5 ms·

Always reminded of the Tom Toro (2012) New Yorker cartoon: > Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for sh

Always reminded of the Tom Toro (2012) New Yorker cartoon: > Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders. * https://www.instagram.com/tbtoro/p/B_SdEVThgCr/ https://www.instagram.com/tbtoro/p/B_SdEVThgCr/ * https://www.insidehook.com/culture/story-tom-toro-new-yorker-climate-cartoon https://www.insidehook.com/culture/story-tom-toro-new-yorker...

latexr 1y ago
I too think of that cartoon regularly. Direct link on The New Yorker website: https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 I recommend you put that one on your list instead because Instagram is very hostile to people trying to see anything without an account. The one on The New Yorker website is open to all and on the Internet Archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20250808141700/https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://web.archive.org/web/20250808141700/https://www.newyo... Thank you for sharing the interview. I hadn’t come across it before. The cartoon is more popular than I realised, which makes me glad.
- justin66 1y ago
  The Instagram one is entirely a single image so people will find it easier to share via social media.
  - jbstack 1y ago
    I (and I assume I'm not alone in this) rarely even bother clicking on Instagram or "X" posts because I can't be bothered with all the hassle when all I want to do is quickly view the content, and I'm not willing to gamble on whether or not it's going to work.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - reactordev 1y ago
      Seconded. I don’t have an Instagram account and never will.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - latexr 1y ago
    Not for anyone without an Instagram account, which is most people on social media. But sure, here are several alternatives as single images for you to share on social media. Took me no time at all to take a screenshot and upload to a bunch of websites. Take your pick. https://ibb.co/gMCPwzg5 https://ibb.co/gMCPwzg5 https://postimg.cc/RNsT6bJJ https://postimg.cc/RNsT6bJJ https://freeimage.host/i/tomtoroplanet.K2WBfYN https://freeimage.host/i/tomtoroplanet.K2WBfYN https://imgur.com/a/D4nEijI https://imgur.com/a/D4nEijI
    - justin66 1y ago
      > Not for anyone without an Instagram account This is a lie - I have never had an instagram account and I was able to hop on there and copy the image. (it might be of interest to some that the image shared by the artist on Instagram has the text justified how the artist intended and the New Yorker's text caption can look different depending on the device, but I can't pretend that I care too much about that...) > Take your pick. Why did you bother? I'm fully capable of googling a famous image and I'm sure everyone else reading this stuff is.
      - SapporoChris 1y ago
        I found it quite truthful, but I also blacklist social media in my host file. I recommend blacklisting social media, it makes the world a better place.
        justin66 1y ago
        It's not a bad idea.
      - latexr 1y ago
        > I have never had an instagram account and I was able to hop on there and copy the image. This time you were. I get sent Instagram links semi-regularly and it’s a gamble when they’ll work. And there are two other people on this thread who replied directly to you, before your comment, saying they wouldn’t have bothered to even try. > it might be of interest to some that the image shared by the artist on Instagram has the text justified how the artist intended Is it, now? Then why is the text justified entirely differently on their own website, their Etsy store, and their official link on Cartoon Collections? https://tomtoro.com/cartoons/ https://tomtoro.com/cartoons/ https://www.etsy.com/listing/510225080/signed-print-of-my-new-yorker-cartoon https://www.etsy.com/listing/510225080/signed-print-of-my-ne... https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=CC137952 https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=CC137952 And look at that, it’s the exact same crop I chose for my screenshot. Almost as if I tried to respect the author’s choice, even though I very much doubt they are anal-retentive about how the text is laid out. They likely changed it for Instagram to fit better into the obligatory square. > Why did you bother? Perhaps cut it a bit with the hostility? It’s not like my screenshot harmed you in any way.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ACCount37 1y ago
"Creating value for shareholders" has done more for sustainability than eco-activists could ever hope to. Industrial capitalists make mass produced LED lights and cheap solar panels. Eco-activists push for anti-nuclear laws and plastic straw bans. It's pretty telling that oil lobbyists resort to non-market methods like bribing politicians to stall renewables. They know the time is running out - with all the new power generation and storage tech that's in the pipeline, fossil fuels just aren't going to be economically viable forever. Renewables are rising, and there is no moat - all the existing oil assets those companies hold are going to be increasingly useless as more and more of the world's power comes from non-fossil sources. "Stall" is about the extent of it though. You can't fight economic forces off forever.
- piltdownman 1y ago
  Industrial capitalists irrevocably destroy large tracts of public and private land. Eco-activists lobby to at least have them cover the clean-up bill, if not incurr punitive fines. This goes back to 1969 when the EPA was set up when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio caught fire due to pollution from industrial waste. Some other highlights of "Creating value for shareholders" Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Largest marine oil spill in U.S. history. BP paid over $20 billion in fines and compensation. Love Canal: Occidental Petroleum dumped toxic waste into the Love Canal in Niagara Falls, resulting in pollution causing birth defects. $130 million in settlements. Exxon Valdez oil spill: Alaska’s Prince William Sound contaminated with 11 million gallons of crude oil. Exxon paid over $1 billion in cleanup and compensation. DuPont Chemical leak: DuPont contaminated the drinking water of over 300,000 people. $670 million in settlements. Hinkley Groundwater Contamination: PG&E contaminated groundwater with chromium-6 in California. $333 million in settlements. Volkswagen Emissions Scandal: Volkswagen cheated on emissions tests. $25 billion in settlements. Kingston Fossil Plant Coal Ash Spill: A retention pond breached, releasing over 1 billion gallons of coal ash sludge into the surrounding area. Cleanup cost over $1 billion.
- Qwertious 1y ago
  >Industrial capitalists make mass produced LED lights and cheap solar panels. Wow, those cheap solar panels were done entirely by the private sector? Without decades of government-backed research on how to make solar panels viable to mass-produce? Without eco-activists lobbying for government-funded research on solar panels, there would be no mass production, because nobody is paying $100k/kW. And making cheap LEDs doesn't necessarily reduce energy use, thanks to the rebound effect - we've known this since Lord Jevon noted that James Watt's new ultra-efficient steam engine increased demand for coal instead of reducing it, because it made steam engines cheaper to run. If you look at car headlights, you'll find that instead of using LEDs to reduce power use, car-makers instead used them to crank up the lumens as far as humanly possible. They only save power on paper, when underwritten by implicit environmental optimism. Note that I'm not opposed to "creating value for shareholders"; they made cheap solar panels possible. I'm saying that powerful economic forces require far more precise alignment than you'd think for them to be useful, and they are almost never conveniently placed in the right spot by chance.

