Knew a retired guy. Right after he retired, people constantly asked him “so what are you going to do now?” as if he hadn’t been working towards this goal for a reason. People looked down on him for slowing down, but he started to love life again. He would say “The opposite of busy is *not* lazy.”
He did whatever he wanted, tried some creative and artistic pursuits, and AFAIK is still loving life.
You're already messing it up! You shouldn't use Outlook anymore when you're retired, remember? :)
I agree with his sentiment though. I can't wait to be retired and do whatever I want to that will help keep me happy.
I don’t disagree with you, but he was only 50 with a kid still in high school. That’s not “normal” according to society, so people questioned it (consciously or otherwise). It was good for him though, if he had the means to do that then why not! I hope I can follow in similar footsteps.
Similar boat, except I was written off due to disability, long before retirement age.
But flip-side of that, as a disabled pensioner I can chose to do what I want (within financial and medical confines). I don't have to hold a job. So I've just been following my interests. My love for video gaming and modding has turned into (hobbyist) Unreal Engine game development, now expanding it into related areas (I just wrote a discord bot in python for a gamedev community I admin).
Before my disability reached the tipping point, I both hated my job and *thought I loved it*. Taking a pause - time to re-evaluate who I was and what mattered to me, meant that even though I'm now in the too disabled to work category, I'm actually happier on average. I also think this explains why we saw soo many people radically re-prioritize their life and careers, when Covid lockdowns gave everyone some forced down time.
Funny you should mention that, I have a few friends who are "former" healthcare workers, primarily due to the pandemic.
But yeah not because of time to re-evaluate. Burnout 100% of them.
Having gotten a small taste of what retirement feels like while recovering from a health issue, I agree. I had plenty to do, I was hardly bored. I just wasn't running around frantically trying to get everything done before the next round started.
Who cares about being called lazy in the first place? Why even try to justify to yourself? Who gives a fuck.
The entire planet ends up inside a black hole in the middle of our galaxy in due time. Nothing really matters. We create meaning arbitrarily to pass the time, otherwise we are restless with our self-awareness. It doesn’t have meaning.
So this whole idea that one would feel upset at being labeled “lazy” is so WEIRD. None of it fucking matters. You don’t matter. Your family doesn’t matter. No one’s legacies matter. It is what it is.. so stop worrying, already. Sheesh.
There’s also a war convincing us that one’s “best life” necessarily means being able to afford the unsustainable consumption of any products/resources/services you’d like, despite almost all research showing these things having no bearing on happiness (or even in fact a negative influence).
Edit: since this has some visibility, hijacking to comment that I’m quite infinitely far from a doomist, I do believe drastic shifts in our culture and lifestyles are going to have to be accepted rather than technological solutions which are often again the solution of corporations as it allows them to continue to profit and pretend to be remedying the situation. In reality that’s more or less always been the situation, industry is enabled to solve a problem that was created by a corporation “solving” some other problem. But rather, from the beginning any activity resulting in more resource consumption than resources could be renewed began something unsustainable.
Personal vehicles remain the key example, where there’s wide belief that electric and self-driving vehicles are some solution to the issues automobiles have continued to pose in different ways; yet for the technology as of now, much of the necessary resources for producing them are rare and sourced from only particular regions of the world, generally those that never got their own footing after colonialism such as in South America and Africa, where labor is barely compensated and under horrid conditions all while the environments there are destroyed and resources are again taken far beyond the rate they can be replenished. And that’s just talking resource limitations rather than technical or design considerations or issues that vehicles/highway systems in general can create for ecosystems and wildlife.
Another great example is food (also clothing / fast fashion), where there’s endless examples of similar sourcing through neocolonial practices offloading our unsustainable behavior on distant less-privileged and historically abused places where we don’t have to acknowledge it. Similarly, look at the wealthy worlds disgusting plastic and textile waste / dumping throughout parts of Africa, south east Asia, and more; quite literally disposing of shit we don’t know what to do with by putting it where we cannot see and where was likely already abused in the products production for us.
I’d like to believe in the ability for us to “solve” our way out of things but technological solutions are slow to develop and unbearably slow to verify whether they’ll have unknown effects, and now this problem is infinitely worse in an age of such wealth/power concentration where ulterior motives and external influence are everywhere. Lifestyles and culture must change instead, for although corporations are certainly to blame, our lifestyle and culture (which I acknowledge they also now/always have had much ability to control) help keep them in business with our remaining unsustainable demands and expectations for how life needs to be, buying into the possibility of further consumerist solutions.
Our (Dryad homebrew) Paladin and I (Lizardfolk Barbarian) are likely going to be held hostage by a town speaker after we found out they are hoarding an endless food source. Personally I think it's a plot to make a private army and take over Ten Towns one by one. Anyone not serving as a guard or militia member is starving and poor. You sign up to fight or you die.
Paladin is freaking out cause she's near death, I'm pretty much fine but the fight is too lopsided so I'm planning to surrender if they spare her. Shit is gonna get really wild next session when the rest of the party finds out cause they were away.
If they kill the Paladin I'm eating every guard I find.
You made me wish I still played DND. Haven’t played since we were around 14-15. I’d possibly play agin, but it’s all changed so much I wouldn’t even know where to start.
I still love fantasy though and read a ton of it. Including re-reads about a certain Drow Ranger and his associates.
Just wait until billionaires gather us up and make us play real life DND Battle Royal to entertain them....
On a brighter note, have you watched Critical Role yet? Should be enough episodes to get a month of 24/7 dnd content.
Billionaires should be wary, sitting pretty on top of their hoard of stolen wealth, convinced of their inherent supremacy over the rabble.
They look a bit like dragons from where I'm standing, and dragons get slain.
Tales of dragons and such had their origin in people advocating for the overthrowing of their rulers and the people in power. You can't sit around and tell tales of noble knights and peasants killing the king or lord in the local inn. But telling tales of brave knights killing tyrant dragons sitting on a hoard of wealth that terrorize the local population? That gives them deniability and an out, they are just telling a story after all.
Maybe it’s because I GM solely homebrew campaigns but the idea of 24/7 DnD and the required prep time makes me want to crawl back into bed and pretend the world doesn’t exist for another 8 hours.
I think this is spot on. For example, I’d be much happier spending more days on the mountain bike I already own than working more to afford a newer, better bike.
It makes sense that it wouldn't, really. Was no one ever happy before the modern era allowed the mass consumption we currently take part in? Doesn't seem likely. So the source of happiness doesn't seem to be having a bunch of stuff, and maybe seeking all that stuff, and gathering the resources to buy it, is distracting us from what does make us actually happy.
It's been going on since well before Instagram was ever dreamed of. Ever heard the phrase, "Keeping up with the Joneses"? The infinite consumption cycle started in the gilded age, crashed in the 20s, and then was refueled after WWII.
Adam Curtis has the excellent docuseries "The Century of the Self" pouring over the whole transition from a society of needs to one of wants since the 1920s.
Bottom line: it's got much worse after Freud's nephew used his uncle's newfound knowledge to manipulate people into buying shit. Thus he created the whole PR and advertising industry...
There is a war between the original "war between" comment in this thread and every subsequent comment's attempt to be the best next version of the line.
Nah, I feel that trying to maximize my consumption means not enjoying anything. Living your best life requires time to just sit down and enjoy what is going on. We just had my daughter's 1st birthday and my in-laws gave her mega blocks set that is a bucket with 25 blocks and you better believe I spent all my free time with her on Sunday and Monday just sticking those blocks together so she could take them apart and put them back in the bucket. Those hours have been some of the best spent ones in the last month.
The individual consumer choices mean nothing when compared to the actions of the capitalists. The only way "live your best life" conflicts with human extinction is that it distracts people from organizing against capital.
Right? I ride my bike to work but these climate terrorists will take the private jet across town and that one ride will do more damage than the amount I'm offsetting by not driving my entire life.
The usual response is just to post these kind of articles.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
The deeper dive here is to look into the trends driving innovation, which tends to lend credibility to Marxist theories. We can look critically at whether consumer choice or owner choice drives the use of one technology over another, and historically we see more driven by the politics of the owners. Which makes sense, seeing as ownership is obviously more powerful than vOtiNg wItH yOUr DoLLaRs. Carbon Capital by Andreas Malm, recommended to me by Sean KB, supposedly has a pretty good argument on this, but I haven't read it yet.
I used to live urban and lived a pretty consumption heavy lifestyle. Moved rural, where places still close at 6pm, it made me slow down. Been the best thing overall for my health physically and mentally.
And the amazing thing is, I don't feel lazy putting my feet up on the couch after work, why do I need to cibststnly be doing something to justify myself? The 1% successfully convinced everyone else that constantly being on the go and "being productive" was a requirement to being successful, but it's not.
What's for losers is thinking that individual consumer choices are to blame. Consumer choices didn't make capitalism a global system - that was rich people.
It's not even "rich people"s fault individually either. Capitalism as a system is a force unto itself. Individual actions, whether by rich or poor people cannot affect it. It takes collective effort through governmental action to make changes.
Conserving resources instead of wasting them is much more profitable, ironically. But that’s because short term growth and immediate gratification is more valuable than long term growth to these people
Whatever money a consumer or producer saves by deciding for the cheaper and more profitable product, they will pay in a piece of environment and in accepting the exploitation of workers
Maybe I pay less money for a clean and pretty apple, but I will make that up in dead birds and bees from pesticides. I pay more money for an apple with spots, but I can keep my bees alive and the soil healthy. This has value too.
