• Gloomy
    link
    English
    43
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    This is mostly on point, but it also reproduces the 100 companies 71% line.

    100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions related to fossil fuel and cement production, not 71% of total global emissions.  

    Of the total emissions attributed to fossil fuel producers, companies are responsible for around 12% of the direct emissions; the other 88% comes from the emissions released from consumption of products.

    https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-100-corporations-do-not-produce-70-total-greenh/

    It’s unfortunately not true. Just widley quoted.

    • Maeve
      link
      fedilink
      -1
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It would seem Industrial consumption of resources would be ≥ *collective individual consumption (possibly excluding ultrawealthy, depending on variables), but I’d need to at least see the abstracts of some credible studies.

      Edited word

      • @WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        So individuals aren’t responsible for making any inconvenient changes to their lifestyle but can still feel morally superior? Thanks bro, this is just what I needed to hear today!

      • @SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        If we didn’t use fossil fuels, literally billions of people would die within months.

        We need to transition away, not stop cold turkey

      • Gloomy
        link
        English
        39 months ago

        No. It’s the System that encurages them to dog it out that is to blame. A System that is build around exponancial groth. Those 117 companies wouldn’t dig or pump that stuff out, consumers wouldn’t live lifes that use up extraordenary amounts of energy compared to any other time in human history, goverments wouldn’t make the GDP their holy grail, if not for the hyper capitalist framework that has enabled this to happen.

        So, it you have to blame something, blame the bloody System.

        And, btw., don’t use the “the companies are responsible” line to excuse not changing how you consume and how much you personaly continue. I am not saying that you are doing so, but I’ve read it to many times by now.

        Yes, BP pushed the carbon footprint idea. Yes, BP and any other oil company has to do chance their buisness model. That does not mean that All of us will not have to degrow the way we live. Every one of us needs to start acting in a more sustainable manor, from Individual to company to government, if we want to minimise suffering for future generations. If we don’t (and honestly it doesn’t look like it) their will be a systematic reduction in complexity anyway. The only question is if it will be by design or by desaster.

        • @SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19 months ago

          “I want food and to not freeze/overheat” is not a desire based on exponential growth, but is a desire that currently requires fossil fuels.

          Much like the “9 million starve” number, the argument against fossil fuels is incredibly misleading.

          • @unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            0
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Again, no one believes that change is possible overnight.

            Such an idea has never been mentioned.

            At any time, a current condition of society is due to a long succession of events preceding it, without which the particular condition would be different.

            Our current predicament has been a long time in the making. We need to unify toward directing a succession of events away from dependence on fossil fuels, for achieving a transition to sustainable energy.