latexr 1y ago

I too think of that cartoon regularly. Direct link on The New Yorker website: https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 I recommend you put that one on your list instead because Instagram is very hostile to people trying to see anything without an account. The one on The New Yorker website is open to all and on the Internet Archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20250808141700/https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://web.archive.org/web/20250808141700/https://www.newyo... Thank you for sharing the interview. I hadn’t come across it before. The cartoon is more popular than I realised, which makes me glad.

justin66 1y ago
The Instagram one is entirely a single image so people will find it easier to share via social media.
- jbstack 1y ago
  I (and I assume I'm not alone in this) rarely even bother clicking on Instagram or "X" posts because I can't be bothered with all the hassle when all I want to do is quickly view the content, and I'm not willing to gamble on whether or not it's going to work.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - reactordev 1y ago
    Seconded. I don’t have an Instagram account and never will.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- latexr 1y ago
  Not for anyone without an Instagram account, which is most people on social media. But sure, here are several alternatives as single images for you to share on social media. Took me no time at all to take a screenshot and upload to a bunch of websites. Take your pick. https://ibb.co/gMCPwzg5 https://ibb.co/gMCPwzg5 https://postimg.cc/RNsT6bJJ https://postimg.cc/RNsT6bJJ https://freeimage.host/i/tomtoroplanet.K2WBfYN https://freeimage.host/i/tomtoroplanet.K2WBfYN https://imgur.com/a/D4nEijI https://imgur.com/a/D4nEijI
  - justin66 1y ago
    > Not for anyone without an Instagram account This is a lie - I have never had an instagram account and I was able to hop on there and copy the image. (it might be of interest to some that the image shared by the artist on Instagram has the text justified how the artist intended and the New Yorker's text caption can look different depending on the device, but I can't pretend that I care too much about that...) > Take your pick. Why did you bother? I'm fully capable of googling a famous image and I'm sure everyone else reading this stuff is.
    - SapporoChris 1y ago
      I found it quite truthful, but I also blacklist social media in my host file. I recommend blacklisting social media, it makes the world a better place.
      - justin66 1y ago
        It's not a bad idea.
    - latexr 1y ago
      > I have never had an instagram account and I was able to hop on there and copy the image. This time you were. I get sent Instagram links semi-regularly and it’s a gamble when they’ll work. And there are two other people on this thread who replied directly to you, before your comment, saying they wouldn’t have bothered to even try. > it might be of interest to some that the image shared by the artist on Instagram has the text justified how the artist intended Is it, now? Then why is the text justified entirely differently on their own website, their Etsy store, and their official link on Cartoon Collections? https://tomtoro.com/cartoons/ https://tomtoro.com/cartoons/ https://www.etsy.com/listing/510225080/signed-print-of-my-new-yorker-cartoon https://www.etsy.com/listing/510225080/signed-print-of-my-ne... https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=CC137952 https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=CC137952 And look at that, it’s the exact same crop I chose for my screenshot. Almost as if I tried to respect the author’s choice, even though I very much doubt they are anal-retentive about how the text is laid out. They likely changed it for Instagram to fit better into the obligatory square. > Why did you bother? Perhaps cut it a bit with the hostility? It’s not like my screenshot harmed you in any way.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

