this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
499 points (91.4% liked)

People Twitter

5182 readers
2204 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 112 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Removing one billionaire will do more good for the planet than anything a regular individual can do

[–] [email protected] 67 points 5 days ago (2 children)

That should not stop you from trying. You, and everyone else in this thread for that matter, just drop excuses. Either you guys finally start removing some billionaires, I'm all for that, or you start doing the little things. Ideally, just do both.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 days ago

Yeah it shouldn't be an excuse. Sure the billionaires are terrible per person compared to a regular person. But they are still a minority. Most of the air traffic is regular folk traveling for work or fun. And freight being hauled by plane or trucks because of all the useless stuff people buy. Most of the cars driving every day are regular folk. By far the worst thing are cruise ships, dumping out huge amounts of pollution just for people to go on holiday.

Billionaires are terrible and should not be allowed to exist as they do today. But it isn't a reason not to do something yourself. If enough people do it, it will make an impact.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

Can the students asking this remove billionaires? (Without going to prison)

No, so whats your point? They want to do something. Telling them to not do things because those things are less significant than other things that could theoretically be done is nihilistic.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 days ago (12 children)

Not really. You have to remove the companies that made them a billionaire or they'll just be replaced.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

Drug trade has shown: even if you remove the company, as long as demand is there, another supplier/company will pop up.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think this is why the OP mentioned buy less stuff and travel less, these two directly reduce the demand for environmentally harmful goods and services, reducing the ecological impact of the companies which issue the shares that make the billionaires in question billionaires.

It's kinda disappointing to see a post about good actionable advice to do the best you can to reduce climate change and the first reply on Lemmy is non actionable (and more controversially; to my mind irrelevant) advice to assassinate billionaires.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago
  1. Vote for candidates who will do something about climate change

That's the one for removing billionaires.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

When you're poor, you already do 3-5 and 2 is usually taking a bus or walking anywhere.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

Here in the USA, the overwhelming majority of poor people eat meat; even the homeless! They just get low-quality processed meat instead.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago
[–] [email protected] 41 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (15 children)

We get it, billionaires bad, but it's in the effing tweet "what they can do as individual". All the options listed are solid.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (7 children)

Yeah us normal civilians can make a miniscule difference by doing these things

But let's not act like the problem isn't billionaires like musk, swift, bezos etc and mega cooperations like nestle or even Boeing. They are the real problems. We will live to see the first trillionaire, yeah trillion. No one should have that much wealth. Eat the rich yo

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 days ago (2 children)

We need information, math, data that distinguishes between:

A) tragedy of the commons--you doing it yourself won't make a difference, but everyone doing it will, so you doing it yourself makes a difference, and

B) the change is so minuscule that even if everybody in the world did it, it still wouldn't move the needle.

Everything in B should be replaced with "clobber billionaires and coporations and governments", but nothing from A gets misplaced in B.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Suggestion #1 (voting for candidates who support pro-environment legislation) results in the sweeping systemic changes that you're looking for.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Mega corporations like nestle get their money from us normal civilians not caring about what we consumes impact on the environment.

Like if you literally disbanded nestle over night, not even splitting them up or selling things off but somehow just got rid of them and all their product's... does the negative impact on the environment go away? or do new companies grow to meet the unmet demand and all that's changed is what company is providing cheap goods at the expense of the environment?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 days ago

Not enough people seem to understand that you will have to sacrifice things for the sake of sustainability.

For example

There is no way to supply the amount of meat consumed sustainably. It doesn't matter if you cut off every billionaire's head and send all meat profits directly to industry workers. It does not change that people currently eat more meat than can be produced sustainably.

There are so many other cases where this is true. It's not just rich people and corporations. They are an entirely different symptom, solving one will not solve the other.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 4 days ago (2 children)

No, I meant what can I do without inconveniencing myself.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

That's a major problem today - "what can I do?" means "where should I post about this?". If it can be done with two thumbs on a phone, today's activists are all over it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago

Eat the rich.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The only answer is conquer the corporations and eat the rich.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

All of these are individual actions. I'd add organizing with other folks trying to make a difference. Direct action or political advocacy can have a much more significant effect than an individual acting alone.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

The political advocacy would (in the best case) still end up with a ban on these actions that disproportionately impact the climate so why not just start getting used to tofu already?

