America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.

  • @yogsototh@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    111 year ago

    I feel that I see more and more articles that give the false impression that rich are the only people we should put a pressure for pollution. This will give more and more people the illusion that they can pollute because their pollution is very minor compared to the pollution of the rich.

    The reality is while richer people pollute more. The ratio of pollution between a rich and a normal person is not comparable to the ratio of the wealth difference.

    In fact, for pollution, everyone effort has a real effect.

    More precisely I read an article that made it clear that if a super rich has 100000x more money, they will pollute directly only 40x more than most people. (the number are probably wrong but the order of magnitude is correct).

    This mean that pollution is not just for the rich, but for everyone. And your personal effort count.

    • Stoneykins [any]
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      Pollution is a truly a systemic problem, not a personal responsibility problem, even for the wealthiest heaviest polluters. It certainly doesn’t help when people treat their surroundings like trashcans, but that will always pale in comparison to the scale of pollution produced by industry.

      The reason wealthy people are still the issue is that they have an insane overabundance of control over industry, governments, and economic systems, and that control is currently being wielded irresponsibly.

      The only way for non-wealthy people to truly fight climate change is collective action. The top 1% on the other hand could damn near personally begin reconstructing problematic parts of our polluting economic systems, but they simply aren’t motivated to do so because that wouldn’t increase their capital, at least not as much as the way they are currently behaving does. They are only motivated by increasing their wealth, apparently, based on how they behave.

      • @r1veRRR@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        What is the collective but a collection of individuals? What, therefore, is collective action, but a collection of individuals choosing to take responsibility and do what they can?

        Imagine politicians and CEOs decided tomorrow to make meat production sustainable and ethical. The cost of meat would skyrocket (yes, even if we removed all corporate profit). The very next day all those individuals that aren’t responsible, according to your logic, would be in the street protesting.

        • Stoneykins [any]
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          Nothing of what you said changes that pollution is a systemic problem and the wealthiest people have disproportionate control over systems.

          We could all recycle everything and be perfect little eco-angels on an individual basis and the world would still burn unless we change how industry makes things and how much stuff industry makes.

          You are correct, if it happened like you describe, people could potentially protest against it, out of personal interest. I doubt sincerely that it is even possible to change things at the pace you’ve described though, and it seems like a contrived situation.

          • @Zippy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Recycling is far from eco friendly or a closed loop system as you imply. It may slightly reduce the carbon footprint of consumption but it requires a great deal of energy to do so. From a GHG perspective, in many cases it is only slightly better it than manufacturing from virgin materials.

            Those pop cans and cardboard boxes don’t walk themself back to manufacturing plants and turn back into consumables products with no additional environmental costs. It takes a great deal of energy to get them back into your hands. And that comes at a huge energy cost regardless.

            • Stoneykins [any]
              link
              fedilink
              41 year ago

              You read what I said completely backwards.

              I was not advocating for recycling being the solution, I was saying recycle is not and can never be good enough of a solution. Idk why you misunderstood what I was saying.

              Recycling is not the solution to climate change

      • @Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -11 year ago

        While you are correct in that they have a high level of control over industry I think you are entirely incorrect that they wield that irresponsible. In no way am I suggestion they are particularly concerned about the carbon footprint they overall create but they are extremely concerned but the profit they make. As such industry is highly motivated to be the most efficient they can. And the more efficient you are, typically the less energy you will consume per cog built.

        Ultimately it is up to us alone if we want to consume that ‘cog’ and the carbon footprint it represents.

        • Stoneykins [any]
          link
          fedilink
          -2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “profit” isn’t real, it’s game that wealthy people play. It is a concept of interaction of currency-backed value that all rests on people expecting it to work and exist. They are irresponsible to prioritize endless growth of profits past the point of any perceivable benefit over things like clean air and clean water. Extremely, wildly irresponsible.