• @SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    601 year ago

    Through the corporations they own, billionaires emit a million times more carbon than the average person. They tend to favour investments in heavily polluting industries, like fossil fuels.

    This is not a billionaire’s climate emissions.

    • YeetPics
      link
      fedilink
      431 year ago

      If the car I own tallies onto my carbon footprint, surely the corporations owned by the billionaires enjoy the same designation.

      They’re no different because of what they own.

      • @dangblingus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        You would have to take a look at who the stakeholders are at each company. Corporate “ownership” isn’t the same as sole proprietorship.

      • @Pipoca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -21 year ago

        If you lend your car to your cousin for a cross- country road trip, does your cousin’s road trip count as his emissions, yours, or should it be double counted?

        Similarly, my 401k has an S&P 500 fund in it, which contains some fossil fuel stocks. Does my carbon footprint go up every month by whatever fraction of a percent of Exxon my retirement fund buys each month?

        When you eat a steak, whose emissions are the methane the cow burped? Yours? The ranchers? Cargills? Walmart’s?

        Honestly, consumption-based accounting makes way more sense to me.

        • YeetPics
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Double count that shit. We’re not going to get out of this hole if we split hairs semantically.

          Triple count it if you have a fleet of vehicles over 10.

          Double count it for dual axles and ANY truck driving while not hauling a load greater than a passenger vehicle is capable of moving.

        • @pahlimur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Consumption accounting is impossible when the only options available to the consumer fuck them over completely.

          Cheap subsidized beef means I’m going to buy it to feed my family.

          Cheap subsidized gas means I can keep polluting with little cost.

          CAFE laws making vehicles fucking gigantic make it impossible to consume less fuel.

          Companies and laws dictate our consumption not the other way around. Tax or kill the wealthy, then we can talk.

        • It should be double counted since we need to do something about it. Cousin could pay the carbon tax on gas for usage, and owner could pay a carbon tax for milage usage at the end of the year.

          I’m aware that this is a non-starter, but it would be a good start for getting overall emissions down. The billionaires should also pay a carbon tax above and beyond what the corporations pay, as a double incentive to stop polluting the planet for profit. Take away the profit, and companies will change.

        • @wolfpack86@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Going to disagree with pure consumption based accounting.

          Think there needs to be something about decision influence basis, otherwise the companies won’t have pressure to change as the “bill” is accounted for elsewhere

          • @Pipoca@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            This kind of accounting is about generating clicks, ultimately.

            We know the actual fixes for this.

            Cap and trade fixed acid rain. Pigouvian taxes like a carbon tax work. Even a revenue-neutral carbon tax and dividend where you split the taxed money evenly among everyone works; it literally pays people to not pollute.

            The Green New Deal is a fix.

            Novel accounting schemes that generate headlines like this are explicitly not a fix because literally all they do is generate bad publicity for billionaires and ad revenue for the paper. There’s nothing real here.

    • hh93
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Yeah - at best they are morally responsible for not choosing to invest in something else but in the end as long as there’s capitalism and people are creating demand for whatever polluting thing they procude someone else will step in

      The Demand has to be slashed by making those products less profitable if the general public is not acting in their own interest because polluting is cheaper and more comfortable

      Especially if people are just going directly to “eat the rich” after articles like this I really wonder what they think will happen if the oil-production is stopped completely from one day to the next? And that even assumes that noone will step up to continue the production - what if the state takes over the oil-company and spreads the emissions evenly among every citizen - would that solve the problem of climate change in their minds?

      • @SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        capitalism and people are creating demand for whatever polluting thing they procude someone else will step in

        Capitalism is not why people like electricity, food, and entertainment. All of those things predate capitalism. The USSR contributed to climate change.

        Anyone trying to make climate change a leftist issue is a moron. Every economic policy would contribute to climate change becaus every economic policy needs to guarantee heat, food, transport, etc.

        • @captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          I think there’s one big difference here: the capital holding class has fought tooth and nail against making solutions viable. They’ve pushed pro fossil fuel propaganda into everything from our commutes to schools. They’ve fought against acknowledgement of the realities of climate change and done nothing to try to move towards a more sustainable future, instead choosing to invest in lobbying against solutions to reduce demand such as carbon taxes, reduction of oil subsidies, increases in clean energy subsidies, and mass transit.

      • @masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -61 year ago

        Oh, look… an “enlightened centrist” has shown up to whitesplain that capitalist parasitism is actually poor people’s fault.

        Yawn.

        • hh93
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          I’m as left as you can get without being straight up communist - I despise neoliberalism and think that countries should to a lot more to make billionaires nonexistent via redistribution of money and higher wealth- and inheritance-tax but for this issue it’s just not enough if everyone washes their hands in innocence and only points to them

          sure their personal lifestyle is much shittier than the one from the average person but pinning the emissions from companies they own on them is just making things far too easy on the average person

          People need to vote for a green transition and not for some shortsighted utopia of “if we just remove the billionaires climate change will be fixed” - that’s not the case as long as demand is still there

          • @masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            I despise neoliberalism

            No. You don’t. If you did, you wouldn’t literally be regurgitating one of the fundamental tenets of neoliberal ideology - individual responsibility. Need to be reminded of this?

            but pinning the emissions from companies they own on them is just making things far too easy on the average person

            See that part up there? You know, the part where you blame capitalist parasitism on poor people?

            People need to vote for a green transition

            Riiiiight… how is this whole “voting harder” thing going for you?

            • hh93
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              I don’t say the single person is responsible - I say the population as a whole is - and for that to happen there needs to be a massive shift on the individual level as politicians won’t vote against most of their population.

