This image looks like right wing corpo propaganda to me. Not only does it divert the attention away from the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases, it is attacking a moderate leftist – who admittedly causes a relatively large amount of greenhouse gases.
But Taylor Swift is not making most of those flights on a personal basis. It’s to provide a service to fans. So in that sense we can regard the emissions as those of Taylor Swift the company. And in that sense they are much lower than many other companies who we often give a free pass.
So, yes hold the big emitters responsible, but let’s start with the 57 on the list and work our way down to Taylor Swift.
It invites hatred from a sizeable (though perhaps potentially less politically-aware) fan base that might otherwise be receptive.
Using someone as popular as Swift as a target for less-pop-culture-interested folks who are politically informed is clearly kicking the hornets’ nest to stir up in-fighting among the working class.
Next time use Bezos or one of the other folks who showed up in that “Dialog” secret society since they also use private jets in the same way someone like Swift does, but in addition are far worse in every other way and who also lobby with their billions towards worsening the world in every way imaginable.
Yeah, if you convinced Taylor Swift to stop using a private plane, it’s analogous to fast food companies switching to paper straws while keeping everything else plastic. It helps, but it’s just demanding a token solution instead of taking on the bigger problem.
Why waste energy distinguish are you a level 4 or a level 5 offender. Our energy would be much better spend dealing with the root of the problem. That is a society allowing that level of accumulation of wealth. No matter if you are performing for your fans or flying to Epstein island.
I’m blown away every time anew how some people on lemmy, like you here, effortlessly cut through manipulation. Reflecting on the state of the internet it’s sadly delightful and refreshing.
The headline is misleading. It’s not 57 “companies”. The original source speaks of “Entities”.
Number one on that List of 57? The former Soviet Union. Good luck holding them responsible. Next to several state controlled Actors like Gazprom (6th) or Saudi Armaco (3rd), some privat companies like ExxonMobile (5th), there are entities like Chinas Coal production from 1945 - 2004 (2nd) North Korea (57th) or Cinas Cement production (13th).
The list shows that oil companies cause a lot of emissions (but apparently not as much as the former soviet union). To absolutly nobodies suprise.
Next to holding them accountable for their emissions (and their lobbying, pro oil propaganda, etc) we need to find ways to reduce emissions in our lives. Those companies will only stop if their products is less and less needed.
Obviously you can’t do anything about the former Soviet Union –although Ukraine is doing a pretty good job– and China is doing a decent job moving away from coal and towards renewables, rail and EVs.
It doesn’t matter whether the results are surprising or not, we need to move away from the narrative created by oil companies that the end user is at fault. And you’re not helping either in that sense.
Oil companies have been doing whatever they can do hide the truth about emissions, lie to the public through propaganda and sow doubt about climate research.
Of course end users need to change something too, but that’s far less easy than it sounds. Especially the USA people seem to have absolutely no idea what they’re doing driving around everywhere in big trucks, even for short distances.
the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases
That’s just nonsense.
The top two providers in that list are the governments of USSR and China. They are not “megacorporations”
It not a list of “emitters”. These entities are just “linked to” the emissions – i.e. they provided the fuel that someone else burned.
It’s completely ridiculous to say that it doesn’t matter that someone burns 1,000 gallons of fuel a day because a big company sold it to them.
Targetting individuals people or companies is useless. There’s over a billion co-contributers, not a handful. Systematic changes like a carbon tax are necessary.
Definitely not nonsense. Perhaps you can try to read what is said if you make such a strong statement.
It’s state-owned companies, not the entirety of the government. Why would they need to be treated differently?
First: not all of them. For example, the vast majority of Chinese coal is also burned in China. And why not put the emissions created by the production of these oil giants on them? It’s their product causing the emissions after all. On top of that, they have been actively trying to obfuscate and manipulate the data on greenhouse gas emissions for the better part of a century now.
I never said you don’t need to look at your own emissions, but the difference can only really be made by taking on these major corps. Ignoring or trying to downplay that is what’s ridiculous.
And I agree with carbon taxes, but let’s make sure they hit corporations much much harder than individuals just trying to get by.
It’s nonsense because there’s no way to read what you wrote and think it means anything other than a bunch of for-profit corporations are actually emitting that much CO2e. In reality they are just a link in the supply chain, and direct individual use is actually a huge part of emissions (making up the majority when indirect individual use is considered).
