all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] [B] 32 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    We pretend we can keep car culture and convert the whole industry to EV when that is financially and physically impossible.

    It's certainly possible to convert the whole car industry to EVs. The only trouble is it won't actually solve our problems because car dependency ruins all sorts of other things in addition to the climate, and for most of those the real issue is the amount of space they take up, so even running them on magic pixie dust wouldn't help.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [B] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Okay, let me rephrase: even if we assume for the purpose of this discussion that it were possible to 100% transition to EVs, it still wouldn't solve our problems because the worst thing wrong with cars is the sheer amount of space they take up, to the point of forcing us to literally destroy our cities to make room for them. Hell, the damage from mining the concrete for all the parking lots alone dwarfs the damage from mining the lithium for batteries!

    That's the point I was trying to make, not quibbling over EVs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    less than 100 years ago, everyone used horses my part the world, we couldn't afford Model T's in 1923. People now whine an electric car is unsuitable for winter, that's trues, but only true because the horse infrastructure of no more than 20 miles between population centers has disappeared, it's 50 to 100 now, with a population density per square mile of less then .25

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago

    Meanwhile the poorest 66% will suffer far more from climate change than the richest 1%. Heat deaths from wet bulb events, famine, unsafe air…

  • source
  • [–] [S] 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Time to over throw the rich.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Let's seize their bank account

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    then you're rich and we need to seize your account

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Reminds me of a really funny reddit comment of someone trying to solve inequality: Take the richest person in the world and murder them. They would do this until people will be so afraid of having money that they'll just give it all away, thus eventually achieving equality.

    Obviously it's a dogshit idea that could only come from the finest brains of preddit, but it's pretty funny to see a liberal take on communism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    These articles are somewhat disingenuous. It isn't their mansions, their jets, or their yachts. It's because of the amount they have invested in fossil fuels and other industries. A better question is why do they have enough money to own so much.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    And as private shareholders they demand those oil companies maximize irresponsible profit at the planet's expense.

    When you own something, you bear responsibility for it. Not legally sadly, because these criminals make the laws, but in every other sense.

    You don't get to own oil stock and then credibly claim you aren't the problem. No one puts a gun to anyone's head and says take the stake in blood money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago*

    With one weird trick we could slash carbon emissions by 1/3rd or more! All it would take is a few cuts. 👀

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    We are the top 1%.

    What's unmentioned is that the top 1%, the top 2%, the top 5%, even the top 10% has a disproportionate impact on emissions. That group is made up mostly by the West, but also the rich elite in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, etc.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not sure what you mean by "we". You need roughly 800k$ to be part of the global 1% (and that was in 2018):

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    It says that the top 1% makes 140k USD....

    The most comprehensive study of global climate inequality ever undertaken shows that this elite group, made up of 77 million people including billionaires, millionaires and those paid more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    America is ~5% of the global population alone. Europe is twice that. So by living in the west you're in the top ~15% sure, but not necessarily the top 1%.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean, I agree as a whole, but I'm assuming that the online population trends upwards socioeconomically. 140k USD isn't that high of a salary for the US coastal elite.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    1% of world?

    If you earn $60,000 a year after tax and you don't have kids, you're in the richest 1 percent of the world's population. If you have a household income of $130,000 after tax and you've got a partner and one kid, you're also in the richest 1 percent.

    https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charity-philanthropy-americans-global-rich

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I mean if you had bothered to open the article, it's in the 2nd paragraph:

    The most comprehensive study of global climate inequality ever undertaken shows that this elite group, made up of 77 million people including billionaires, millionaires and those paid more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I did, that continues as:

    more than US$140,000 (£112,500) a year, accounted for 16% of all CO2 emissions in 2019 – enough to cause more than a million excess deaths due to heat, according to the report.

    Which is not the same as the headline.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not having kids affects how rich you are ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [B] 4 points 2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The richest 1% of humanity is responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66%, with dire consequences for vulnerable communities and global efforts to tackle the climate emergency, a report says.

    For the past six months, the Guardian has worked with Oxfam, the Stockholm Environment Institute and other experts on an exclusive basis to produce a special investigation, The Great Carbon Divide.

    Over the period from 1990 to 2019, the accumulated emissions of the 1% were equivalent to wiping out last year’s harvests of EU corn, US wheat, Bangladeshi rice and Chinese soya beans.

    “The super-rich are plundering and polluting the planet to the point of destruction and it is those who can least afford it who are paying the highest price,” said Chiara Liguori, Oxfam’s senior climate justice policy adviser.

    The extravagant carbon footprint of the 0.1% – from superyachts, private jets and mansions to space flights and doomsday bunkers – is 77 times higher than the upper level needed for global warming to peak at 1.5C.

    Oxfam International’s interim executive director, Amitabh Behar, said: “Not taxing wealth allows the richest to rob from us, ruin our planet and renege on democracy.


    The original article contains 853 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Water is wet.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    We should really get rid of them

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Now I don't feel as guilty

  • source
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago
    [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Bill Gates: That's why we need to kill depopulate 66% of the world's poor.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not sure why you chose Bill Gates who is the only one of this club actively trying to help this segment of world society and ostensibly planning to give away his wealth. Bezos, Musk, Jobs, all far more deserving of this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Because he's the biggest player in the depopulation narrative. I thought him being responsible for forever covid to make a buck and his ties to Epstein would have been enough to ruin his reputation but I guess LTT was a warning that PR can whitewash even the biggest monster.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    I think my feed is broken. I'm seeing a lot of articles like this written by a person named Captain something

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago

    in other news water is wet

  • source