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Consensus seems to be: Yeah climate? I shouldn't do nothing as long as there's wealthy people.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

*consensus on Hexbear

edit: sorry seems to have contaminated this instance as well

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

I've seen it a lot here and on other social media. People happily avoiding responsibility by vaguely blaming corporations.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago

What we can do is press for more regulation.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago

Keep handy a list of the rich bastards responsible for the overwhelming majority of the problem, just in case.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

Organize with Sunrise Movement or other similar groups. The US government is a oligarchy, our representatives don't represent it. The only way we will get any kind of change is through organizing and forcing them to listen to us.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Back in the 90s I worked out the arithmetic and concluded that legalizing agricultural hemp (not marijuana but fiber) and reducing American beef consumption by 10%, would save the South American rainforests.

I forget the numbers now, but at the time almost all timber logging in the rainforests was to make paper. I remember buying some really nice plywood called "teppa" that came from I think Argentina, which became unavailable because all the logs were being pulped. Anyway, if the market for beef dropped 10%, forcing the beef industry to cut production, the drop in cattle feed consumption would reduce the demand for corn (a main component). If the land were used for hemp fiber instead it would produce enough paper to completely replace our paper imports from S.A.

This practical exercise probably taught me more economics than my college Econ 101 class.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 days ago

The sad thing is, if I die today, nothing will change. The rich will still sell and eat the world until everyone is dead.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 days ago (13 children)

Forgot the biggest one: don't have children (1)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago (4 children)

That's not what your source says though.

It says "having one fewer child" is the recommendation that should be given, and logically so

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 days ago

How do I choose which one to put down? It doesn't mention that.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

We need to stop shipping things across the world for economic reasons. We need to produce and buy locally. The truth is, the global economy has to crash and rebuild itself if we want an eco friendly future. Worldwide shipping needs to go away. Commercial aviation needs to go away. These are things no one wants to hear but would do the most good. Sacrifice is key. We may need to live modestly for a generation in order for energy production to advance to the point where we no longer have to. Our modern growth is a result too hastly adopting dirty technologies.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I was under the impression that cargo ships were actually pretty efficient due to their absolutely massive capacity. Compared to things like airplanes, I mean.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

They are efficient (cargo vs fuel consumption). They also go through my regular car's full gas tank in about 30 seconds. Less ships means less fuel burned. If we produce locally, transportation is not needed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Still just 2% of global CO2 emissions

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

I agree to some extent, but I don't necessarily think that we have to or even can live modestly for a generation. We "just" need to do things the right way. Right now we are not even offered the option to.

Global shipping can help ensure that the production happens where it is most efficient. The large quantities being shipped also minimizes the emissions per product for the distance travelled, so global shipping isn't all bad. The most environmentally expensive trip is the one from the store to the home. It would be nice though if global shipping happened on renewable energy or wind. It might be slower, but it's already slow, so what's the difference. The local distribution also needs to addressed. Everything is being transported in trucks domestically. It would be better to use trains or even ships for a lot of the trucked stuff.

Things that can be produced locally should be available locally, and not shipped around the globe only due to pricing. The worst example that I know of is how American breed chicken is being frozen and send to China so cheap labour can do do the chopping and then shipped back for the American market. That's just disgusting and not at all efficient. That kind of economic incentives must be shut down politically.

Commercial aviation needs to be stopped, starting with the short flights. Trains are perfectly capable of achieving the same travel time and on renewable energy. As of right now it's not really an option to go fast cross USA or Europe by train, but this is primarily because we do allow those trips to be done way too cheap by plane and in cars. More expensive flights and cheaper direct trains could enable us to still go on the annual holiday without bad consciousness. And for the love of god, don't waste any more money on expanding car infrastructure. It's a bottomless pit that also destroys the opportunities for better options.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

^https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf^

load more comments
view more: next ›