World News
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.
-
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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
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
view the rest of the comments
The narrative that the average joe is to blame for this shit is so infuriating to me. Myself and 50,000 other people could start walking everywhere and it very likely wouldn’t come close to offsetting the emissions of Amazon’s fleet of trucks.
Yes individual consumption matters, but there’s a very small group of individuals called billionaires that contribute 1000x more than you or I ever could. BP invented the idea of the individual carbon footprint.
The average person is the reason Amazon exists, so... That's still on the average person.
This is what people miss in this false dichotomy. Businesses only exist because demand exists. Countries need to start passing unpopular things like Carbon Taxes to seal the deal against climate change by hitting consumer demand and raising prices
Oddly enough, without changing buying habits or consumer demand, I think the Amazon truck is a superior option.
The trick, as you said, is to change consumer behavior and people balk at doing that, especially when it will cost more and income inequality hits harder than ever. Tax the rich, level the playing field, and the rest gets much easier.
I'm not demanding products which harm the environment made using methods which harm the environment. Businesses make the choice to produce those things instead of carbon-neutral environmentally friendly products, so they are more at fault than the individual who buys the thing. It's extremely difficult for an individual to be able to uncover the environmental implications of everything you buy and do. The only real solution is to pass laws which properly account for the harmful externalities in the production cost, such as carbon tax. That will steer both businesses and consumers towards more sustainable decisions.
I also am demanding similar products, which is why capital has already shifted (and continues to shift) toward green/sustainables.
We don't need laws to provide for externalities of consumption in most markets. Most markets are being changed by consumer demand.
What would be most effective is carbon pricing. Unfortunately, that is a non-starter with most voters as it essentially means price increases across the board (which would actually be more helpful during inflation, but people never see it that way)
Yeah, I wonder how big that capital shift actually is. Most companies are greenwashing, saying products are sustainable and carbon neutral when surprise, surprise, they are not. As a consumer you can't even trust those products. As a small example you got H&M recently pulling back they Conscious line and lying about recyling clothes that actually ended up in landfills.
Be real mate. Thats not how it works.
Suppliers create the demand.
People werent demanding smartphones before smartphones got invented.
Most new things are shunned by most people until they slowly gain popularity and then the demand starts to exist.
You are stating the hypothesis of capitalism whilst ignoring the conclusion.
If you want to kill BP, stop buying oil. The Amazon fleet is about 70,000 vehicles and they're transitioning to electric right now.
Consumers drive markets. Mega corporations aren't polluting for the fun of it. They do it because it's a byproduct of them taking our money. Stop giving them money and they stop polluting. Why else would they stop?
"Voting with your dollar" is bullshit. Just stop buying oil? Ok, let me go to the no oil store and buy a new car that doesn't run on gas and isn't made with any plastic. Let me spend my entire 5 dollars worth of disposable income to buy a new vehicle. And then take that vehicle to the store that has 0 petroleum products. No cans lined with PFAS, no plastic bags, no plastic packaging, no products made entirely of plastic. Never fly again in your life, or take the bus. Don't you even think about eating out again. Live life as a hermit, make your own goods, provide your own services and maintinence to yourself to ensure an oil free existence. Better start soon too, the planets only getting hotter. Rinse and repeat x8,000,000,000.
Markets are driven by capital. Those with the most capital have the greatest influence. Your pittance of a wage isn't going to change a damn thing. 10% of the global population has 52% of the purchasing power. Even if the other 90% of us all united together at once, about a single thing, we still wouldn't have the purchasing power to overwhelm them. You can't reform a system that's made to perpetuate consumption and pollution. It's cheaper to pollute by design. Do you think it's a coincidence that bills meant to make polluting more expensive either don't get passed or are so rife with loopholes they're effectively useless? Pull your head out of your ass. If there was ever a time this shit show could be reformed, it's long gone.
While true that they're not polluting for fun, many corporations will try to avoid any anti-pollution measure that will lose them money. To the point where they spend billions of dollars every year to lobby governements, enviromental protection organizations, and drag out regulations with lawsuits. Because in the long run it's usually worth it for them to pollute, as long as the investors see enough profits in the short term.
Of course they will. Corporations do not care. They will only do things that make them money. Either because governments threaten to take away their money. Or because markets change and they're no longer making money so they have to change.
We have seen this with so so so many industries over the centuries. Consumers change behaviours and businesses move to fit their needs. If everyone here started eating less meat there would be more investment in plant based ideas. Because they don't care about what the impacts of their company are. They care what you and I are buying.
They are not doing this because of the goodness of their heart. They are doing it because of $$$$. Gas costs more, so it's more economical to switch to electric.
Rest assured, if there are other places where it's more economical to strip mine the environment and increase the rate of climate change, they will switch to that cheaper method in a heartbeat, if they aren't already doing so.
If it was an option, I wouldn’t buy oil. I can’t just up and buy an EV even if I wanted to (I do). Not that that’s even a completely green option. Also, 5000 EVs vs 10 times as many trucks in the whole fleet is cool, but it doesn’t make me want Amazon to burn to the ground any less.
You existing is why those companies use that energy.
I agree that it's BS to put the blame on the average person's behavior.
But the blame is on us collectively.
We use a lot of energy.
Those companies are the reason that energy isn’t produced with cleaner alternatives like nuclear, wind, or solar
Billionaires and corporations lobby governments and donate to superPACs(legal bribery) to have them promote their business interests and protect their capital.
Infinite growth is not sustainable on a finite planet. The billionaires aren’t going to save us. Buying stuff is not going to save us. Neoliberalism and Capitalism is not going to save us.
