4 ms·

I disagree. The attribution of money/credits/wealth points to a person or entity follows the exact same logic as the attribution of these hazardous emissions. Y

I disagree. The attribution of money/credits/wealth points to a person or entity follows the exact same logic as the attribution of these hazardous emissions. You can’t have one and not the other.

mancerayder 3y ago
What do you mean by 'same logic'?
ianburrell 3y ago
I produce emissions from electricity, car, airplanes, etc. My stocks do not produce emissions. My emissions wouldn't go down if I sold all my stocks. There are two ways to account for emissions and this study uses the wrong one. The first, the one that is produces the quote about how a few companies produce all the emissions, attributes emissions to the producer. The second attributes them to the consumer because they consume the energy. The CO2 from gallon of gas isn't made by Exxon (excluding all the production) but from burning it in my car. The CO2 for electricity is produced at the plant but it is being used in my AC.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  Exactly. And if consumers stopped purchasing gasoline, Exxon would be gone. Exxon is just serving consumer demand. The problem isn't Exxon, it's the consumers who want to burn enormous quantities of fuel in their gigantic SUVs.
  - patapong 3y ago
    While this is true to some extent, companies also play a major role at shaping the desires of the public, through advertising and lobbying etc. Look for example at the enormous impact of the car lobby on American cities, leading to much more cars on the roads and more emissions.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      Cars are a necessity in America not because of car advertisements, but because of the low density of American towns and cities. Things are built that way because Americans want them like that, and it's nothing new: Americans started moving to the suburbs in the 1950s, partially because of the availability of inexpensive automobiles and fuel (mostly thanks to the post-war economic boom), and also because they didn't want to live near the black people in the inner cities. Outright racism drove a huge amount of why America looks the way it does now, as far as infrastructure and urban planning go. And it hasn't changed: just look at what Americans on online forums say when you try to suggest they live in dense, walkable cities and use subways. It'll either be comments about how they like having such a huge house and yard, or comments about the people living in inner cities.

I disagree. The attribution of money/credits/wealth points to a person or entity follows the exact same logic as the attribution of these hazardous emissions. You can’t have one and not the other.

mancerayder 3y ago

What do you mean by 'same logic'?

ianburrell 3y ago

I produce emissions from electricity, car, airplanes, etc. My stocks do not produce emissions. My emissions wouldn't go down if I sold all my stocks. There are two ways to account for emissions and this study uses the wrong one. The first, the one that is produces the quote about how a few companies produce all the emissions, attributes emissions to the producer. The second attributes them to the consumer because they consume the energy. The CO2 from gallon of gas isn't made by Exxon (excluding all the production) but from burning it in my car. The CO2 for electricity is produced at the plant but it is being used in my AC.

midoridensha 3y ago
Exactly. And if consumers stopped purchasing gasoline, Exxon would be gone. Exxon is just serving consumer demand. The problem isn't Exxon, it's the consumers who want to burn enormous quantities of fuel in their gigantic SUVs.
- patapong 3y ago
  While this is true to some extent, companies also play a major role at shaping the desires of the public, through advertising and lobbying etc. Look for example at the enormous impact of the car lobby on American cities, leading to much more cars on the roads and more emissions.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    Cars are a necessity in America not because of car advertisements, but because of the low density of American towns and cities. Things are built that way because Americans want them like that, and it's nothing new: Americans started moving to the suburbs in the 1950s, partially because of the availability of inexpensive automobiles and fuel (mostly thanks to the post-war economic boom), and also because they didn't want to live near the black people in the inner cities. Outright racism drove a huge amount of why America looks the way it does now, as far as infrastructure and urban planning go. And it hasn't changed: just look at what Americans on online forums say when you try to suggest they live in dense, walkable cities and use subways. It'll either be comments about how they like having such a huge house and yard, or comments about the people living in inner cities.