this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
192 points (92.5% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5285 readers
3 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/environment@beehaw.org
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cutting down on billionaires would do a lot more for the environment
Both things can be true at the same time.
Billionaires / the 1% / whatever category of rich assholes you choose obviously use much more resources than "the common man". Still, if we, as humanity, do not change how and what we consume, cutting what the rich use would not even remotely be enough.
One is feeding people. The other is just pollution. The last thing you should mess with is people's food.
But it's so much easier to ban straws than to make fishing companies responsible for their waste and destruction!
Right here. This bullshit of "go vegan, save the environment"? Rich people propaganda. That's all it is. People with environmental concerns and a misguided sensitivity for livestock animals are fooled by a bunch of rich fucks who don't want to curtail their expensive, massively polluting lifestyle. Fuck them and fuck their bullshit. And fuck vegetarianism/veganism that goes against every single bit of what and who we are as humans.
Every single bit?
Billionaires like Joesley Batista?