              It’s less about the individual responsibility for climate change but about a motivation to become politically active and get more people on board - leading by example is just a very low-level approach that everyone can do.

              I’m not pinning anything on poor people - I’m just saying that pointing fingers will do literally nothing and I think we should work within the current democratic systems which in turn means that everyone is at least a bit responsible for who they vote for. And voting and advocating for a party that promises to cut down emissions of everyone is the most logical thing as just removing the billionaires won’t fix a thing if polluting isn’t made more expensive which definitely WILL influence everyone.

              It just seems very immature to use this thing as a “get out of jail card” to continue flying every year and doing the shortest possible trips via car instead of taking the bike for a change or advocating for more bike infrastructure in cities.

              It’s not going well because a lot of people seem to think they are not affected and want to ignore the whole issue until it’s too late and nature forces them to change - and it’s frustrating. Everyone should’ve started adapting to a more ecological lifestyle yesterday but that obviously didn’t happen. If it did it would be much easier to actually get politicians to change something

              • @masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                we should work within the current democratic systems

                Well, that’s just fine and dandy… but that all depends on whether you actually have anything that can be called a “democratic” system with a straight face now does it?

                Sooo… do you?

  • PugJesus
    link
    fedilink
    411 year ago

    “These people have an outsize political influence because of their enormous wealth, which they use to leverage local and national governments, gaining exemptions from taxes and privileges that allow them to pollute and to influence laws regulating pollution,” said Wilk, a professor of anthropology at Indiana University. “If you look at them as entities, some of them are rivalling states in terms of their influence.”

    God. It makes me so fucking mad.

  • ivanafterall
    link
    fedilink
    28
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I wonder if there’s some simple way to completely halt the emissions from those twelve.

    • @Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      The carbon footprints of the investments were calculated by examining the equity stakes that the billionaires held in companies. Estimates of the carbon impact of their holdings was calculated using the company’s declarations on scope 1 emissions – direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by a company – and scope 2, indirect emissions.

      Scope 2 emissions are those from the products sold by the company. For example, if you fill your car up at Exxon, the emissions from you driving on that tank of gas is part of Exxon’s scope 2 emissions. The fossil fuel industry is mostly scope 2 emissions, while a company like Amazon is mostly scope 1 emissions.

      (The Gates foundation has $1.4 billion invested in fossil fuel companies like BP)[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/gates-foundation-has-14bn-in-fossil-fuels-investments-guardian-analysis]. If you look at that article, Gates has the second- highest carbon footprint on that list of billionaires. Reading that article, it seems very likely that Gate’s emissions are mostly scope 2.

      Completely halting Gates emissions, as calculated this way, would involve just shutting down whatever percentage of BP he owns. Gas prices would get higher, without actually solving any of the underlying issues causing that demand, like car-centric urban design. It’d likely do nothing, as other gas companies would start to pump more in the medium term and emissions would quickly go back up.

      • @ChocolateMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Minor correction, scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from the use of purchased energy (generally electricity). What you are describing (driving your car that was filled at Exxon) is scope 3 emissions for Exxon.

    • hh93
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      since they included pollution from the companies those people own (which is a very weird way to attribute it) not a thing will change as long as there’s demand for what those companies produce

    • @pan_troglodytes@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      sure, just have to close down all the industry. the millions of people employed in those industries will just have to find a different job. simple, innit?

  • @yogsototh@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    18
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think the message that want to be passed by this article is probably pro-oil industry. It gives a false impression that we could tackle ecology not by changing our habits but just be mad at a few billionaires. And this is factually false.

    Unlike wealth pollution is more equitably shared among people. Here in order to demultiply the calculated pollution of billionaires they introduced thier industry and the pollution of their employees somehow.

    And while it is expected these people pollute more. Getting rid of them will not reduce the pollution as one could expect.

    unfortunately everyone, even not the wealthiest will need to change how they live to have a visible impact on pollution. broadly speeking, not just CO2, as we have a lot more ecological problems than global warming. Note the focus on global warming alone is also a strategy to hide the real changes that need to ne made in order to prevent humanity to hurt itself too much by destroying its own ecosystem.

    Edit: As I am being downvoted it looks people probably misunderstood my message. I would gladly get rid of super rich people. But while this would help, we would all still need to make efforts. Until we accept that we should change our way of life, we will not solve our balance with our ecosystem.

    • @SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      I think the message that want to be passed by this article is probably pro-oil industry.

      It’s not even that

      They specifically say that the numbers wouldn’t be this skewed if you didn’t count their companies as their own personal emissions.

      It’s just a stupid article all around.

  • Aurelius
    link
    fedilink
    41 year ago

    I’d be interested in knowing how much more emissions come specifically from private plane owners. Not just billionaires, but celebrities that use their planes to fly short distances

    • @SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Roughly 0%. The combined total of all air traffic, 6 million flyers every day, is about 2% of emissions

      All private plane use is going to be a tiny percentage of that already small percentage.

  • @betz24@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -6
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Just curious, do people here have a 401k, money market accounts or IRAs? I’d be interested if people know what companies their savings account is actually invested in. Especially at the corporate level where you have a long term blended retirement fund, I’m sure some people will be surprised…

    • @krakenx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      With pensions gone and Social Security unlikely to exist when Millennials and younger retire, we have no choice but to hand our retirement savings to Wall Street. Otherwise it’s impossible to even beat inflation long term, let alone to have enough compound interest to actually live off of.

      You can set up your 401k to only invest in good companies, but again, it’s unlikely to be enough to actually retire off of. I wasted my best savings years trying to do this and failed. I don’t like it, but index funds that include small pieces of evil companies are pretty much the only valid option.