3 ms·

> What you're advocating for is being poor. I don't see it. Saying "consume less/differently" is not the same as saying "be poor". > There's only so much that

> What you're advocating for is being poor. I don't see it. Saying "consume less/differently" is not the same as saying "be poor". > There's only so much that a person can do to reduce emissions. And this is the big lie that big corps PR sold you: that you as individual is main person responsible. > According to this article from The Guardian, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10 https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... > Literally nothing you or I can do in our entire lifetime will have as big an impact as fixing just one of those companies. It seem that you read nothing past the title of that article. Those are fossil fuel companies. The study contains data on GHGs that come from direct operational emissions and emissions from the use of sold products. That means that if you use a car the emissions that are produced by that usage are counted towards the emissions of one of those companies that extracted/refined your fuel.

dmitriid 4y ago
> Saying "consume less/differently" is not the same as saying "be poor". To have significant impact all these "eat less, have fewer kids, don't use services that demand the use of cars" is more or less "be poor". > It seem that you read nothing past the title of that article. Those are fossil fuel companies. Does it matter? The number matters. 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. Literally nothing you or I can do in our entire lifetime will have any significant impact compared to this 100 hundred. And we haven't talked about the long tail of companies. Individuals have been sold a lie that only they are responsible for fighting the climate change.
- Kbelicius 4y ago
  > To have significant impact all these "eat less, have fewer kids, don't use services that demand the use of cars" is more or less "be poor". Eat less, today with obesity epidemic showing no signs of stopping, doesn't have to mean being poor but can mean to be healthy. Having kids is expensive, saying that having less kids makes your poorer is divorced from logic. I can see how saying don't use services that demand the use of car can seem to be advocating for being poorer but it doesn't necessarily follow. > Does it matter? The number matters. 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. It seems that not only did you not read the article that you linked but you did not read my previous post to the end. As I've explained In my previous post that those 100 companies do not produce 71% of emissions. What they do produce is fossil fuel that, when burned, produces those 71% of emissions. > Literally nothing you or I can do in our entire lifetime will have any significant impact compared to this 100 hundred. And we haven't talked about the long tail of companies. So what you are saying is is that if all of the people of earth stopped using fossil fuels today those 100 companies would still be producing and burning(they'd have to since nobody else would be doing it) enough fossil fuels to produce those 71% of emissions? Why would they do that? > Individuals have been sold a lie that only they are responsible for fighting the climate change. I agree that the responsibility doesn't solely lie on an individual. I disagree that an individual has no responsibility. The rest of what you wrote is idiocy that, without you understanding it, advocates for being poor.

dmitriid 4y ago

> Saying "consume less/differently" is not the same as saying "be poor". To have significant impact all these "eat less, have fewer kids, don't use services that demand the use of cars" is more or less "be poor". > It seem that you read nothing past the title of that article. Those are fossil fuel companies. Does it matter? The number matters. 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. Literally nothing you or I can do in our entire lifetime will have any significant impact compared to this 100 hundred. And we haven't talked about the long tail of companies. Individuals have been sold a lie that only they are responsible for fighting the climate change.

Kbelicius 4y ago
> To have significant impact all these "eat less, have fewer kids, don't use services that demand the use of cars" is more or less "be poor". Eat less, today with obesity epidemic showing no signs of stopping, doesn't have to mean being poor but can mean to be healthy. Having kids is expensive, saying that having less kids makes your poorer is divorced from logic. I can see how saying don't use services that demand the use of car can seem to be advocating for being poorer but it doesn't necessarily follow. > Does it matter? The number matters. 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. It seems that not only did you not read the article that you linked but you did not read my previous post to the end. As I've explained In my previous post that those 100 companies do not produce 71% of emissions. What they do produce is fossil fuel that, when burned, produces those 71% of emissions. > Literally nothing you or I can do in our entire lifetime will have any significant impact compared to this 100 hundred. And we haven't talked about the long tail of companies. So what you are saying is is that if all of the people of earth stopped using fossil fuels today those 100 companies would still be producing and burning(they'd have to since nobody else would be doing it) enough fossil fuels to produce those 71% of emissions? Why would they do that? > Individuals have been sold a lie that only they are responsible for fighting the climate change. I agree that the responsibility doesn't solely lie on an individual. I disagree that an individual has no responsibility. The rest of what you wrote is idiocy that, without you understanding it, advocates for being poor.