• zcd@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cutting down on billionaires would do a lot more for the environment

      • laenurd@lemmy.lemist.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • CubbyTustard@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          When i have more than one option and limited resources I like to prioritize things so I will get the most ‘bang for my buck’.

          If changing our diets can help 1% but eliminating infrastructure will help 40% then you can fuck off about my diet I don’t care that it might ‘also help’ my abilities and resources are limited and I am going to direct what I have at the biggest result. Does that make sense?

          Penny wise, pound foolish is the old aphorism that applies here. It doesn’t matter if the whole species eats like good little boys and girls if the 1% and the militaries they control are hellbent on burning fossil fuels for their pleasure and gain until we all cook.

        • Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          One is feeding people. The other is just pollution. The last thing you should mess with is people’s food.

      • Sacha@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        But it’s so much easier to ban straws than to make fishing companies responsible for their waste and destruction!