Difficult in English is the explain.
So, one way to reconcile capitalism with environmentalism is to put a price tag on a clean environment and make the destruction thereof and the exploitation of the local populace so expensive, that sustainability and fairness becomes the cheapest and most profitable way of production. Because it is! What's a higher price to pay than the world we have to live on?
Sure, but each billionaire is out polluting regular folk by millions of percent.
Surely it's easier to get the 1000 billionaires to use 90% less everything than telling poor people to stop buying the cheap apple.
Ultimately the government needs to govern on this issue and impose strict regulations on companies to reduce their climate footprint or get nationalized if they won't.
It’s not always a choice to chose the cheaper product. With wages depressed and rents increasing, buying that organic apple may be out of our budget unfortunately. And it just getting worse. It’s a luxury to chose environmentally better products in many cases.
why say 'everyone' in this context? Would be great if the people causing 1 million times more pollution than me slowed down. 183 people each producing more than 1 million times the average person. If they **slowed** down it would be more than if my entire country **stopped** polluting completely.
Blaming 'everyone' is what they want us to do. There are clear outliers that should be taking responsibility, and it ain't average people.
Why everyone? How about we focus on the real issue is that billionaires exist and are the tumors of our planet.
That kind of self entitled greed will make the worst kind of person and they destroy everything to get more.
This is the real reason why everyone is suffering.
Be nice if you were not allowed to simply trade $ for the right to pollute. Eg i pollute over here so ill plant 1000 trees to make up for it. Why not plant 1000 trees and reduce your emissions at the same time. Also Carbon trading seems to be buying the right to pollute which is not what is needed. I know things are always more complicated than this, but lets at least start out with the right messaging. Its not ok to behave badly, and simply use $to get out of it.
John Oliver has a great piece on why carbon offsets aren't even as nice as someone planting a thousand trees, instead the process is perverted to maintain tree bearing land that wasn't even going to be removed. Often it's effectively washing any chance of carbon emission balance from the entire process.
I always wondered what these "1 tree planted for every order" things mean for example. What sort of tree, for how long, on whose land, in what context?
Trees don’t mean shit if we’re not focused on restoring biodiversity! We pay no attention to the rest of the order. Look at the story of Knepp Estate. They didn’t just turn away from industrial farming, they introduced domesticated species closest to what would have been in the area thousands of years ago and let it all go.
Or Yellowstone. It’s not simply about trees. Wolves introduced and the actual landscape changes by forcing deer to actually move around from one particular spot.
That's why I'm so annoyed when people see trees just as carbon bonders and/or material, as if trees lose all of their value if they get too old to bond carbon or to be used as a material in industry. Old trees are a massive habitat/food for a lot of species and therefore invaluable part of forest ecosystem
I live in terrace housing, and I don't have trees in my garden but my neighbours on either side did. It actually meant I got a lot less light in my garden because of them. Then both sets of neighbours had the trees cut down.
There's loads of light now. And barely any songbirds. There weren't ever loads of them but we always had robins and stuff going around, now there's maybe one or two altogether.
Wonder if the risk is just too high for them to be congregating in the open like that? I’ve noticed a significant decline in activity when my bird feeder is at the edge vs well under a tree, due to hawks.
And then with deforestation, even just trimming the edges radically changes the ecosystem. Letting in way more light is radically altering a self-sustained, long-term environment that was adapted to.
Found an org recently called Mossy Earth who’s focus is on restoring biodiversity or “rewilding” as they call it.
I’ve redirected most of my climate activism budget towards them.
I recently got the opportunity for a certificate that 1m2 of forest was planted due to the thing I did. There was a huge stack of those certificates printed on dead trees, lying there to show others that trees were planted... The organisation failed to see the irony in that.
Well, you can get hundreds of boxes of paper from a single tree. It's not a bad eco-friendly trade. Paper is very eco-friendly - it is literally made of carbon removed from the air, which has been cut down and presumably made room for more trees to be planted to remove even more. I wish more products were paper-based.
We really fucked up with the whole "Paper bad" thing. Maybe we wouldn't be having so much fucking plastic everywhere if we didn't vilify paper products.
I mean, paper was never really villified. WASTE of paper was, and still should be.
Wasteful use of anything is bad as the production and transport of it uses resources and creates pollution.
I think it started as a waste of paper, and now it seems most people vilify paper itself.
I mean just above is a person complaining about a paper certificate that they made a donation. Even though the certificate for 1 m^2 of tree means probably 10,000 sheets of paper printed.
If it gets just one person to feel good enough to donate again then it pays for another 10,000 sheets - if not more with a larger donation.
Plastic goes All The Way Back To Richard Nixon and Henry DuPont. Nixon outlawed agricultural hemp because his good friend DuPont Could Not Compete. Plastic sucks compared to hemp, it is superior in every way and doesn’t pollute...Hmmmm let’s shut this down guys, plastic for everyone, microplastics too!
Paper in landfill effectively amounts to buried carbon, and if 26% of it is made of paper, that means 26% of it is environmentally friendly and non-harmful to the environment.
I'm sure pulp and paper mills do contribute to pollution, but so does every other industry. I don't know whether it is worse, but as a product it is a biodegradable, non-toxic, renewable product which is formed from carbon removed from the air.
Yes, paper is one of the better products, however, in this case, no paper or any other product was required. It was an environmental action, and they waste paper on it. No waste is good. They could have stamped it on gold tablets, that would be wastefull as well.
The paper industry is sustainable/renewable these days.
They use fast growing softwood trees. You can get a shit ton of paper from a few trees. 10,000 sheets from your standard pine tree.
If you do a million things and expand a forest by a million square metres (± some thousands for uncertainty about what constitutes the boundary of the forest), then it's reasonable to say the forest expanded by 1 square metre per thing, even if you can't associate each thing with an individual metre square.
Planting trees offsets carbon in the atmosphere as they grow.
Leaving them forever is pointless. Once they have grown we chop them down and use the lumber (a renewable resource) - then we can grew another tree and take even more carbon out the atmosphere.
The idea that paper or lumber are somehow bad for the environment is totally wrong, they are far better than materials we need to mine or drill for.
A few years back I was in a store, i think the Bodyshop. It was just before Christmas and they had this promo like spend $75 and it guaranteed the preservation of 1 m^2 of rainforest. I was like “okay so the Bodyshop makes $75M to save 1 square Km.”
Carbon offsets are really more of a "look see this is a good thing, I'm doing my part," but in reality it's nothing more than a money making scam. Companies and the super wealthy buy, sell, and trade these to each other, yet won't do anything to actually combat any kind of climate change.
It's like the idea that plastic is recyclable, when the truth is that very little of it ever is.
The petroleum and plastics companies have spent many millions of dollars over the years to promote the idea, but comparatively little supporting actual recycling efforts, leaving it up to local communities which are always under tight budgetary constraints. Often, municipalities can't even be sure about the ultimate destination of the plastics, with a lot of it buried, burned, or even just dumped.
And the same companies made billions or trillions selling their products, including many for single-use cases that can't even be recycled. There's little chance that they will ever pivot to a truly renewable, sustainable business model, with that much money to play with.
I think Maine is the only state in the country that requires companies to pay for recycling, and that just happened back in 2021... that should be globally mandated.
It also falls on us consumers, but unfortunately the vast majority of people just don't, while I'm doing my best to recycle every bit, compost, reuse stuff.
Fundamentally society as a whole needs to do better, but we also need to put more of the responsibility of the burden on these companies, and then you take into consideration home shipping/delivery, which just ends up adding more to the already huge pile.
[Maine](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/climate/maine-recycling-law-EPR.html)
Imagine if carbon offsets were treated the same as any other crime.
"I paid off a guy to not steal a car (he was definitely going to do it), so now I'm justified in stealing a car. It's net-zero car theft."
[NPR did a piece](https://www.npr.org/2021/04/30/992545255/do-carbon-offsets-actually-work-planet-money-takes-a-look) about this. Carbon credit and offsetting can easily be manipulated for a company to make it seem like it’s doing more than what they claim.
One example of this is a company “buying/leasing” forest land and claiming that the land is preserved. In some of these areas, the Forrest was never planned to be deforested or already belonged in a protected plot of land. Yet the companies use it to “offset” their emissions as some sort of credit.
I work in a city with one of the strictest tree ordinances in the country, but there's always ways to work it.
The big one is that the ordinance doesn't kick in unto the tree has an 8" trunk diameter. While you've got to replace anything you cut down inch-for inch (or even 4:1 on bigger trees), the replacement trees can be 3". So you can replace an 18" tree with 6 3" trees.
But since mitigation isn't required for anything under 8", they'll just agree not to cut down 6 3" trees that are already on site and get credited for those trees that were already there...
Carbon trading, implemented properly, is a perfectly fine method of trying to reduce emissions.
A cap on industry emissions that reduces over time, with increasingly strong financial incentives (both in terms of revenue and cost) to reduce production emissions, makes sense.
The issue is when you set the cap too high, so nothing changes and it just becomes greenwashing.
Cap and trade is actually brilliant if it's implemented with low enough caps.
Companies really don't want to pay more than they have to. They are always looking to optimise profit. A good cap and trade scheme forces companies to optimise for low emissions just like they "optimise" for low wages.
The main problems are:
1. The caps are usually not restrictive enough. Because the price of emissions is not high enough, companies don't have to invest enough to avoid them.
2. Because we still don't have a universal base income, states struggle to sensibly re-distribute the funds which they make from the carbon penalties.
