this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023

4 points (100.0% liked)

World News

47222 readers

2856 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%, report says (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

That's bullshit of a report. If you read it, you will quickly learn how they calculate emissions from the rich. They include things like owning company shares and having influence over the media. So if Bezos owns a major stake in Amazon, he is automatically responsible for all Amazon emissions. And if his PR team publishes some stuff to FB, he's now responsoble for emissions of Facebook servers. That's utter bullshit.

If you buy from Amazon, it's YOU who are responsoble for all associated emissions like delivery, manufacturing, etc, not Bezos. This report also doesn't take into account that better off people usually live in well-insulated homes, drive more efficient cars and eat better organic food, thus reducing their footprint further.

This report also mentions yachts and private jets a lot, but don't forget that ALL airtraffic accounts only for 2% of all emissions and private jets are a drop in the ocean.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you buy from Amazon, it’s YOU who are responsoble for all associated emissions like delivery, manufacturing, etc, not Bezos.

no, i'm not.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago

Yes, you are.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'll be honest, I do believe that CEOs should be personally held repsonsible for the shit their companies pull, in general. And after-the-fact, too. If you led a company and later it gets fined for something it did while you were CEO, that's on you. Say 50% of fines have to be paid by the C-suites personally.

But independent of that, in a report such as this, it of course makes little sense because the title wants to strongly suggest they create more carbon emissions as consumers (say via owning yachts and shit) than the poorest 66%. And that's a very false equivalence. Now you could argue they're responsible for more carbon emissions, and I would maybe agree with that, yes. They make the decisions that enable this carbon usage, and they could, if they wanted to, cut large swathes of it albeit probably not lasting.

But yeah, agreed, pretty shit headline.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago

The point of a Limited Company is that people who own and work for the company are not held responsible for the actions of the company. Exceptions apply, of course. This is done to protect people from the failures of the business. If the company you work for goes bankrupt for whatever reason, you don't want to owe millions to the creditors of the company out of your pocket.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

eat better organic food

A slight nit-pick here, but when it comes to greenhouse gas impact, organic food may be worse. It's certainly not clearly better.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah I've overheard that before too. If they would just change their words to "eat less meat" they're be right, but to only say "organic" implies standard agriculture is worse, and it is not clearly so.

We should eat less meat though.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago

We sholdn't eat less meat, meat is pretty much zero emission and closed loop food production. We should more.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Almost definitely worse lol. We have the option to modify the genome of the plants we eat in order to make then better in every way and still some people are like "no that's icky because science".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

GMO != organic as far as I know?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

In the US organic means no GMOs as well according to usda

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If you buy from Amazon, it’s YOU who are responsoble for all associated emissions like delivery, manufacturing, etc, not Bezos.

That would only be true if Amazon had real competition and would not be acting like a monopoly, as many other companies do.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Amazon is NOT a monopoly. And the problem here is not Amazon, but the products YOU buy. It doesn't matter if you buy from Amazon or Wallmart or whatever.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

the problem here is not Amazon

yes, it is.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, it's not.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

i've presented exactly the same amount of proof that you have.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago

What proof? Amazon is not a monopoly, that's a fact.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Amazon is very much not a monopoly. There are thousands of online retailers. There are also a lot of delivery services, no idea if there are thousands, but there's a lot.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Isn't it more planet reponsible then to order from Amazon where, if I order say 6 items, they'll come from the same warehouse in the same delivery (at least ove here!) instead of in 6 deliveries from 6 different vendors who also all had to get individual deliveries of their stock first?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, it's better to bulk order from Amazon. Just don't order one small thing like a screwdriver, a whole truck driving around for your 100g package is dumb.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Surely it's still more efficient for the truck to carry that screwdriver and a whole truckload of other goods, in a single journey, with optimised route, rather than me (and every other Amazon shopper) driving my car to the nearest hardware store to buy that screwdriver?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago

You can walk.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is why I don’t believe people when they say “we don’t have an overpopulation problem, we have a distribution problem”

Because if everyone in the world had my lifestyle, we would be emitting an insane amount of carbon. And I don’t want my standard of living to go down, and in fact I want everyone to live as nicely as I do. So clearly we need fewer people.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The overpopulation isn't happening in the 1%.

It makes jack shit of a difference to the environment if there is one billion or two billion starving people. They're not the ones burning carbon or eating steak.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

But we want to stop those people from starving. And if we ideally lived in a world where no one is starving, emissions would go up astronomically.