State “companies” should be treated differently because they have different structures, motivations, scope, and controls
It is not useful to focus on oil conglomerates because they are basically interchangeable. What is the behavior change you want from them? To all stop existing? To raise prices to discourage use? To collude into providing some correct amount of their product?
How do you imagine one would “take on” a corporation? “Hey Exxon, you’re bad for selling me gasoline. Stop doing that!”. If you think we should take them on by buying as little from them as possible, then I guess we agree there.
It can be difficult to control the incidence of a tax, but a carbon dividend should overall have a highly progressive effect.
So, holding companies responsible for the product they make and try to downplay the effects of isn’t right because there are more steps after them to create the emissions? While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products? Yeah that’s absolutely nonsense.
Why? State companies are just as accountable. They’ve known about this since the 1960s. The goal is to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Time is of the essence, so we need to put our efforts where it matters the most.
To all stop existing? No, as of yet they are still necessary for some chemical processes and back-up power generators for vital infrastructure like hospitals. But we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land. So they will need to drastically change their operations away from oil and gas. They can go into green hydrogen production or focus on EV charging stations. And yes, it helps to hit them where it makes a difference. Put emission taxes on every molecule of carbon they pump out of the earth. Because the only way it doesn’t end up in the air is to leave it there.
Your reductio ad absurdum is ridiculous. Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them? The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes. Countries can accelerate the transition to green energy through their state-owned energy companies. We can sanction countries who don’t do their part.
While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products
This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
State companies are just as accountable
My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land
This is exactly my point – how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them
What I’m pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like “taking on” the big bad 57 companies doesn’t actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes.
100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
I don’t think we’ve disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement’s veracity, do you think saying “80% of emissions come from megacorporations” drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?
Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
Nobody can fix the emissions of the past, and deterring the next coverup is the only thing we can do. But I do think some reparations are in order, especially to poorer nations who are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
Obviously, the change will have to come from the country’s government. But we can still sanction the countries and the oil companies.
how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.
vague inflammatory language
Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.
Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
What inaction? It will cost us all a lot of effort to move away from fossil fuels. You’re just protecting the worst offenders who have made the consumers the scapegoat for decades.
Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
Why would it have to be? I already said start at the top and work your way down.
Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
A lot of people simply don’t care about their own personal responsibility, finger-wagging or hand-waving. They don’t care.
It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem than go a snip off every twig individually. I mean, that conservative uncle of yours will never get no god damn ee-vee now will he?
how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.
You’ve answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point – the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.
Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.
And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Pay attention to the response that you are getting – people aren’t about to take action; they are going to internally fester.
What inaction?
The inaction of useless discussion. Oh, here’s a meme blaming “corporations” for everything; I can see emissions dropping already.
Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
Why would it have to be?
It wouldn’t. That’s my point. The list doesn’t matter.
I already said start at the top and work your way down.
As you just pointed out, there is no need for that; we can address the whole problem at once.
A lot of people simply don’t care
Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?
It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem
It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards organization and action instead of blame.
We’ve already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let’s work toward that.
You’ve answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point – the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.
Nope. There are more ways to make a company change their operations. Think of the EU making USB-C the standard charging port.
And of course you can make companies pay for the carbon they dig out of the earth.
And it is often counter-productive, even fatal.
Uh… no it’s not. Do you know what’s going on inside your own body? Do you know how many viruses and bacteria are fought off through inflammatory reactions that you hardly even notice?
Pay attention to the response that you are getting
I’m just getting that response from you. Otherwise I got a bunch of upvotes for the comment.
The inaction of useless discussion.
Like this one? The point is that propaganda works. This was propaganda and I called it out. Most people reacted positively to that. And that will never be useless.
It wouldn’t. That’s my point. The list doesn’t matter.
These things do not follow each other logically.
Let me try to explain this to you: let’s say you’re on a tight budget and you can cut your costs by 15% by not buying anymore Dubai chocolate crap… or you can save 1% on buying fewer tomatoes, another 0.5% on buying less canned beans, another 2% by switching to a different brand of dairy products etc… where would you start your cost-cutting?
Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?
What on earth are you talking about? It’s not like I go around telling people to take as many flights as they can. Of course you try to get people to do stuff on a smaller scale. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reduce the emissions of the megacorporations as well…
We’ve already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let’s work toward that.
The point is: who is going to be paying them? The companies who knowingly lied to the consumers and hid the facts or the consumers who were systematically made more reliant on the product these companies sold?