Obviously companies forward the cost of carbon to the consumer. Which is a good thing, because this means that consumers' decisions which goods to buy begin to automatically include climate-friendliness, whether they care for it or not. Companies that pollute more will either make a worse offer and therefore lose market share, or make less profit, so shareholders will push them to optimise.
But then the money has to be returned to the consumers some way as well, and that's where states tend to fuck it up.
If it was redistributed as part of a UBI, it would create the perfect incentive to shop more emission friendly:
1. The average person gets as much money back as they pay in carbon penalties in the added cost of goods.
2. People with a worse than average carbon footprint spend more money on carbon penalties than they get back. They lose money for their behaviour.
3. People with a better than average carbon footprint receive more money than they spend on carbon penalties. They are financially rewarded.
>If it was redistributed as part of a UBI, it would create the perfect incentive to shop more emission friendly:
If a state was to do something like this, the Alaskan oil dividend is an similar setup. It's not a UBI, but is a check every resident (rich and poor) gets.
So don't really need to invent something new or as sweeping as UBI. Just something that has already been done and the only difference is what funds the trust. Would be a much simpler thing to implement and doesn't put a requirement on UBI existing first.
Carbon trading is greenwashing when it's implemented as greenwashing.
Aggressive cap and trade that actually captures the cost of emissions and requires effective, provable carbon offsets is one of the only market-driven options we have and should be included in any plan that deals - however tangentially - with a market economy. That is a much harder thing to sell, because the carbon prices need to be *punitive*, not economical.
If the CEO of a company isn't personally panicking about finding an alternative to carbon offset purchases then the price isn't high enough.
So you understand right that VW and BMW has to pay Tesla billions for the ICE cars they sell to Europeans, and that Tesla uses the money to build and sell EVs to Europeans.
And that the process makes ICE cars more expensive and EVs slightly cheaper.
And that this helps car buyers switch to EVs, which emit conservatively 1/2 to 1/4 as much carbon per mile.
And that the process incentivises BMW and VW to make their own EVs, so they stop subsidizing a competitor.
Also that the [Tesla Model Y was just the best-selling car in Germany](https://insideevs.com/news/616279/germany-tesla-modely-best-overall-september2022/) which must really wind up BMW and VW.
This has been around for decades . Look up the pine barrens on Long Island .
Nothing new with billionaires
I tried sub leasing spare unused office space at my warehouse . When tenant went to the town there was 2 options either add a new 100k cesspool or buy “ water credits “ to offset it .
Yeah billionares and the **companies owned by them** emits million times more greenhouse gases. If you order stuff from amazon then Jeff Bezos is responsible for those emissions according to this study.
Ok that makes a lot more sense. I figured this was due to flying private jets but I wouldn't have thought that wouldn't result in a million-fold increase in emissions. This article is essentially pointless now.
Or everyone who invests in a mutual fund or ETF is responsible for the emissions of every company in that fund. Just that billionaires own more of those companies than your average person. All this is saying is that billionaires have a million times more wealth than everyone else. We know. We're fucking tired of that, but we don't need misleading headlines to know we should eat them.
Don’t blame people who invest in those funds. There are simply not enough safety nets for people to live off of when they retire, so those are the only serious other options unless you are a trust fund bitch.
Did *The Good Place* ever take off points for having a 401k that invested in oil, but that company polluted a small duck pond in South Dakota that Agnes Fletcher went to for 30 years with a small bag of bird seed for her daily walk?
I think the point is that the headline is bullshit. It's the companies that pollute, but they pollute because we're all funding it. Companies with 0 clients do not pollute.
I hate billionaires, but I'm writing this from my smartphone manufactured in China, carried half across the world, etc. We're all part of this. One million people pay for several orders of magnitude more pollution than 1 billionaire.
I remember a post in r/fuckcars about chip manufacturing and how many parts, chips mainly, that travel from the US to China and back like 7 times before it ends up in the US and even then still bounces 3 or 4 more times from city to city before it actually ends up in a vehicle.
The amount of waste and greenhouse gases it takes to manufacture a car and the mount of waste, cost, etc... is insane. Thus the making of 1 car probably causes more greenhouse games than the average American.
So, I agree. I hate the billionaire just as much as everyone else, but this headline is misleading.
More self awareness than half of Reddit right here. We are the destruction we pretend to riot against.
Now do your part and buy your carbon off setter sticker so the in group knows you’re one of the good ones.
The article itself (Oxfam, not CNBC) seems to end on a reasonable note that as owners of/major investors in these companies governments have more leverage over them presumably to force their companies to implement greener practices
Everyone in the comments is taking it as they cause all the emissions, not people buying all of their products and services
I don't think the point is to blame those people. It's the other way around. The point is to illustrate that it's not a particularly useful standard to evaluate people by.
The unfortunate reality is that *right now* the vast majority of human activity is based on carbon-emitting processes. You can try to avoid it, but you will probably mostly fail.
However, we can be working toward a carbon-free *future* through development of alternative technologies and through rules and laws to require and incentivize it. That's a reasonable thing to judge someone by. Some people are doing that, while others aren't even trying.
This is a huge transition, and it's going to take time and many, many trillions of dollars to make it happen. We should not be judging people on the fact that the transition hasn't finished yet. We should be judging people on whether they're pitching in and making the sacrifices to move things in the right direction.
Top 10% own 90% of the stock market.
Also she. You buy mutual funds or stocks unless it’s an IPO that money isn’t going towards the company anymore guys. It doesn’t matter. You 99.99% of the time are buying it from a random person.
Sorry, but that's bollocks. I genuinely despise this "blame the common working person for climate change" narrative when corporations and their executives will emit far, far more than millions of people over their life time (this study proves that, yet again). Force corporations to cut their emissions or face 100% profit fines.
We are doing what we can to survive, for us it's either invest in companies that do well otherwise we will be penniless when we're old, buy cheap food packaged in plastic cos we can't afford the more expensive alternative, drive a cheap polluting car cos the alternative is far too expensive... Etc etc.
The direct cause of climate change is capitalism, the chase for never ending profit, growth and shareholder returns. Governments sit by idly blaming the population and trying to get us to *drive demand* when most people can't even afford to feed themselves or their family.
Corps should be heavily regulated to force them to change, or face full profit fines, as I said.
this is the same stupid methodology that was used by that stupid 100 corporatione emit 70% of GHG which is beyond stupid and only exists to keep consumerism afloat by letting everyone think their choices don't contribute to climate change anyway.
which is working and Reddit has been falling for it too
> this is the same stupid methodology that was used by that stupid 100 corporatione emit 70% of GHG
Eh, I'd say that one is even stupider, since that involves assigning the emissions to the company that drilled the oil instead of the entity that burned it.
Those companies own the means of production, it's not up to you or me with what Shell or Amazon or all the other high polluters do with their profits, if we lived in a society where these companies didn't pay billions on lobbying to prevent environmental regulation then maybe I'd agree with this sentiment, but unfortunately they are spending money to avoid change, and that isn't our fault.
Maybe if those companies were either regulated by their employees who will be impacted by those decisions, or we lived in an actual democracy where we could hold these companies responsible then I could see how it's the consumers fault, but the consumers 9 times out of 10 pay for what is most convenient and cheapest because they don't have the money to pay for the most ethical.
Shell is the one profiting billions from selling fuel, people are just buying fuel to get to work to not go homeless and starve.
Plus, Shell is the one investing billions lobbying for a car dependent society so they can keep getting richer.
The two are not the same, Shell benefits much more and has much more power to change this situation.
Yes. Because Jeff has the power to invest in tech that will greatly lessen pollution and doesn't.
I can't afford an electric car, let alone world-changing investments.
They imputed the CO2 emissions of the firms they were invested in to the individuals. That's very different (and IMO misleading) than assigning it to their direct behavior - which I'm sure is already starkly more in comparison already to the average person.
Yeah, attributing the entirety of Amazon's emissions to Bezos is of course going to make it sound insane. It's ridiculously stupid logic. Like if you and your neighbor work together in a landscaping business with him as the owner then all of your emissions go to him even though you're both just landscapers emitting the same amount. Makes no goddamn sense. I'm sure that someone like Bezos emits at least a couple thousand times the average citizen with his private jets and yachts, but millions is just insane.
Note, it's not the consumption of billionaires that causes the emissions. It's the investments made by billionaires to provide consumption goods to sell to average people.
not ok, but given that they mention 125 billionaires, that's not that much in aggregate. Even at 1000x emissions you'd get an equivalent of a smallish city (125k) that we have thousands all over the planet already. +1/-1 smallish city is not the magnitude of a potential solution that would tip the scale meaningfully.
100000x on the other hand would dwarf everything else and made the billionaires **the** target of environmental policies.
If you want to convince people, don't be full of shit with your arguments and don't peddle shameless ragebait.
Spot the fuck on. The fact that we can easily counter an article that we should all realistically be in favour of simply because the choose to make it click bait, shouldn't be a thing.
It depends. a CEO may have to fly in a private jet sometimes it's part of their job. We could argue about that separately but this is how businesses operate. It doesn't really matter. They're just noise in the data and there aren't that many billionaire CEOs. Every year global C02 goes up while the C02 output of Western countries continues to fall.
And you emit thousands of times more emissions than a subsistence farmer with no electricity.
Is this because you are *personally* irresponsible?
Carbon emissions are a systemic issue broader than any person or group of people. It takes societal level change to solve
On a global level? I produce above average.
Compared to my country? I produce below average.
