this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
557 points (97.8% liked)

News

22896 readers
4152 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.


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
 
  • Only 57 fossil fuels and cement producers have been responsible for most of the world's CO2 emissions since 2016, according to the Carbon Majors report by InfluenceMap
  • Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, and Coal India were the top three CO2-emitting companies during this period.
  • InfluenceMap's database aims to increase transparency around climate change contributors for legal, academic, campaign, and investor purposes.

Archive.org

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

But I better watch my use of straws!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

China needs to move away from coal. This would be a huge change in global emissions.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why are they counting emissions at extraction and not consumption?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If the companies leave the carbon they own in the ground then it won't get burnt.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How are we supposed to know what the end user will use it for? They could be burning it or bathing in it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Skin contact can cause irritation, burns, swelling, pain, and permanent damage. Inhalation or ingestion can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness etc..

https://www.arnolditkin.com/blog/injury/dangers-of-crude-oil-is-your-health-at-risk-/

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

All fine and good except those 57 companies encompass 80% of all fossil fuel business right?

I'm not saying it doesn't need to be fixed, but I am saying that it's misleading.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I think the takeaway is that it's a lot easier to change the behavior of 57 companies than it is to change the behavior of billions of people and it's bullshit that individual action is the only proposed solution to climate change under capitalism.

Not just that, but individual action among a sea of intentional obfuscation, green washing, and while still pushing overconsumption.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Focusing on those 57 companies doesn't really address that issue though.

These companies sell fossil fuels. If they actually reduce those sales in any significant way we'd still have to figure out how to get all their customers switched to other fuel sources.

There's a huge demand for their product so when we go after one of them the others take their place and they're collectively too big to take on all at once.

The most successful strategy seems to be to make them obsolete. We've finally been getting to the point where many renewable energy sources are cheaper than fossil fuels. The other big motivator is fear of the control that oil producing nations might have. There's some element of individual action but it's more about government policies and market pressure. Take China or the EU, for example. They've been shifting heavily away from fossil fuels. Some of that is likely due to the increasing domestic and international concerns about pollution. They're also both net oil importers.

That may be boring stuff to most people but it really gets the attention of governments that don't want to be at the mercy of oil exporters. The kind of attention that gets meaningful laws passed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

That's a nice dream. I hope it can come true, but those 57 companies also own 90% of the US Congress and probably a large swath of the governments in 2nd and third-world countries. The people that need to make them stop are almost literally on their payroll.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Its even more misleading that you would count the fossil fuels used by other companies towards the producer. You can't decrease the emissions by doing anything about these companies (without collapsing the whole economy), you need to transition the consumers to different energy sources.

It is like saying the Water companies are responsible for 100% of water usage...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I agree and the market is not offering an affordable, equally capable alternative to combustion engines. EVs are a larp for anyone who needs to do more than just commute to and from work. (e.g. long distance travel, towing, hauling)

This is the best idea I've seen for hauling. It's also basically open source.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is the best idea I’ve seen for hauling. It’s also basically open source.

Electrified rail will always be superior. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, we already have the tech to switch over to low carbon/carbon neutral transportation.

With that said, I'd still 100% prefer something like that over diesel, especially if used in conjunction with this tech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg

Trains should be the overwhelming majority of the transportation, with the last mile being electrified trucks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Electrified rail is great if it's available but it's more than often not. In the absence of the electrified tracks trains use a diesel generator electric engine hybrid to haul which isn't terrible imo. Trains are just a part of the logistical puzzle though. Trucking is THE way things get from point A to point B in the US and it's not going away anytime soon. The kind of infrastructure required for the solution in your video is cool but to your point probably needs to be paired with some hybrid technology so trucks can still thrive in flyover country where building and maintaining electric highway infrastructure isn't pragmatic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Electrified rail is great if it’s available but it’s more than often not.

Trucking is THE way things get from point A to point B in the US and it’s not going away anytime soon.

I am aware of the current situation, the "is", I was instead talking about the "ought".

We currently depend on trucking and diesel trains, but we ought to switch to electrified rail and truck.

The kind of infrastructure required for the solution in your video is cool

It's cool, and a huge change. A necessary change though.

probably needs to be paired with some hybrid technology so trucks can still thrive in flyover country where building and maintaining electric highway infrastructure isn’t pragmatic.

For rural areas, trains are the way to go. They are faster, lower carbon emission, and all round lower energy requirements per unit of freight.

The only real problem with them is hills, which isn't exactly a problem for the majority of the U.S.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Of course and what is it that they want you to do? Just cut your food intake, eat lab meat, lab milk, bugs, and live in a shoebox. When food production in the USA is 9% of all carbon emissions. And out of those 9%, less than 3.8% is meat. While the cruise ship industry is 3.3% of total, worldwide.

Meanwhile, our CEO's, their boards, and their extended families, and largest stockholders go on, out on yatchs, zipping around in private jets, go to massive, endless, exorbitant decadent private events and eat whatever they want, whenever they want, because... suck it, pleb.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes, rich people produce more emissions. We know this. If you live in the west and are regularly eating meat, you're one of those rich people producing more emissions unnecessarily. The fact that there are those richer than you producing more than you doesn't change the fact that you are one of them to the vast majority of the world.

This whole pointing up is just an attempt to deal with the cognitive dissonance of claiming to care about it, but at the same time not wanting to make any personal sacrifices when it comes to actually addressing the problem.

We all need to shift our behavior. Not just the ultra wealthy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not making my life worse while the wealthy get to continue their wanton consumption. I'm gonna enjoy the decline if they're the ones causing it. As soon as people gain the political will to make the world better, hit me up.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

You're clearly educated, and admitting that you have the wealth to burn "enjoying" it. You are the wealthy continuing your wanton consumption. You are exactly what you hate, and just like those you hate, you are just selfishly thinking about yourself. You are no different from them because you are them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm working class. Putting working class people who enjoy steak on the same level of the people that perpetuate capitalism in the name of sacrificing everyone for their own material benefit shows that you are a feckless liberal who cares about the appearance of progress, not actual progress.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

not actual progress.

It's funny because you are the one arguing that you don't have to do anything or change anything until other people do. Not me. You keep projecting, and you always seem to hate that thing about the people you are projecting it onto.

The only difference between you and me is that I actually put my money where my mouth is that I recognize that, even as a working class American, I'm actually one of the wealthy and thus I should be leading the way, rather than absolving myself by demanding other people go first.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ethiopian farmers dying due to climate change-induced famine watching him enjoy himself: "great work, brother. Stick it to the man."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

while saying "my fellow poor brethren! We're in this together"

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And then they go online asking you to reduce your carbon footprint. It's a joke

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Probably more to do with consolidation than anything else.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Let's not forget about the US military which is the number 1 polluter in the world

load more comments
view more: next ›