It’s crazy how long that misrepresented study stays alive. The point wasn’t to find fault, it was to figure out how much comes from people in general. After all, nature does create it’s own green house gases.
By the logic of the study, the oil company that sold Swift her kerosene is 100% responsible for it. By that studies logic me, you and Swift are EQUALLY not responsible for ANY oil we use, ever. That’s obviously stupid.
Just a different way of interpretation. Of course the user and producer share some of the blame, but now it’s the other way around, now Taylor Swift gets the full blame.
And the point is that the oil companies have actively lied to their customers about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, even though they knew about it since the ‘50s.
So if I sell you a box, and I tell you it’s completely safe, but the box explodes and kills a bunch of people, who, in your mind, is responsible?
This image looks like right wing corpo propaganda to me. Not only does it divert the attention away from the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases, it is attacking a moderate leftist – who admittedly causes a relatively large amount of greenhouse gases.
But Taylor Swift is not making most of those flights on a personal basis. It’s to provide a service to fans. So in that sense we can regard the emissions as those of Taylor Swift the company. And in that sense they are much lower than many other companies who we often give a free pass.
So, yes hold the big emitters responsible, but let’s start with the 57 on the list and work our way down to Taylor Swift.
Bingo.
It invites hatred from a sizeable (though perhaps potentially less politically-aware) fan base that might otherwise be receptive.
Using someone as popular as Swift as a target for less-pop-culture-interested folks who are politically informed is clearly kicking the hornets’ nest to stir up in-fighting among the working class.
Next time use Bezos or one of the other folks who showed up in that “Dialog” secret society since they also use private jets in the same way someone like Swift does, but in addition are far worse in every other way and who also lobby with their billions towards worsening the world in every way imaginable.
Yeah, if you convinced Taylor Swift to stop using a private plane, it’s analogous to fast food companies switching to paper straws while keeping everything else plastic. It helps, but it’s just demanding a token solution instead of taking on the bigger problem.
Taylor swift is a leftist just like my racist boss has a black friend and is thus not racist.
I said moderate leftist, but you may have your own opinion about her
There are no ethical billionaires
I didn’t say that. But we have to be pragmatic and focus our energy on the worst offenders, because that’s where the most gain comes from.
Why waste energy distinguish are you a level 4 or a level 5 offender. Our energy would be much better spend dealing with the root of the problem. That is a society allowing that level of accumulation of wealth. No matter if you are performing for your fans or flying to Epstein island.
And the root lies with keeping the oil inside the earth’s crust. Not with Taylor Swift performing through MS Teams.
If you make a snappy meme about it, I’ll start using it.
Didn’t make one, but I found this one:
I’m blown away every time anew how some people on lemmy, like you here, effortlessly cut through manipulation. Reflecting on the state of the internet it’s sadly delightful and refreshing.
As i do every time somebody posts this article:
The headline is misleading. It’s not 57 “companies”. The original source speaks of “Entities”.
Number one on that List of 57? The former Soviet Union. Good luck holding them responsible. Next to several state controlled Actors like Gazprom (6th) or Saudi Armaco (3rd), some privat companies like ExxonMobile (5th), there are entities like Chinas Coal production from 1945 - 2004 (2nd) North Korea (57th) or Cinas Cement production (13th).
The list shows that oil companies cause a lot of emissions (but apparently not as much as the former soviet union). To absolutly nobodies suprise.
Next to holding them accountable for their emissions (and their lobbying, pro oil propaganda, etc) we need to find ways to reduce emissions in our lives. Those companies will only stop if their products is less and less needed.
Obviously you can’t do anything about the former Soviet Union –although Ukraine is doing a pretty good job– and China is doing a decent job moving away from coal and towards renewables, rail and EVs.
It doesn’t matter whether the results are surprising or not, we need to move away from the narrative created by oil companies that the end user is at fault. And you’re not helping either in that sense. Oil companies have been doing whatever they can do hide the truth about emissions, lie to the public through propaganda and sow doubt about climate research.
Of course end users need to change something too, but that’s far less easy than it sounds. Especially the USA people seem to have absolutely no idea what they’re doing driving around everywhere in big trucks, even for short distances.
That’s just nonsense.
It’s completely ridiculous to say that it doesn’t matter that someone burns 1,000 gallons of fuel a day because a big company sold it to them.
Targetting individuals people or companies is useless. There’s over a billion co-contributers, not a handful. Systematic changes like a carbon tax are necessary.