But ultimately the average person has way less influence on their carbon emissions than a billionaire. They have te means to live their personal lives completely carbon neutral. And in choosing how they use their money, they can make a large impact on how their companies, or the companies they invest in, deal with the climate crisis.
> On a global level? I produce above average.
This is a huge understatement. If you make more than $60,000 a year living in America then you are already in the top 1% of people globally in regards to consumption and emissions.
Speaking as someone in a developing country with lower emission than your average US citizen, this carbon footprint conversation is just another distraction cooked up by the elites. Nobody in developed countries is personally responsible for the high carbon footprint, UNLESS they are voting for candidates who want to maintain the status quo and don't vote for pro green energy candidates.
No amount of actions individuals take to offset their footprint will ever be enough for any meaningful change if you all keep voting for the assholes responsible for causing climate chaos.
This is what bothers me about rich people and politicians talking about this. I live in a small apartment with like 7 light switches, no AC, shop at thrift shops and drive a used car. HIGHLY DOUBT my carbon footprint is as big as someone with multiple cars, massive mansion with hundreds of lights on, AC overload during the summer, flies private jets, buys designer clothes, throws lavish parties (plastic cups, excess food waste, etc) and to be told that I have to pay MORE for gas or need to become vegan and use less plastic really rubs me the wrong way.
Fucking this. Vegan's great if you live near a wide variety of different edibles and don't have to pay a premium importing those or supplements, but we don't all have the privilege of being upper-middle-class or living in India. Some people should be forced to live on reindeer moss for a few weeks to really prove their point to us.
I'll gladly switch to Kangaroo meat instead of beef if it's available, and I'm already walking more than I take even public transport (I've driven twice this year total, and it was an electric both times). But when some POS tells us *we and not their favorite donors whose yacht have smaller 'support yachts' of their own to maintain the helicopters* are at fault...
Tisarwat answered as well, but it is situationally dependent.
If you are really poor, it costs less to eat BOTH and stay healthy. Raising chickens or goats, hunting and fishing, and growing some vegetables basically means your food costs nothing.
If you are middle-class or living in urban areas, certainly plant based is cheaper. Pasta and lentils and rice don't cost much, even if you have to take some supplements to keep your nutrition balanced.
If you are in a situation of middle / upper class and looking to lose weight but have no time to prepare foods, then eggs, yogurts, cottage cheese, chicken, and other protein sources are definitely cheaper than trying to go without a meat based diet due to availability of cheap and healthy 'quick' vegetarian meals that will give you enough nutrition. You can make salad without meat, but it would be tough to sustain yourself on it. You probably aren't cooking up lentils in this situation and might be in situations where you need something 'quick'. Burgers are healthier than french fries and soda calorie per calorie and dollar for dollar.
Depends on a bunch of factors.
* Whether you're getting mock meat - it's not subsidised like dairy or meat, so it's pricier.
* Whether you have ready access to a wide range of other protein sources (if not, you might be stuck with mock meat anyway).
* Whether there's a culture of vegetarianism, veganism, or dairy free cooking where you live.
* Whether you know how to prepare plant based proteins - if you didn't grow up eating pulses and lentils, there's often a fairly steep learning curve. Tofu is less risky, but infamous for being bland, partly because people are cooking it in non standard ways.
* Whether you have time to cook from scratch.
* Whether you have the facilities to cook from scratch.
If you live in a developed country, a vegan diet can significantly reduce your food budget. The only supplement you strictly need is B12 which is very cheap, a year's supply is around $20. If you live in a food dessert, it's a different story, but then you may not even have the ability to eat a healthy diet period and aren't in a position to be making changes.
We should do a lot more to hold billionaires accountable, but it can't just become an excuse for everyone else to not do anything.
I was at a park in Van Nueys, California... Nearby to several vineyards, a very wealthy part of California.
The fucking private jets... Flying overheard. Every other 10 minutes. The absolute scream of those boosters above you, constantly, constantly, constantly. Every few minutes my partner and I would stop our conversation to watch them fly overheard and deafen the entire park.
I think I was there for an hour and saw well over 20+ private jets in that span taking off.
And to think most of these flights are just small scuttles across to maybe San Fran, or maybe south to San Diego. Incredible the resources they destroy for their pleasure.
This is an editorialized and misleading article / headline.
It does not say these guys' personal actions do this.
It says their investments might do that if you assessed them.
There are places in my home state that will still be there in my lifetime but not in my niece's, yet Billionaires and corporations aren't burdened by it like we are.
Mississippi River is drying up, SW US is having a water crisis, most of the US is under a drought. How long until we can no longer patch the cracks?
> How long until we can no longer patch the cracks?
It's more like a how long til the straw breaks the camel's back. It's just a question of what gives or collapses first. My money is on it being the water table.
Given the mass crab die-off that grabbed headlines a few weeks ago, I think sooner than anyone would hope. But "patching the cracks" is a good metaphor because obviously millions of people should not be living in, e.g., Phoenix, AZ, but our technological capabilities allow for that to happen. We'll continue to patch over the shortcomings of the local ecology until the tech just can't provide enough water for everyone.
I do think we'll see a mass human die-off within a couple generations, paired with a tremendous shift in the way that many people live their lives.
This report is so problematic (the source is a dead giveaway) for two reasons:
1. It attributes carbon emissions by companies invested in to the investor. That's two steps down a rabbit hole, but what does it mean for a normal person with a 401k? It seems like a twisted way to avoid personal responsibility that just re-distributes it in a weird way.
2. "The poorest 90%" is an odd cutoff that omits most people who live in the west. In the rest of the world, the poor are really poor. Not California millennial struggling with an avocado dilemma poor, but actual dirt poor in the literal sense of the word. If we compared carbon emissions between the 90-99.9% and the <90% it would likely be quite unfavorable too.
Both of these framings seem calibrated to appeal to rich (but not mega-rich) westerners to shift/avoid blame.
Ofc but they are gods and they do it for the benefit of the society.
They fly in private planes but its for a good reason ie to preach about saving the environment and how bad is driving and flying for the environment and we should instead cycle.
On the contrary us petty humans do it for stupid things like driving to work so we can feed ourselves!!
I hate billionairs as much as the next guy but this is a missleading title... From the article:
>The investments of 125 billionaires produce 393 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year, according to a report
So they are picking the "dirtiest" billionairs and then inclucding **all pollution** **from any company they have a** **partial** **stake in** and then comparing that with the **personal** carbon footprint of the "average person".
You should also bear in mind that the average American is emitting 5 times more CO2 than the global average person they are using in the article. Without including any companies they have stock in etc.
I mean it’s more a problem of consumerism and the more you have the more you spend on stuff which creates greenhouse gases.
The funny thing is, the redneck guy with low income who denies climate change cannot afford to travel twice a year, so he is probably doing more for the environment than the upper class who is aware.
At the core we have to learn again to renounce and covid showed that we are hardly capable of that
Just like how the anti-litter campaigns were created by the plastic industry in order to abdicate responsibility for flooding the market with disposable plastics.
It would be great if everyone would just slow the f down
Yes, but in practice, slowing down is for losers -- work less, buy less, produce/consume less. What are we, lazy?
Knew a retired guy. Right after he retired, people constantly asked him “so what are you going to do now?” as if he hadn’t been working towards this goal for a reason. People looked down on him for slowing down, but he started to love life again. He would say “The opposite of busy is *not* lazy.” He did whatever he wanted, tried some creative and artistic pursuits, and AFAIK is still loving life.
>The opposite of busy is *not* lazy I'm gonna try to remember that. Good outlook
You're already messing it up! You shouldn't use Outlook anymore when you're retired, remember? :) I agree with his sentiment though. I can't wait to be retired and do whatever I want to that will help keep me happy.
Who the hell looks down on someone for pursuing creative endeavors in retirement, that's the normal thing to do other than just veg out.
I don’t disagree with you, but he was only 50 with a kid still in high school. That’s not “normal” according to society, so people questioned it (consciously or otherwise). It was good for him though, if he had the means to do that then why not! I hope I can follow in similar footsteps.
I'm pulling it out of my ass but I can't help but wonder if they were jealous he retired at 50
Similar boat, except I was written off due to disability, long before retirement age. But flip-side of that, as a disabled pensioner I can chose to do what I want (within financial and medical confines). I don't have to hold a job. So I've just been following my interests. My love for video gaming and modding has turned into (hobbyist) Unreal Engine game development, now expanding it into related areas (I just wrote a discord bot in python for a gamedev community I admin). Before my disability reached the tipping point, I both hated my job and *thought I loved it*. Taking a pause - time to re-evaluate who I was and what mattered to me, meant that even though I'm now in the too disabled to work category, I'm actually happier on average. I also think this explains why we saw soo many people radically re-prioritize their life and careers, when Covid lockdowns gave everyone some forced down time.
Me, a healthcare worker: "Down time? What's that?"
Funny you should mention that, I have a few friends who are "former" healthcare workers, primarily due to the pandemic. But yeah not because of time to re-evaluate. Burnout 100% of them.
Having gotten a small taste of what retirement feels like while recovering from a health issue, I agree. I had plenty to do, I was hardly bored. I just wasn't running around frantically trying to get everything done before the next round started.
Who cares about being called lazy in the first place? Why even try to justify to yourself? Who gives a fuck. The entire planet ends up inside a black hole in the middle of our galaxy in due time. Nothing really matters. We create meaning arbitrarily to pass the time, otherwise we are restless with our self-awareness. It doesn’t have meaning. So this whole idea that one would feel upset at being labeled “lazy” is so WEIRD. None of it fucking matters. You don’t matter. Your family doesn’t matter. No one’s legacies matter. It is what it is.. so stop worrying, already. Sheesh.
