail card” to continue flying every year and doing the shortest possible trips via car instead of taking the bike for a change or advocating for more bike infrastructure in cities.

              It’s not going well because a lot of people seem to think they are not affected and want to ignore the whole issue until it’s too late and nature forces them to change - and it’s frustrating. Everyone should’ve started adapting to a more ecological lifestyle yesterday but that obviously didn’t happen. If it did it would be much easier to actually get politicians to change something

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                we should work within the current democratic systems

                Well, that’s just fine and dandy… but that all depends on whether you actually have anything that can be called a “democratic” system with a straight face now does it?

                Sooo… do you?

    • YeetPics@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the car I own tallies onto my carbon footprint, surely the corporations owned by the billionaires enjoy the same designation.

      They’re no different because of what they own.

  • PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    “These people have an outsize political influence because of their enormous wealth, which they use to leverage local and national governments, gaining exemptions from taxes and privileges that allow them to pollute and to influence laws regulating pollution,” said Wilk, a professor of anthropology at Indiana University. “If you look at them as entities, some of them are rivalling states in terms of their influence.”

    God. It makes me so fucking mad.

    • Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The carbon footprints of the investments were calculated by examining the equity stakes that the billionaires held in companies. Estimates of the carbon impact of their holdings was calculated using the company’s declarations on scope 1 emissions – direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by a company – and scope 2, indirect emissions.

      Scope 2 emissions are those from the products sold by the company. For example, if you fill your car up at Exxon, the emissions from you driving on that tank of gas is part of Exxon’s scope 2 emissions. The fossil fuel industry is mostly scope 2 emissions, while a company like Amazon is mostly scope 1 emissions.

      (The Gates foundation has $1.4 billion invested in fossil fuel companies like BP)[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/gates-foundation-has-14bn-in-fossil-fuels-investments-guardian-analysis]. If you look at that article, Gates has the second- highest carbon footprint on that list of billionaires. Reading that article, it seems very likely that Gate’s emissions are mostly scope 2.

      Completely halting Gates emissions, as calculated this way, would involve just shutting down whatever percentage of BP he owns. Gas prices would get higher, without actually solving any of the underlying issues causing that demand, like car-centric urban design. It’d likely do nothing, as other gas companies would start to pump more in the medium term and emissions would quickly go back up.

      • ChocolateMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Minor correction, scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from the use of purchased energy (generally electricity). What you are describing (driving your car that was filled at Exxon) is scope 3 emissions for Exxon.

    • pan_troglodytes@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      sure, just have to close down all the industry. the millions of people employed in those industries will just have to find a different job. simple, innit?

    • hh93@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      since they included pollution from the companies those people own (which is a very weird way to attribute it) not a thing will change as long as there’s demand for what those companies produce

  • yogsototh@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think the message that want to be passed by this article is probably pro-oil industry. It gives a false impression that we could tackle ecology not by changing our habits but just be mad at a few billionaires. And this is factually false.

    Unlike wealth pollution is more equitably shared among people. Here in order to demultiply the calculated pollution of billionaires they introduced thier industry and the pollution of their employees somehow.

    And while it is expected these people pollute more. Getting rid of them will not reduce the pollution as one could expect.

    unfortunately everyone, even not the wealthiest will need to change how they live to have a visible impact on pollution. broadly speeking, not just CO2, as we have a lot more ecological problems than global warming. Note the focus on global warming alone is also a strategy to hide the real changes that need to ne made in order to prevent humanity to hurt itself too much by destroying its own ecosystem.

    Edit: As I am being downvoted it looks people probably misunderstood my message. I would gladly get rid of super rich people. But while this would help, we would all still need to make efforts. Until we accept that we should change our way of life, we will not solve our balance with our ecosystem.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the message that want to be passed by this article is probably pro-oil industry.

      It’s not even that

      They specifically say that the numbers wouldn’t be this skewed if you didn’t count their companies as their own personal emissions.

      It’s just a stupid article all around.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cart before the horse. Get rid of the billionaires, then work on individual consumption. Some of us have been recycling and trying to save the environment most of our lives while Taylor Swift flies her private jet to Italy to get a gelato.

      • Pipoca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Billionaires generate obscene amounts of carbon pollution with their yachts and private jets – but this is dwarfed by the pollution caused by their investments,” said Oxfam International’s inequality policy adviser Alex Maitland.

        Through the corporations they own, billionaires emit a million times more carbon than the average person. They tend to favour investments in heavily polluting industries, like fossil fuels.