Definitely not nonsense. Perhaps you can try to read what is said if you make such a strong statement.
I never said you don’t need to look at your own emissions, but the difference can only really be made by taking on these major corps. Ignoring or trying to downplay that is what’s ridiculous.
And I agree with carbon taxes, but let’s make sure they hit corporations much much harder than individuals just trying to get by.
It’s nonsense because there’s no way to read what you wrote and think it means anything other than a bunch of for-profit corporations are actually emitting that much CO2e. In reality they are just a link in the supply chain, and direct individual use is actually a huge part of emissions (making up the majority when indirect individual use is considered).
How do you imagine one would “take on” a corporation? “Hey Exxon, you’re bad for selling me gasoline. Stop doing that!”. If you think we should take them on by buying as little from them as possible, then I guess we agree there.
It can be difficult to control the incidence of a tax, but a carbon dividend should overall have a highly progressive effect.
So, holding companies responsible for the product they make and try to downplay the effects of isn’t right because there are more steps after them to create the emissions? While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products? Yeah that’s absolutely nonsense.
Your reductio ad absurdum is ridiculous. Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them? The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes. Countries can accelerate the transition to green energy through their state-owned energy companies. We can sanction countries who don’t do their part.
This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
This is exactly my point – how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
What I’m pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like “taking on” the big bad 57 companies doesn’t actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
I don’t think we’ve disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement’s veracity, do you think saying “80% of emissions come from megacorporations” drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?
Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
Nobody can fix the emissions of the past, and deterring the next coverup is the only thing we can do. But I do think some reparations are in order, especially to poorer nations who are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
Obviously, the change will have to come from the country’s government. But we can still sanction the countries and the oil companies.
Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.
Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.
What inaction? It will cost us all a lot of effort to move away from fossil fuels. You’re just protecting the worst offenders who have made the consumers the scapegoat for decades.
Why would it have to be? I already said start at the top and work your way down.
A lot of people simply don’t care about their own personal responsibility, finger-wagging or hand-waving. They don’t care. It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem than go a snip off every twig individually. I mean, that conservative uncle of yours will never get no god damn ee-vee now will he?
You’ve answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point – the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.
And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Pay attention to the response that you are getting – people aren’t about to take action; they are going to internally fester.
The inaction of useless discussion. Oh, here’s a meme blaming “corporations” for everything; I can see emissions dropping already.
It wouldn’t. That’s my point. The list doesn’t matter.
As you just pointed out, there is no need for that; we can address the whole problem at once.
Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?
It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards organization and action instead of blame.
We’ve already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let’s work toward that.
Nope. There are more ways to make a company change their operations. Think of the EU making USB-C the standard charging port. And of course you can make companies pay for the carbon they dig out of the earth.
Uh… no it’s not. Do you know what’s going on inside your own body? Do you know how many viruses and bacteria are fought off through inflammatory reactions that you hardly even notice?
I’m just getting that response from you. Otherwise I got a bunch of upvotes for the comment.
Like this one? The point is that propaganda works. This was propaganda and I called it out. Most people reacted positively to that. And that will never be useless.
These things do not follow each other logically. Let me try to explain this to you: let’s say you’re on a tight budget and you can cut your costs by 15% by not buying anymore Dubai chocolate crap… or you can save 1% on buying fewer tomatoes, another 0.5% on buying less canned beans, another 2% by switching to a different brand of dairy products etc… where would you start your cost-cutting?
What on earth are you talking about? It’s not like I go around telling people to take as many flights as they can. Of course you try to get people to do stuff on a smaller scale. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reduce the emissions of the megacorporations as well…
The point is: who is going to be paying them? The companies who knowingly lied to the consumers and hid the facts or the consumers who were systematically made more reliant on the product these companies sold?
It’s crazy how long that misrepresented study stays alive. The point wasn’t to find fault, it was to figure out how much comes from people in general. After all, nature does create it’s own green house gases.
By the logic of the study, the oil company that sold Swift her kerosene is 100% responsible for it. By that studies logic me, you and Swift are EQUALLY not responsible for ANY oil we use, ever. That’s obviously stupid.
Just a different way of interpretation. Of course the user and producer share some of the blame, but now it’s the other way around, now Taylor Swift gets the full blame.
And the point is that the oil companies have actively lied to their customers about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, even though they knew about it since the ‘50s.
So if I sell you a box, and I tell you it’s completely safe, but the box explodes and kills a bunch of people, who, in your mind, is responsible?