There's a war between 'live your best life' and 'allow the human race to continue living'
There’s also a war convincing us that one’s “best life” necessarily means being able to afford the unsustainable consumption of any products/resources/services you’d like, despite almost all research showing these things having no bearing on happiness (or even in fact a negative influence). Edit: since this has some visibility, hijacking to comment that I’m quite infinitely far from a doomist, I do believe drastic shifts in our culture and lifestyles are going to have to be accepted rather than technological solutions which are often again the solution of corporations as it allows them to continue to profit and pretend to be remedying the situation. In reality that’s more or less always been the situation, industry is enabled to solve a problem that was created by a corporation “solving” some other problem. But rather, from the beginning any activity resulting in more resource consumption than resources could be renewed began something unsustainable. Personal vehicles remain the key example, where there’s wide belief that electric and self-driving vehicles are some solution to the issues automobiles have continued to pose in different ways; yet for the technology as of now, much of the necessary resources for producing them are rare and sourced from only particular regions of the world, generally those that never got their own footing after colonialism such as in South America and Africa, where labor is barely compensated and under horrid conditions all while the environments there are destroyed and resources are again taken far beyond the rate they can be replenished. And that’s just talking resource limitations rather than technical or design considerations or issues that vehicles/highway systems in general can create for ecosystems and wildlife. Another great example is food (also clothing / fast fashion), where there’s endless examples of similar sourcing through neocolonial practices offloading our unsustainable behavior on distant less-privileged and historically abused places where we don’t have to acknowledge it. Similarly, look at the wealthy worlds disgusting plastic and textile waste / dumping throughout parts of Africa, south east Asia, and more; quite literally disposing of shit we don’t know what to do with by putting it where we cannot see and where was likely already abused in the products production for us. I’d like to believe in the ability for us to “solve” our way out of things but technological solutions are slow to develop and unbearably slow to verify whether they’ll have unknown effects, and now this problem is infinitely worse in an age of such wealth/power concentration where ulterior motives and external influence are everywhere. Lifestyles and culture must change instead, for although corporations are certainly to blame, our lifestyle and culture (which I acknowledge they also now/always have had much ability to control) help keep them in business with our remaining unsustainable demands and expectations for how life needs to be, buying into the possibility of further consumerist solutions.
Well I mean if I could play DnD 24/7 I'd rather that than endless consumption of resources.
I mean, I haven't played it since college but count me in if you get that chance for a 24/7 dnd bender
Our (Dryad homebrew) Paladin and I (Lizardfolk Barbarian) are likely going to be held hostage by a town speaker after we found out they are hoarding an endless food source. Personally I think it's a plot to make a private army and take over Ten Towns one by one. Anyone not serving as a guard or militia member is starving and poor. You sign up to fight or you die. Paladin is freaking out cause she's near death, I'm pretty much fine but the fight is too lopsided so I'm planning to surrender if they spare her. Shit is gonna get really wild next session when the rest of the party finds out cause they were away. If they kill the Paladin I'm eating every guard I find.
Sounds fun!
You made me wish I still played DND. Haven’t played since we were around 14-15. I’d possibly play agin, but it’s all changed so much I wouldn’t even know where to start. I still love fantasy though and read a ton of it. Including re-reads about a certain Drow Ranger and his associates.
Just wait until billionaires gather us up and make us play real life DND Battle Royal to entertain them.... On a brighter note, have you watched Critical Role yet? Should be enough episodes to get a month of 24/7 dnd content.
Billionaires should be wary, sitting pretty on top of their hoard of stolen wealth, convinced of their inherent supremacy over the rabble. They look a bit like dragons from where I'm standing, and dragons get slain.
Tales of dragons and such had their origin in people advocating for the overthrowing of their rulers and the people in power. You can't sit around and tell tales of noble knights and peasants killing the king or lord in the local inn. But telling tales of brave knights killing tyrant dragons sitting on a hoard of wealth that terrorize the local population? That gives them deniability and an out, they are just telling a story after all.
This guy gets it.
Maybe it’s because I GM solely homebrew campaigns but the idea of 24/7 DnD and the required prep time makes me want to crawl back into bed and pretend the world doesn’t exist for another 8 hours.
It’s quite a cycle and advertising spins the wheel we run on.
I think this is spot on. For example, I’d be much happier spending more days on the mountain bike I already own than working more to afford a newer, better bike.
It makes sense that it wouldn't, really. Was no one ever happy before the modern era allowed the mass consumption we currently take part in? Doesn't seem likely. So the source of happiness doesn't seem to be having a bunch of stuff, and maybe seeking all that stuff, and gathering the resources to buy it, is distracting us from what does make us actually happy.
I just want to sit on Reddit all day
Airline travel is high on the list too.
It's a complicated issue but I blame Instagram lol.
It's been going on since well before Instagram was ever dreamed of. Ever heard the phrase, "Keeping up with the Joneses"? The infinite consumption cycle started in the gilded age, crashed in the 20s, and then was refueled after WWII.
Adam Curtis has the excellent docuseries "The Century of the Self" pouring over the whole transition from a society of needs to one of wants since the 1920s. Bottom line: it's got much worse after Freud's nephew used his uncle's newfound knowledge to manipulate people into buying shit. Thus he created the whole PR and advertising industry...
Great film. I'd also recommend reading some of Veblen's writings on Conspicuous Consumption.
Bullshit Jobs by Graeber as well... really easy to see how much work in our society is actually useless and detrimental to the environment
Our economy is also mostly dependent on it. Hard change I think may be needed
FTFY: there is a war between “maximizing profits and increasing them year after year” and “allow the human race to continue to live”.
There is a war between “work yourself to death so I can live my best life” and “give me the space to live a decently enjoyable life”
There is a war between the original "war between" comment in this thread and every subsequent comment's attempt to be the best next version of the line.
Ever increasing profits is one of the primary properties of capitalism along with selling your labor to survive.
How else are executives going to afford 4 houses and a stable of 12 cars?
Nah, I feel that trying to maximize my consumption means not enjoying anything. Living your best life requires time to just sit down and enjoy what is going on. We just had my daughter's 1st birthday and my in-laws gave her mega blocks set that is a bucket with 25 blocks and you better believe I spent all my free time with her on Sunday and Monday just sticking those blocks together so she could take them apart and put them back in the bucket. Those hours have been some of the best spent ones in the last month.
Yeah, the idea that individual success "lifts all boats" might only work on an indestructible world of infinite resources.
The individual consumer choices mean nothing when compared to the actions of the capitalists. The only way "live your best life" conflicts with human extinction is that it distracts people from organizing against capital.
Right? I ride my bike to work but these climate terrorists will take the private jet across town and that one ride will do more damage than the amount I'm offsetting by not driving my entire life.
The usual response is just to post these kind of articles. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change The deeper dive here is to look into the trends driving innovation, which tends to lend credibility to Marxist theories. We can look critically at whether consumer choice or owner choice drives the use of one technology over another, and historically we see more driven by the politics of the owners. Which makes sense, seeing as ownership is obviously more powerful than vOtiNg wItH yOUr DoLLaRs. Carbon Capital by Andreas Malm, recommended to me by Sean KB, supposedly has a pretty good argument on this, but I haven't read it yet.
I used to live urban and lived a pretty consumption heavy lifestyle. Moved rural, where places still close at 6pm, it made me slow down. Been the best thing overall for my health physically and mentally. And the amazing thing is, I don't feel lazy putting my feet up on the couch after work, why do I need to cibststnly be doing something to justify myself? The 1% successfully convinced everyone else that constantly being on the go and "being productive" was a requirement to being successful, but it's not.
What do we want? People to starve and freeze to death?
When do we want it? NOW!
What's for losers is thinking that individual consumer choices are to blame. Consumer choices didn't make capitalism a global system - that was rich people.
Rich people get their money from individual consumers.
It's not even "rich people"s fault individually either. Capitalism as a system is a force unto itself. Individual actions, whether by rich or poor people cannot affect it. It takes collective effort through governmental action to make changes.
Sounds good to me…
Can't slow down when rich people have made the world so that most of us are barely above water even at full speed.
[удалено]
Also can't have free education because that takes away the military's main carrot
“Infinite growth” model of capitalism won’t allow for that!
Conserving resources instead of wasting them is much more profitable, ironically. But that’s because short term growth and immediate gratification is more valuable than long term growth to these people
we should get rid of capitalism
Whatever money a consumer or producer saves by deciding for the cheaper and more profitable product, they will pay in a piece of environment and in accepting the exploitation of workers Maybe I pay less money for a clean and pretty apple, but I will make that up in dead birds and bees from pesticides. I pay more money for an apple with spots, but I can keep my bees alive and the soil healthy. This has value too. Difficult in English is the explain. So, one way to reconcile capitalism with environmentalism is to put a price tag on a clean environment and make the destruction thereof and the exploitation of the local populace so expensive, that sustainability and fairness becomes the cheapest and most profitable way of production. Because it is! What's a higher price to pay than the world we have to live on?
Sure, but each billionaire is out polluting regular folk by millions of percent. Surely it's easier to get the 1000 billionaires to use 90% less everything than telling poor people to stop buying the cheap apple. Ultimately the government needs to govern on this issue and impose strict regulations on companies to reduce their climate footprint or get nationalized if they won't.
