- cross-posted to:
- brainworms@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- brainworms@lemm.ee
You must log in or register to comment.
Sounds like a win win
It’s one of the things that infuriates me when I hear refusals to address climate change: the “business as usual” way of doing things entails externalising countless costs, meaning comparing costs is an apples-and-oranges endeavour.
So in other words, they can afford to pay damages for it. Make them pay!
44% of PROFITS, not gross income.
Which means that even if companies were actually charged for the mess they made, they would be operating in the black AND their profits would still be 66% of normal.
I’ll be that guy… 56% of normal
Oh look here everyone, it’s the math guy!
Probably got some fancy education like primary school.
I mean… It’s really hard to subtract 44 from 100.
I think you will find most companies expect 110% minimum….
What company are you with that makes 110% profit margin? Most I’ve worked at are between 10%-40% and that’s including tech companies.
Think it was just a “always give 110% effort” joke.
So, they’d still be wildly profitable, then?
Huh.
‘Wildly profitable’ would not be enough to them.
‘Extremely profitable’ would not be enough to them.
‘Insanely profitable’ would not be enough to them.
Infinite growth is one hell of a drug.
See also: any other form of cancer.
Infinite growth, until you kill your host. In this case the host is the whole human population.
Honestly, the whole world.
Will it recover? Maybe. Life is resilient.
But we’ve already presided over a pretty quick mass extinction that is still ongoing.
Life on earth has recovered from several mass extinctions, life finds a way. Humans are cooked though. Best of luck to the next sapient species to evolve.
The only time infinite growth would be possible is if we became a space faring species and colonized other planets. That would allow us to continue population growth.
Outside of that, infinite growth is impossible since there’s only so many people on this planet and even less who can afford their products.
Yeah it really drives home just how fucking cooked the situation is.
Sorry kids the biosphere is fucked and human society is an echo of what it once was but there were some rich people who didn’t want to be slightly less rich than they already were.
Huh that’s very reasonable actually. Generous even. Now let’s see what they can pay workers.
As little as they can get away with.
Yeah, I was thinking… only of their profits? So they can afford to still make a shitload of money and not put out all that pollution?
I mean this is paying for damages, not fixing the pollution
I’d like to see a calculation for that. It seems expenses to be more careful would be comparable, but who knows.
So, 44% of their profits are in fact 100% of our futures? That money didn’t come from nowhere. All of us will pay that debt. Reporting needs to start reflecting that, and legislation needs to be enacted to get restitution. Until then, it’s all toothless.
So what are we waiting for? Fuck em
So 44% of corporate profits are subsidized by the fact they don’t have to pay for waste disposal.
Narrator: … and so they never did and also got away with it.
Boo fuckin’ hoo. Pay up, shitbags.
And what if everyone were honest about what these “damages” should be?
Even this fantasy scenario of consequences is an incredibly low-balled Cost of Doing Business of murder.
Corporate pollution and your pollution are the same thing
Say there is a manufactured necessity. One cannot reasonably make it themselves or go without it. The manufacturer chooses to skimp on pollution controls or illegally dump so that the owners can make more money. How is that my fault?
I mean this more literally than you think. What youre thinking of as pollution isnt as prevalent as you think. Its not a lot of ghg’s emitting from factories themselves, and its not factory waste filling dumps. What you throw out as pollution is also the bulk of corporate pollution. Plastic packaging in plastic trash bags in their own packaging to throw out, all of it needing gas burning to ship around. The gas itself being another major “corporate” pollution that oil companies produced but is being burned in your car and the trucks delivering goods to you. You demand all of this pollution.
I don’t agree with those metrics, and also the main response I could give is pretty much exactly the same as what I just said. Perhaps one of my problems is your phrasing: “You demand all of this pollution.”. No, I sure as hell do not. If you were to say “consumers demand all of this pollution.” that would be less confrontational, but still incredibly incorrect. Do individuals consume the products of industry? Yes, amazing conclusion you have there.
I personally didn’t design the city in which I live to have no reasonable public transportation and it’s fairly bizarre and insulting to say that the average person did. I was born into this insanity. Saying that I ‘demand pollution’ because the fossil fuel industry suppressed renewable energy while investing in polluting sources is similarly so wrong that it’s insulting. I never at any time said “you know, rather than cloth diapers, people 40 years before I was born should start using weird plastic diapers they just throw away!”
I never at any time went to a grocery store and said “you know, when you sell a single banana, it sure would be nice if you put it on a styrofoam tray wrapped in plastic”. I never at any time said “you know, rather than invest in solar, we should frack the shit out of eastern Colorado and SE New Mexico” or “tar sands oil is a really, really good idea!”. And personally, i do seek to reduce my consumption and be efficient.
So for some reason you’re blaming every individual for society being set up in such a way as to benefit oil and gas companies. Guess who arranged that: people who profit from and operate petroleum companies. Essentially your claim is that since all industry exists to benefit the end user (ignoring the owners/executives/employees benefits) that consumers are 100% responsible for everything. It’s a ludicrous and highly confused way to view the world.
Alright, you might be more personally aware than others. You also gotta be aware of the responsibility of most consumers. Sales of large trucks and SUV’s are on the rise. No one’s electing people to design less car centric towns, most people want more car focused transportation. Renewable energy has not been supressed at all, in fact its cheaper and more efficient than ever and available for anyone to buy. I think consumers are the only ones that can stop this
big oil literally destroyed public transit so we’d be dependent on their products. believe me, living without a car is hard and I’m lucky enough to make it work. and the situation is artificially created for the benefit of the oil and auto industries
Yep, I went without a car for several months in a large US city that theoretically is decent for public transit and my life became much more difficult. I was able to make it work, but it has seemed barely sustainable. Now I live somewhere (not by choice really) that is completely impossible without a car/delivery… unless I spend hours a day walking, which would be very hazardous due to everyone else’s cars.
indeed. we need to dump money into transit construction in big cities
But they’re literally not. I have no way of controlling or even knowing about what corperations emit
Thats whats tripping everyone up, thinking these corporations are off isolated somewhere just producing climate change gases.
No, what theyre producing is what you’re buying. When someone says an oil company is responsible for however much greenhouse gas emissions, what they mean is the greenhouse gas emissions when you the customer burn that gasoline in your vehicle. Plus gases emitted processing the oil and getting it to the store for you to buy it.
These companies “taking responsibility” for their emissions would mean halting production of most things you go and buy.
this is a systemic issue, not an individual one. I can’t control what a company does, weather they choose to buy 100% renewable energy or not. and what about their suppliers? how could a consumer possible know about their business practices, let alone influence them? this isn’t about people buying the wrong products. the rich are lighting the planet on fire for a buck, and they must be stopped.
But don’t forget, the climate crisis is a hoax, but if it isn’t then it’s your fault for not recycling hard enough
I haven’t read the article, but it sounds fair that they should pay for it. Fuck em.