ACCount37 1y ago

"Creating value for shareholders" has done more for sustainability than eco-activists could ever hope to. Industrial capitalists make mass produced LED lights and cheap solar panels. Eco-activists push for anti-nuclear laws and plastic straw bans. It's pretty telling that oil lobbyists resort to non-market methods like bribing politicians to stall renewables. They know the time is running out - with all the new power generation and storage tech that's in the pipeline, fossil fuels just aren't going to be economically viable forever. Renewables are rising, and there is no moat - all the existing oil assets those companies hold are going to be increasingly useless as more and more of the world's power comes from non-fossil sources. "Stall" is about the extent of it though. You can't fight economic forces off forever.

piltdownman 1y ago
Industrial capitalists irrevocably destroy large tracts of public and private land. Eco-activists lobby to at least have them cover the clean-up bill, if not incurr punitive fines. This goes back to 1969 when the EPA was set up when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio caught fire due to pollution from industrial waste. Some other highlights of "Creating value for shareholders" Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Largest marine oil spill in U.S. history. BP paid over $20 billion in fines and compensation. Love Canal: Occidental Petroleum dumped toxic waste into the Love Canal in Niagara Falls, resulting in pollution causing birth defects. $130 million in settlements. Exxon Valdez oil spill: Alaska’s Prince William Sound contaminated with 11 million gallons of crude oil. Exxon paid over $1 billion in cleanup and compensation. DuPont Chemical leak: DuPont contaminated the drinking water of over 300,000 people. $670 million in settlements. Hinkley Groundwater Contamination: PG&E contaminated groundwater with chromium-6 in California. $333 million in settlements. Volkswagen Emissions Scandal: Volkswagen cheated on emissions tests. $25 billion in settlements. Kingston Fossil Plant Coal Ash Spill: A retention pond breached, releasing over 1 billion gallons of coal ash sludge into the surrounding area. Cleanup cost over $1 billion.
Qwertious 1y ago
>Industrial capitalists make mass produced LED lights and cheap solar panels. Wow, those cheap solar panels were done entirely by the private sector? Without decades of government-backed research on how to make solar panels viable to mass-produce? Without eco-activists lobbying for government-funded research on solar panels, there would be no mass production, because nobody is paying $100k/kW. And making cheap LEDs doesn't necessarily reduce energy use, thanks to the rebound effect - we've known this since Lord Jevon noted that James Watt's new ultra-efficient steam engine increased demand for coal instead of reducing it, because it made steam engines cheaper to run. If you look at car headlights, you'll find that instead of using LEDs to reduce power use, car-makers instead used them to crank up the lumens as far as humanly possible. They only save power on paper, when underwritten by implicit environmental optimism. Note that I'm not opposed to "creating value for shareholders"; they made cheap solar panels possible. I'm saying that powerful economic forces require far more precise alignment than you'd think for them to be useful, and they are almost never conveniently placed in the right spot by chance.