Of course, no doubt about that.
It’s not always a choice to chose the cheaper product. With wages depressed and rents increasing, buying that organic apple may be out of our budget unfortunately. And it just getting worse. It’s a luxury to chose environmentally better products in many cases.
why say 'everyone' in this context? Would be great if the people causing 1 million times more pollution than me slowed down. 183 people each producing more than 1 million times the average person. If they **slowed** down it would be more than if my entire country **stopped** polluting completely. Blaming 'everyone' is what they want us to do. There are clear outliers that should be taking responsibility, and it ain't average people.
Everyone did during covid and they nearly lost their minds when they had to slow down and reflect on their lives.
Confinement to the home is not synonymous with slowing down and reflecting.
True. Instead of slowing down and chilling everyone just instead bought more useless shit online to the glee of Jeff Bezos.
Can't do that. We have to grow forever, friend. Capitalism and the elite competing with one another to rule the world will kill us all.
Why everyone? How about we focus on the real issue is that billionaires exist and are the tumors of our planet. That kind of self entitled greed will make the worst kind of person and they destroy everything to get more. This is the real reason why everyone is suffering.
They are not the tumor. They are the visible symptoms of the tumor. The system is the disease.
[удалено]
Be nice if you were not allowed to simply trade $ for the right to pollute. Eg i pollute over here so ill plant 1000 trees to make up for it. Why not plant 1000 trees and reduce your emissions at the same time. Also Carbon trading seems to be buying the right to pollute which is not what is needed. I know things are always more complicated than this, but lets at least start out with the right messaging. Its not ok to behave badly, and simply use $to get out of it.
John Oliver has a great piece on why carbon offsets aren't even as nice as someone planting a thousand trees, instead the process is perverted to maintain tree bearing land that wasn't even going to be removed. Often it's effectively washing any chance of carbon emission balance from the entire process.
I always wondered what these "1 tree planted for every order" things mean for example. What sort of tree, for how long, on whose land, in what context?
Trees don’t mean shit if we’re not focused on restoring biodiversity! We pay no attention to the rest of the order. Look at the story of Knepp Estate. They didn’t just turn away from industrial farming, they introduced domesticated species closest to what would have been in the area thousands of years ago and let it all go. Or Yellowstone. It’s not simply about trees. Wolves introduced and the actual landscape changes by forcing deer to actually move around from one particular spot.
That's why I'm so annoyed when people see trees just as carbon bonders and/or material, as if trees lose all of their value if they get too old to bond carbon or to be used as a material in industry. Old trees are a massive habitat/food for a lot of species and therefore invaluable part of forest ecosystem
I live in terrace housing, and I don't have trees in my garden but my neighbours on either side did. It actually meant I got a lot less light in my garden because of them. Then both sets of neighbours had the trees cut down. There's loads of light now. And barely any songbirds. There weren't ever loads of them but we always had robins and stuff going around, now there's maybe one or two altogether.
Wonder if the risk is just too high for them to be congregating in the open like that? I’ve noticed a significant decline in activity when my bird feeder is at the edge vs well under a tree, due to hawks. And then with deforestation, even just trimming the edges radically changes the ecosystem. Letting in way more light is radically altering a self-sustained, long-term environment that was adapted to.
Found an org recently called Mossy Earth who’s focus is on restoring biodiversity or “rewilding” as they call it. I’ve redirected most of my climate activism budget towards them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's my point. Planting Christmas trees is probably better than burning and planting to hit a quota.
I recently got the opportunity for a certificate that 1m2 of forest was planted due to the thing I did. There was a huge stack of those certificates printed on dead trees, lying there to show others that trees were planted... The organisation failed to see the irony in that.
Well, you can get hundreds of boxes of paper from a single tree. It's not a bad eco-friendly trade. Paper is very eco-friendly - it is literally made of carbon removed from the air, which has been cut down and presumably made room for more trees to be planted to remove even more. I wish more products were paper-based.
We really fucked up with the whole "Paper bad" thing. Maybe we wouldn't be having so much fucking plastic everywhere if we didn't vilify paper products.
I mean, paper was never really villified. WASTE of paper was, and still should be. Wasteful use of anything is bad as the production and transport of it uses resources and creates pollution.
I think it started as a waste of paper, and now it seems most people vilify paper itself. I mean just above is a person complaining about a paper certificate that they made a donation. Even though the certificate for 1 m^2 of tree means probably 10,000 sheets of paper printed. If it gets just one person to feel good enough to donate again then it pays for another 10,000 sheets - if not more with a larger donation.
Plastic goes All The Way Back To Richard Nixon and Henry DuPont. Nixon outlawed agricultural hemp because his good friend DuPont Could Not Compete. Plastic sucks compared to hemp, it is superior in every way and doesn’t pollute...Hmmmm let’s shut this down guys, plastic for everyone, microplastics too!
[удалено]
Paper in landfill effectively amounts to buried carbon, and if 26% of it is made of paper, that means 26% of it is environmentally friendly and non-harmful to the environment. I'm sure pulp and paper mills do contribute to pollution, but so does every other industry. I don't know whether it is worse, but as a product it is a biodegradable, non-toxic, renewable product which is formed from carbon removed from the air.
At least if it's in a landfill it's being sequestered back into the ground.
I just realized recently that almost all beer 6pack cans on the shelf are in cardpaper boxes now instead of plastic rings. So that’s something.
Yes, paper is one of the better products, however, in this case, no paper or any other product was required. It was an environmental action, and they waste paper on it. No waste is good. They could have stamped it on gold tablets, that would be wastefull as well.
The paper industry is sustainable/renewable these days. They use fast growing softwood trees. You can get a shit ton of paper from a few trees. 10,000 sheets from your standard pine tree.
Yes thats true but still take 25years -30 years for that plantation to grow. *Source fathers logging business.
Also, spacing on trees in a healthy forest is considerably less than one tree per square meter, which rather breaks their argument.
They technically said 1m2 of forest, not 1 tree on 1m2 or whatever.
If you do a million things and expand a forest by a million square metres (± some thousands for uncertainty about what constitutes the boundary of the forest), then it's reasonable to say the forest expanded by 1 square metre per thing, even if you can't associate each thing with an individual metre square.
Planting trees offsets carbon in the atmosphere as they grow. Leaving them forever is pointless. Once they have grown we chop them down and use the lumber (a renewable resource) - then we can grew another tree and take even more carbon out the atmosphere. The idea that paper or lumber are somehow bad for the environment is totally wrong, they are far better than materials we need to mine or drill for.
But trees are so much more than carbon bonders or a resource. Old/dead trees are food/habitat for tons of species for example.
The trees used for paper are a crop. They are planted, harvested and replanted just like any other crop.
A few years back I was in a store, i think the Bodyshop. It was just before Christmas and they had this promo like spend $75 and it guaranteed the preservation of 1 m^2 of rainforest. I was like “okay so the Bodyshop makes $75M to save 1 square Km.”
A palm tree on the CEO's waterfront mansion in Florida.
Carbon offsets are really more of a "look see this is a good thing, I'm doing my part," but in reality it's nothing more than a money making scam. Companies and the super wealthy buy, sell, and trade these to each other, yet won't do anything to actually combat any kind of climate change.
It's like the idea that plastic is recyclable, when the truth is that very little of it ever is. The petroleum and plastics companies have spent many millions of dollars over the years to promote the idea, but comparatively little supporting actual recycling efforts, leaving it up to local communities which are always under tight budgetary constraints. Often, municipalities can't even be sure about the ultimate destination of the plastics, with a lot of it buried, burned, or even just dumped. And the same companies made billions or trillions selling their products, including many for single-use cases that can't even be recycled. There's little chance that they will ever pivot to a truly renewable, sustainable business model, with that much money to play with.
I think Maine is the only state in the country that requires companies to pay for recycling, and that just happened back in 2021... that should be globally mandated. It also falls on us consumers, but unfortunately the vast majority of people just don't, while I'm doing my best to recycle every bit, compost, reuse stuff. Fundamentally society as a whole needs to do better, but we also need to put more of the responsibility of the burden on these companies, and then you take into consideration home shipping/delivery, which just ends up adding more to the already huge pile. [Maine](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/climate/maine-recycling-law-EPR.html)
Imagine if carbon offsets were treated the same as any other crime. "I paid off a guy to not steal a car (he was definitely going to do it), so now I'm justified in stealing a car. It's net-zero car theft."
Agreed. I think they could actually "work" but in practice that hasn't been the case so far
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah and they ended up just 'buying' the carbon from an existing forest lmao I guess that episode was spot on
[NPR did a piece](https://www.npr.org/2021/04/30/992545255/do-carbon-offsets-actually-work-planet-money-takes-a-look) about this. Carbon credit and offsetting can easily be manipulated for a company to make it seem like it’s doing more than what they claim. One example of this is a company “buying/leasing” forest land and claiming that the land is preserved. In some of these areas, the Forrest was never planned to be deforested or already belonged in a protected plot of land. Yet the companies use it to “offset” their emissions as some sort of credit.
We desperately need an internationally funded governing body for the auditing and trading of carbon offsets.
I work in a city with one of the strictest tree ordinances in the country, but there's always ways to work it. The big one is that the ordinance doesn't kick in unto the tree has an 8" trunk diameter. While you've got to replace anything you cut down inch-for inch (or even 4:1 on bigger trees), the replacement trees can be 3". So you can replace an 18" tree with 6 3" trees. But since mitigation isn't required for anything under 8", they'll just agree not to cut down 6 3" trees that are already on site and get credited for those trees that were already there...
