• abessman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Myself and 50,000 other people could start walking everywhere and it very likely wouldn’t come close to offsetting the emissions of Amazon’s fleet of trucks.

    Not if you keep ordering shit from amazon it won’t. It will prevent 50,000 people’s worth of transportation emissions, though.

    Don’t sell yourself short. You’re more responsible for the situation than you want to admit.

    there’s a very small group of individuals called billionaires that contribute 1000x more than you or I ever could.

    Wrong. The top 0.1% pollute 10x as much (per capita) as the top 10% (excluding the top 0.1%). Source

    BP invented the idea of the individual carbon footprint.

    If the strongest argument against an idea is “the wrong people came up with it”, the idea is probably pretty good.

    • tasty4skin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      you don’t know me buddy. I don’t use Amazon and I pretty much only drive to and from work. good fucking luck not giving Amazon money given that AWS hosts millions of companies websites.

      /e ALSO top 0.1% isn’t a small enough group to address what I’m talking about. Try top 0.01%, that’s about where you’ll find billionaires.

    • Pandalus@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      According to your source, the top 1% emit 50 tonnes of CO2/capita/yr. The top 0.1% emit 200 tonnes of CO2/capita/yr. That is still an insane increase the wealthier one becomes.

      Not saying that one should not try to limit their emissions (we definitely should stop buying stuff from amazon/big companies, if not to limit emissions, at least to break their monopolies), but there is definitely some low hanging fruit in that top percentage (e.g. having 800 people limit emissions is going to be harder when you have the same effect by just limiting the 8 at the top).

      Also you’re last sentence is quite hostile, BP definitely came up with it to avoid their responsibility and pivot it to other people. The idea might not be ‘bad’ per se, but if you do it so to avoid your own responsibility, it is definitely bad practice (which, again, is why each of us should try to limit our carbon emissions)

      • abessman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also you’re last sentence is quite hostile, BP definitely came up with it to avoid their responsibility and pivot it to other people. The idea might not be ‘bad’ per se, but if you do it so to avoid your own responsibility, it is definitely bad practice (which, again, is why each of us should try to limit our carbon emissions)

        Of course. By the same token, individuals trying to avoid their own responsibility by parroting “big oil invented the idea of a carbon footprint” is definitely bad practice.

        • Pandalus@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure, which is why I mentioned (twice) that everyone should try and limit their emissions in my original comment.

          What you however skipped in your reply is the fact that the richest 8 people limiting their emissions has the same effect as the 792 people beneath that limiting their emissions. From a perspective of ‘quick wins’ (which we sorely need), I am totally in favour of placing more responsibility on those with the highest emissions (without anyone neglecting their responsibility, so please don’t just point out one group as ‘responsible’ to pivot away the blame).

          In the same vein, BP pivoting away the blame has about the same impact as thousands (millions?) of individuals pivoting away the blame, which is why they are (or at least should be) held to a higher standard.

          • abessman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What you however skipped in your reply is the fact that the richest 8 people limiting their emissions has the same effect as the 792 people beneath that limiting their emissions.

            I skipped it because I agree. There’s nothing to debate on that point.

            However, the point of my first reply was to highlight that this perspective is often exaggerated to paint the global middle class (the top 10% richest people on the planet, i.e. most people in western Europe and the anglosphere) as innocent victims when in fact they are also to blame. This is what I replied to:

            The narrative that the average joe is to blame for this shit is so infuriating to me.

            This sentiment is oft-repeated on this kind of post, and the implication that “average joe” is not responsible is not only wrong, but actively harmful.