        Private jets aren’t great, but they’re objectively a tiny part of emissions. According to the EPA,

        The largest sources of transportation greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 were light-duty trucks, which include sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans (37%); medium- and heavy-duty trucks (23%); passenger cars (21%); commercial aircraft (7%); other aircraft (2%); pipelines (4%); ships and boats (3%); and rail (2%).

        If we banned private jets, we’d decrease emissions by somewhere under 2%, assuming we’re just banning the larger luxury private jets Taylor Swift is chauffered in, not the recreational 2-4 seat single prop aircraft that pilots own. Taylor Swift’s jet was in the news for polluting as much as 1,184.8 average people. That’s not equitable, but objectively it’s a pretty small part of the problem.

        Passenger vehicles are 58% of transportation emissions. If you include freight trucks, they’re 83% of transportation emissions. Insisting on eliminating 2% of emissions before we even think about reducing 58% of emissions is the definition of putting the cart before the horse.

        The problem with driving isn’t with individual people deciding to drive instead of walking 2 hours to get groceries. It’s the car-centric Euclidean zoning and sprawling (sub)urban design that makes driving the only practical option. If you can get the average person to drive 4% less by e.g. giving them a neighborhood pub they can bike to in 5 minutes, you’ve done more to decrease emissions than by grounding every private jet.

        I mean, don’t get me wrong - we can do both at the same time. But Taylor Swift’s emissions are objectively more a matter of equity and optics than substance. You don’t fix climate change by hyperfixating on eliminating 2% of emissions.

      • yogsototh@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think we shouldn’t wait for the billionaires to disappear to make efforts.

        Saying as long as billionaires are polluting I can still pollute as usual is simply dismissing our own responsibility.

        Even though, I agree, billionaires should be the first to make the largest effort.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        while Taylor Swift flies her private jet to Italy to get a gelato.

        That would have a negligible impact on climate change

        • mindfive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Almost everyone has a negligible impact when taken individually, that’s no excuse. Flying is terrible, private jets even more so.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            All human air traffic combined is 2% of emissions. A private jet is not a big deal.

            Calling out private jets from rich people is a conservative tactic to make wealthy people who advocate for climate policy look like hypocrites. It’s a nonsensical position that was never intended to be thought through. It’s a kneejerk slogan for the boomer hordes.

            • mindfive@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              But it’s actually a problem. It measures whole percentage points, it’s not a rounding error.

              Dismissing an issue or person because conservatives are also using it as a punching bag doesn’t remove the problem, it just lets the conservatives control the narrative. I don’t think participating in that polarizing behavior is good or useful.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s all air travel. All.

                100,000 flights and 6 million people every day. A private jet is a drop in the bucket.

                • mindfive@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Arguing semantics? All flights are equal? A loaded a380 is just like a 6 passenger Lear?

                  If we argue that someone should take the bus or bike instead of drive, isn’t this the same argument?

          • Pipoca@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Everyone has a negligible impact as an individual, yes.

            But people act as groups, responding to the incentives given to them. There’s a reason why the average person in Houston drives a lot more than the average person in Amsterdam. It’s because Houston has the widest freeway in the world and is very car-oriented, and Amsterdam has world-class bike infrastructure and is very walkable and transitable. It’s not because Amsterdam is filled with virtuous environmentalists while Houston is filled with evil people who hate the planet.

            And as groups, people add up. In the US, 58% of transportation emissions are from cars, SUVs and pickups, while only 2% are from non- commercial planes. On the personal level, private jets are terrible. Added up to a societal level, they’re a tiny part of the problem, while cars are a giant part of the problem.

            • mindfive@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are billions of us, we can look at more than one angle at a time. If we can’t all help on the issue du jour we should just pack it in?

              Or let’s talk about how that air travel metric is likely bullshit. We barely do full lifecycle emissions for cars, do you think that metric did that for planes? Their tires? Their mandatory retirement duty cycle for all kinds of components up to their frames? They aren’t expensive as hell for the prestige of it.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Totally did: And you’re annoying.

                  Oxfam’s research found that the emissions from the investments of 125 billionaires averaged 3.1m tonnes per billionaire. This is more than a million times higher than the average emissions created by the bottom 90% of the world’s population.

  • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    We all know the solution. It’s only 12 of them. It can’t be that difficult.

  • Aurelius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d be interested in knowing how much more emissions come specifically from private plane owners. Not just billionaires, but celebrities that use their planes to fly short distances

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Roughly 0%. The combined total of all air traffic, 6 million flyers every day, is about 2% of emissions

      All private plane use is going to be a tiny percentage of that already small percentage.