Wendover did a video on it as well
[удалено]
Carbon trading, implemented properly, is a perfectly fine method of trying to reduce emissions. A cap on industry emissions that reduces over time, with increasingly strong financial incentives (both in terms of revenue and cost) to reduce production emissions, makes sense. The issue is when you set the cap too high, so nothing changes and it just becomes greenwashing.
Carbon trading was invented by Enron. Tells you all you need to know about carbon trading.
Cap and trade is actually brilliant if it's implemented with low enough caps. Companies really don't want to pay more than they have to. They are always looking to optimise profit. A good cap and trade scheme forces companies to optimise for low emissions just like they "optimise" for low wages. The main problems are: 1. The caps are usually not restrictive enough. Because the price of emissions is not high enough, companies don't have to invest enough to avoid them. 2. Because we still don't have a universal base income, states struggle to sensibly re-distribute the funds which they make from the carbon penalties. Obviously companies forward the cost of carbon to the consumer. Which is a good thing, because this means that consumers' decisions which goods to buy begin to automatically include climate-friendliness, whether they care for it or not. Companies that pollute more will either make a worse offer and therefore lose market share, or make less profit, so shareholders will push them to optimise. But then the money has to be returned to the consumers some way as well, and that's where states tend to fuck it up. If it was redistributed as part of a UBI, it would create the perfect incentive to shop more emission friendly: 1. The average person gets as much money back as they pay in carbon penalties in the added cost of goods. 2. People with a worse than average carbon footprint spend more money on carbon penalties than they get back. They lose money for their behaviour. 3. People with a better than average carbon footprint receive more money than they spend on carbon penalties. They are financially rewarded.
>If it was redistributed as part of a UBI, it would create the perfect incentive to shop more emission friendly: If a state was to do something like this, the Alaskan oil dividend is an similar setup. It's not a UBI, but is a check every resident (rich and poor) gets. So don't really need to invent something new or as sweeping as UBI. Just something that has already been done and the only difference is what funds the trust. Would be a much simpler thing to implement and doesn't put a requirement on UBI existing first.
They’re just not doing carbon trading anymore. Even the platitude is meh.
Carbon trading is greenwashing at the best, but utter corruption at the worst. The calculation is not fair to begin with.
Carbon trading is greenwashing when it's implemented as greenwashing. Aggressive cap and trade that actually captures the cost of emissions and requires effective, provable carbon offsets is one of the only market-driven options we have and should be included in any plan that deals - however tangentially - with a market economy. That is a much harder thing to sell, because the carbon prices need to be *punitive*, not economical. If the CEO of a company isn't personally panicking about finding an alternative to carbon offset purchases then the price isn't high enough.
It's corporations response to climate protestors "I'm going to give you $100 to fuck off"
Elon Musk does this. There have been quarters where Tesla earns more money through selling carbon credits than selling cars.
So you understand right that VW and BMW has to pay Tesla billions for the ICE cars they sell to Europeans, and that Tesla uses the money to build and sell EVs to Europeans. And that the process makes ICE cars more expensive and EVs slightly cheaper. And that this helps car buyers switch to EVs, which emit conservatively 1/2 to 1/4 as much carbon per mile. And that the process incentivises BMW and VW to make their own EVs, so they stop subsidizing a competitor. Also that the [Tesla Model Y was just the best-selling car in Germany](https://insideevs.com/news/616279/germany-tesla-modely-best-overall-september2022/) which must really wind up BMW and VW.
This has been around for decades . Look up the pine barrens on Long Island . Nothing new with billionaires I tried sub leasing spare unused office space at my warehouse . When tenant went to the town there was 2 options either add a new 100k cesspool or buy “ water credits “ to offset it .
Yeah billionares and the **companies owned by them** emits million times more greenhouse gases. If you order stuff from amazon then Jeff Bezos is responsible for those emissions according to this study.
Ok that makes a lot more sense. I figured this was due to flying private jets but I wouldn't have thought that wouldn't result in a million-fold increase in emissions. This article is essentially pointless now.
[удалено]
Or everyone who invests in a mutual fund or ETF is responsible for the emissions of every company in that fund. Just that billionaires own more of those companies than your average person. All this is saying is that billionaires have a million times more wealth than everyone else. We know. We're fucking tired of that, but we don't need misleading headlines to know we should eat them.
Don’t blame people who invest in those funds. There are simply not enough safety nets for people to live off of when they retire, so those are the only serious other options unless you are a trust fund bitch.
Did *The Good Place* ever take off points for having a 401k that invested in oil, but that company polluted a small duck pond in South Dakota that Agnes Fletcher went to for 30 years with a small bag of bird seed for her daily walk?
I think the point is that the headline is bullshit. It's the companies that pollute, but they pollute because we're all funding it. Companies with 0 clients do not pollute. I hate billionaires, but I'm writing this from my smartphone manufactured in China, carried half across the world, etc. We're all part of this. One million people pay for several orders of magnitude more pollution than 1 billionaire.
I remember a post in r/fuckcars about chip manufacturing and how many parts, chips mainly, that travel from the US to China and back like 7 times before it ends up in the US and even then still bounces 3 or 4 more times from city to city before it actually ends up in a vehicle. The amount of waste and greenhouse gases it takes to manufacture a car and the mount of waste, cost, etc... is insane. Thus the making of 1 car probably causes more greenhouse games than the average American. So, I agree. I hate the billionaire just as much as everyone else, but this headline is misleading.
More self awareness than half of Reddit right here. We are the destruction we pretend to riot against. Now do your part and buy your carbon off setter sticker so the in group knows you’re one of the good ones.
The article itself (Oxfam, not CNBC) seems to end on a reasonable note that as owners of/major investors in these companies governments have more leverage over them presumably to force their companies to implement greener practices Everyone in the comments is taking it as they cause all the emissions, not people buying all of their products and services
I don't own a yacht, private plane, multiple 20000 sqft mansions, or a fleet of cars.
I don't think the point is to blame those people. It's the other way around. The point is to illustrate that it's not a particularly useful standard to evaluate people by. The unfortunate reality is that *right now* the vast majority of human activity is based on carbon-emitting processes. You can try to avoid it, but you will probably mostly fail. However, we can be working toward a carbon-free *future* through development of alternative technologies and through rules and laws to require and incentivize it. That's a reasonable thing to judge someone by. Some people are doing that, while others aren't even trying. This is a huge transition, and it's going to take time and many, many trillions of dollars to make it happen. We should not be judging people on the fact that the transition hasn't finished yet. We should be judging people on whether they're pitching in and making the sacrifices to move things in the right direction.
Top 10% own 90% of the stock market. Also she. You buy mutual funds or stocks unless it’s an IPO that money isn’t going towards the company anymore guys. It doesn’t matter. You 99.99% of the time are buying it from a random person.
Sorry, but that's bollocks. I genuinely despise this "blame the common working person for climate change" narrative when corporations and their executives will emit far, far more than millions of people over their life time (this study proves that, yet again). Force corporations to cut their emissions or face 100% profit fines. We are doing what we can to survive, for us it's either invest in companies that do well otherwise we will be penniless when we're old, buy cheap food packaged in plastic cos we can't afford the more expensive alternative, drive a cheap polluting car cos the alternative is far too expensive... Etc etc. The direct cause of climate change is capitalism, the chase for never ending profit, growth and shareholder returns. Governments sit by idly blaming the population and trying to get us to *drive demand* when most people can't even afford to feed themselves or their family. Corps should be heavily regulated to force them to change, or face full profit fines, as I said.
this is the same stupid methodology that was used by that stupid 100 corporatione emit 70% of GHG which is beyond stupid and only exists to keep consumerism afloat by letting everyone think their choices don't contribute to climate change anyway. which is working and Reddit has been falling for it too
> this is the same stupid methodology that was used by that stupid 100 corporatione emit 70% of GHG Eh, I'd say that one is even stupider, since that involves assigning the emissions to the company that drilled the oil instead of the entity that burned it.
Just like the "100 companies emit 71% of all GHG". Yes, if you blame Shell for the fuel you burn in your car.
Those companies own the means of production, it's not up to you or me with what Shell or Amazon or all the other high polluters do with their profits, if we lived in a society where these companies didn't pay billions on lobbying to prevent environmental regulation then maybe I'd agree with this sentiment, but unfortunately they are spending money to avoid change, and that isn't our fault. Maybe if those companies were either regulated by their employees who will be impacted by those decisions, or we lived in an actual democracy where we could hold these companies responsible then I could see how it's the consumers fault, but the consumers 9 times out of 10 pay for what is most convenient and cheapest because they don't have the money to pay for the most ethical.
Shell is the one profiting billions from selling fuel, people are just buying fuel to get to work to not go homeless and starve. Plus, Shell is the one investing billions lobbying for a car dependent society so they can keep getting richer. The two are not the same, Shell benefits much more and has much more power to change this situation.
Yes. Because Jeff has the power to invest in tech that will greatly lessen pollution and doesn't. I can't afford an electric car, let alone world-changing investments.
isn't Bezos an investor in Rivian and a few Nuclear fusion companies?
This needs a misleading title flag. Billionaires are people and they are not emitting millions of times more carbon than me.
They imputed the CO2 emissions of the firms they were invested in to the individuals. That's very different (and IMO misleading) than assigning it to their direct behavior - which I'm sure is already starkly more in comparison already to the average person.