Not to support Amazon, but those trucks on optimized delivery routes are likely better for the environment than individials each driving their own cars to box stores...
If only we had some nationalized way to deliver parcels on an optimized route…
Can't do that. It's profitable so it has to go to private companies.
either way the average joe is gonna need to do something cuz the billionaires wont. lets just kill them
you do realise that these companies do these things because customers buy them, right? If you didn't buy stuff on amazon, there wouldn't be any amazon trucks around.
you do realize that I don’t buy stuff from Amazon and there are still Amazon trucks around right?
Yes, you are correct in that a single individual's action will make no difference, just like your single vote makes no difference either. However if everyone does their part it can make a massive difference.
While your individual contribution makes no difference, you still should try to do your part. Yes, change takes work and a bit of sacrifice. Just like how it takes time out of your day to do research on candidates and go to the polls.
If you don't do the work, it doesn't make you smart or clever, it just makes you an asshole taking advantage of others.
Try shipping vessels. I think I read that 7 of them are responsible for an incredible high percentage of all emissions or something
Sulfate emissions.
Which are bad, but are not CO2 emissions.
The entire shipping industry is a small fraction of the US's automobile emissions.
The rule of thumb I was taught many years ago in operations management class was that shipborne cargo freight, on a TEU basis, uses less fuel to get from Hong Kong to Los Angeles as it did to deliver that freight to the store in North America. It's 100x less impactful in terms of CO2 output as trucking.
https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/freight-transportation
I think that billionaires are some kinde of problem but megacorps (big 9, Nestle, cocacola, fashion industry) are much worst :(
Hate to be devils advocate here, but even if billionaires contribute 1000x each, there is just one of them for 1000x1000x1000x1000x people so in total their contribution does not matter. What matters is their business choices which favor unsustainable practies for billions of people, so eventually they have a huge effect, just not directly.
While true that total consumption is less than the rest of the population, billionaires have a very large influence and people try to mimic them. If they don't set an example and still fly everywhere in a private jet, those 1000x1000x1000x1000x people will also say f it, if a billionaire can't do it, I certainly can't.
> Myself and 50,000 other people could start walking everywhere and it very likely wouldn’t come close to offsetting the emissions of Amazon’s fleet of trucks.
Not if you keep ordering shit from amazon it won't. It will prevent 50,000 people's worth of transportation emissions, though.
Don't sell yourself short. You're more responsible for the situation than you want to admit.
> there’s a very small group of individuals called billionaires that contribute 1000x more than you or I ever could.
Wrong. The top 0.1% pollute 10x as much (per capita) as the top 10% (excluding the top 0.1%). Source
> BP invented the idea of the individual carbon footprint.
If the strongest argument against an idea is "the wrong people came up with it", the idea is probably pretty good.
you don’t know me buddy. I don’t use Amazon and I pretty much only drive to and from work. good fucking luck not giving Amazon money given that AWS hosts millions of companies websites.
/e ALSO top 0.1% isn’t a small enough group to address what I’m talking about. Try top 0.01%, that’s about where you’ll find billionaires.
According to your source, the top 1% emit 50 tonnes of CO2/capita/yr. The top 0.1% emit 200 tonnes of CO2/capita/yr. That is still an insane increase the wealthier one becomes.
Not saying that one should not try to limit their emissions (we definitely should stop buying stuff from amazon/big companies, if not to limit emissions, at least to break their monopolies), but there is definitely some low hanging fruit in that top percentage (e.g. having 800 people limit emissions is going to be harder when you have the same effect by just limiting the 8 at the top).
Also you're last sentence is quite hostile, BP definitely came up with it to avoid their responsibility and pivot it to other people. The idea might not be 'bad' per se, but if you do it so to avoid your own responsibility, it is definitely bad practice (which, again, is why each of us should try to limit our carbon emissions)
> Also you’re last sentence is quite hostile, BP definitely came up with it to avoid their responsibility and pivot it to other people. The idea might not be ‘bad’ per se, but if you do it so to avoid your own responsibility, it is definitely bad practice (which, again, is why each of us should try to limit our carbon emissions)
Of course. By the same token, individuals trying to avoid their own responsibility by parroting "big oil invented the idea of a carbon footprint" is definitely bad practice.
Sure, which is why I mentioned (twice) that everyone should try and limit their emissions in my original comment.
What you however skipped in your reply is the fact that the richest 8 people limiting their emissions has the same effect as the 792 people beneath that limiting their emissions. From a perspective of 'quick wins' (which we sorely need), I am totally in favour of placing more responsibility on those with the highest emissions (without anyone neglecting their responsibility, so please don't just point out one group as 'responsible' to pivot away the blame).
In the same vein, BP pivoting away the blame has about the same impact as thousands (millions?) of individuals pivoting away the blame, which is why they are (or at least should be) held to a higher standard.
> What you however skipped in your reply is the fact that the richest 8 people limiting their emissions has the same effect as the 792 people beneath that limiting their emissions.
I skipped it because I agree. There's nothing to debate on that point.
However, the point of my first reply was to highlight that this perspective is often exaggerated to paint the global middle class (the top 10% richest people on the planet, i.e. most people in western Europe and the anglosphere) as innocent victims when in fact they are also to blame. This is what I replied to:
> The narrative that the average joe is to blame for this shit is so infuriating to me.
This sentiment is oft-repeated on this kind of post, and the implication that "average joe" is not responsible is not only wrong, but actively harmful.