195
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
195 points (99.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
7071 readers
395 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Emissions per capita are a distraction that makes us focus on a us, everyday people, instead of the major polluters: the super wealthy and their toxic coorporations. Don't fall for it!
The super rich are definitely the most obscene offenders, but they are also a vast minority. Those fossil fuel companies in your second link aren't pumping oil and gas only for the sole consumption of the 0.1%. It goes into running the word economy, massively subsidising energy intensive and thus harmful activities. This in turn keeps prices artificially low all around.
Yes we should absolutely eat the rich, but we should also not pretend that the average middle class lifestyle could stay the same. Hell, the entire purpose of the middle class is to be the subset of the working class that is allowed the financial means to consume products and keep the economy growing to the benefit of the rich and to the detriment of all.
We should share what wealth we have better, and at the same time do with less.
It seems to me that the math in this is overwhelming. If a single person in this minority emits in 90min more than an average person in their lifetime, we should take into consideration that their lifetime is made of many, many, many 90min slots.
Apart from that of course I'm all in for sustainable living and redistribution of wealth for lower classes. Preferably abolish the class-system all together, of course.
I would be interested in seeing the methodology behind that figure. If Jeff Bezoz's emissions include his ownership share of the emissions by the Amazon corporation (which is a major part of the world's logistical system at this point), then no doubt, but getting rid of old Jeff wouldn't eliminate those emissions. I rest my case that half of all fossil fuels in the world aren't going directly into their jets and yachts.
If you click on the relevant link above, you will find the report itself. You can even download the methodology note seperately.
Yes, sorry I really should've sat down and done that to begin with.
Well, there it is.
Edit: If there were 8 billion Amazon corporations, we would've shot past Venus a long time ago. The 90 minute mark seems to correspond to this. Getting rid of fifty (number of billionaires examined in the study) superyachts and a hundred 24/7 flying private jets would be next to nothing compared to the emissions from wider economy which they control, but which wouldn't go away when the guillotine does its thing.
Of course the carbon footprint of the billionaires is nothing compaired to what the industry sector emits. My point was in relation to how the per capita emissions are used, not in comparison to the economy as a whole. While keeping in mind that it's big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed, so that we focus on personnal choices, instead of collective action.
Y'know - maybe we should take both into consideration, maybe?