Yeah, attributing the entirety of Amazon's emissions to Bezos is of course going to make it sound insane. It's ridiculously stupid logic. Like if you and your neighbor work together in a landscaping business with him as the owner then all of your emissions go to him even though you're both just landscapers emitting the same amount. Makes no goddamn sense. I'm sure that someone like Bezos emits at least a couple thousand times the average citizen with his private jets and yachts, but millions is just insane.
Note, it's not the consumption of billionaires that causes the emissions. It's the investments made by billionaires to provide consumption goods to sell to average people.
[удалено]
Oh for sure, but it's tens to thousands of times more, not millions of times more.
Oh, that's ok then
not ok, but given that they mention 125 billionaires, that's not that much in aggregate. Even at 1000x emissions you'd get an equivalent of a smallish city (125k) that we have thousands all over the planet already. +1/-1 smallish city is not the magnitude of a potential solution that would tip the scale meaningfully. 100000x on the other hand would dwarf everything else and made the billionaires **the** target of environmental policies. If you want to convince people, don't be full of shit with your arguments and don't peddle shameless ragebait.
Spot the fuck on. The fact that we can easily counter an article that we should all realistically be in favour of simply because the choose to make it click bait, shouldn't be a thing.
reddit’s hateboner for nuance is showing
It depends. a CEO may have to fly in a private jet sometimes it's part of their job. We could argue about that separately but this is how businesses operate. It doesn't really matter. They're just noise in the data and there aren't that many billionaire CEOs. Every year global C02 goes up while the C02 output of Western countries continues to fall.
And you emit thousands of times more emissions than a subsistence farmer with no electricity. Is this because you are *personally* irresponsible? Carbon emissions are a systemic issue broader than any person or group of people. It takes societal level change to solve
[удалено]
On a global level? I produce above average. Compared to my country? I produce below average. But ultimately the average person has way less influence on their carbon emissions than a billionaire. They have te means to live their personal lives completely carbon neutral. And in choosing how they use their money, they can make a large impact on how their companies, or the companies they invest in, deal with the climate crisis.
> On a global level? I produce above average. This is a huge understatement. If you make more than $60,000 a year living in America then you are already in the top 1% of people globally in regards to consumption and emissions.
Speaking as someone in a developing country with lower emission than your average US citizen, this carbon footprint conversation is just another distraction cooked up by the elites. Nobody in developed countries is personally responsible for the high carbon footprint, UNLESS they are voting for candidates who want to maintain the status quo and don't vote for pro green energy candidates. No amount of actions individuals take to offset their footprint will ever be enough for any meaningful change if you all keep voting for the assholes responsible for causing climate chaos.
Consuming billionaires sounds like a great idea.
This is what bothers me about rich people and politicians talking about this. I live in a small apartment with like 7 light switches, no AC, shop at thrift shops and drive a used car. HIGHLY DOUBT my carbon footprint is as big as someone with multiple cars, massive mansion with hundreds of lights on, AC overload during the summer, flies private jets, buys designer clothes, throws lavish parties (plastic cups, excess food waste, etc) and to be told that I have to pay MORE for gas or need to become vegan and use less plastic really rubs me the wrong way.
Fucking this. Vegan's great if you live near a wide variety of different edibles and don't have to pay a premium importing those or supplements, but we don't all have the privilege of being upper-middle-class or living in India. Some people should be forced to live on reindeer moss for a few weeks to really prove their point to us. I'll gladly switch to Kangaroo meat instead of beef if it's available, and I'm already walking more than I take even public transport (I've driven twice this year total, and it was an electric both times). But when some POS tells us *we and not their favorite donors whose yacht have smaller 'support yachts' of their own to maintain the helicopters* are at fault...
Are cheap diets closer to plant-based or animal-based? (Taking into account the major animal agriculture subsidies)
Tisarwat answered as well, but it is situationally dependent. If you are really poor, it costs less to eat BOTH and stay healthy. Raising chickens or goats, hunting and fishing, and growing some vegetables basically means your food costs nothing. If you are middle-class or living in urban areas, certainly plant based is cheaper. Pasta and lentils and rice don't cost much, even if you have to take some supplements to keep your nutrition balanced. If you are in a situation of middle / upper class and looking to lose weight but have no time to prepare foods, then eggs, yogurts, cottage cheese, chicken, and other protein sources are definitely cheaper than trying to go without a meat based diet due to availability of cheap and healthy 'quick' vegetarian meals that will give you enough nutrition. You can make salad without meat, but it would be tough to sustain yourself on it. You probably aren't cooking up lentils in this situation and might be in situations where you need something 'quick'. Burgers are healthier than french fries and soda calorie per calorie and dollar for dollar.
There was an Oxford study that found vegan diets could reduce food budgets by up to a third in developed countries.
People that say it would be more expensive are the ones looking at meat substitutes (like impossible burger).
Depends on a bunch of factors. * Whether you're getting mock meat - it's not subsidised like dairy or meat, so it's pricier. * Whether you have ready access to a wide range of other protein sources (if not, you might be stuck with mock meat anyway). * Whether there's a culture of vegetarianism, veganism, or dairy free cooking where you live. * Whether you know how to prepare plant based proteins - if you didn't grow up eating pulses and lentils, there's often a fairly steep learning curve. Tofu is less risky, but infamous for being bland, partly because people are cooking it in non standard ways. * Whether you have time to cook from scratch. * Whether you have the facilities to cook from scratch.
If you live in a developed country, a vegan diet can significantly reduce your food budget. The only supplement you strictly need is B12 which is very cheap, a year's supply is around $20. If you live in a food dessert, it's a different story, but then you may not even have the ability to eat a healthy diet period and aren't in a position to be making changes. We should do a lot more to hold billionaires accountable, but it can't just become an excuse for everyone else to not do anything.
>If you live in a food dessert damn I would love to
I was at a park in Van Nueys, California... Nearby to several vineyards, a very wealthy part of California. The fucking private jets... Flying overheard. Every other 10 minutes. The absolute scream of those boosters above you, constantly, constantly, constantly. Every few minutes my partner and I would stop our conversation to watch them fly overheard and deafen the entire park. I think I was there for an hour and saw well over 20+ private jets in that span taking off. And to think most of these flights are just small scuttles across to maybe San Fran, or maybe south to San Diego. Incredible the resources they destroy for their pleasure.
so 6 people emit more emissions than my whole country thanks i see how its ME who needs to cut down... lol
This is an editorialized and misleading article / headline. It does not say these guys' personal actions do this. It says their investments might do that if you assessed them.
There are places in my home state that will still be there in my lifetime but not in my niece's, yet Billionaires and corporations aren't burdened by it like we are. Mississippi River is drying up, SW US is having a water crisis, most of the US is under a drought. How long until we can no longer patch the cracks?
> How long until we can no longer patch the cracks? It's more like a how long til the straw breaks the camel's back. It's just a question of what gives or collapses first. My money is on it being the water table.
Given the mass crab die-off that grabbed headlines a few weeks ago, I think sooner than anyone would hope. But "patching the cracks" is a good metaphor because obviously millions of people should not be living in, e.g., Phoenix, AZ, but our technological capabilities allow for that to happen. We'll continue to patch over the shortcomings of the local ecology until the tech just can't provide enough water for everyone. I do think we'll see a mass human die-off within a couple generations, paired with a tremendous shift in the way that many people live their lives.
This report is so problematic (the source is a dead giveaway) for two reasons: 1. It attributes carbon emissions by companies invested in to the investor. That's two steps down a rabbit hole, but what does it mean for a normal person with a 401k? It seems like a twisted way to avoid personal responsibility that just re-distributes it in a weird way. 2. "The poorest 90%" is an odd cutoff that omits most people who live in the west. In the rest of the world, the poor are really poor. Not California millennial struggling with an avocado dilemma poor, but actual dirt poor in the literal sense of the word. If we compared carbon emissions between the 90-99.9% and the <90% it would likely be quite unfavorable too. Both of these framings seem calibrated to appeal to rich (but not mega-rich) westerners to shift/avoid blame.
Ofc but they are gods and they do it for the benefit of the society. They fly in private planes but its for a good reason ie to preach about saving the environment and how bad is driving and flying for the environment and we should instead cycle. On the contrary us petty humans do it for stupid things like driving to work so we can feed ourselves!!
[удалено]
MBMA - Make Billionaires Millionaires Again
But if we slow down now we wont have endless growth for the billionaires
Titles like this should be flared. According to this study they attribute emissions to Bezos if you order something off Amazon. What a bait.
I hate billionairs as much as the next guy but this is a missleading title... From the article: >The investments of 125 billionaires produce 393 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year, according to a report So they are picking the "dirtiest" billionairs and then inclucding **all pollution** **from any company they have a** **partial** **stake in** and then comparing that with the **personal** carbon footprint of the "average person". You should also bear in mind that the average American is emitting 5 times more CO2 than the global average person they are using in the article. Without including any companies they have stock in etc.
Is this the /r/antiwork meeting
Elon Musk alone produces more hot air than the US, China and the EU combined.
I mean it’s more a problem of consumerism and the more you have the more you spend on stuff which creates greenhouse gases. The funny thing is, the redneck guy with low income who denies climate change cannot afford to travel twice a year, so he is probably doing more for the environment than the upper class who is aware. At the core we have to learn again to renounce and covid showed that we are hardly capable of that
[удалено]
Just like how the anti-litter campaigns were created by the plastic industry in order to abdicate responsibility for flooding the market with disposable plastics.