• Spzi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    3 months ago

    This meme is so wrong it is deliberate misinformation. The Guardian made an article which is probably this meme’s source. It even linked to the original source, the Carbon Majors Report. But blatantly misquoted the CMR. For example, CMR says something like “100 fossil fuel producers responsible for 71% of industrial GHG emissions”, but The Guardian (and meme posters) omit the italic bits.

    What do they mean with producers? Not companies like Apple or Heinz, but simply organizations which produce fossil fuels. Duh. Shell, BP, but also entities like China’s coal sector (which they count as one producer, although it consists of many entities). CMR also states 3rd type emissions are included. Which means emissions caused by “using” their “products”, e.g. you burning gasoline in your car.

    So yes, the downvoted guy saying “Consumer emissions and corporate emissions are the same emissions” is pretty spot on in this case, albeit most likely by accident. Rejected not for being wrong, but for not fitting into a narrative, which I call the wrong reasons. Please check your sources before posting. We live in a post-factual world where only narratives count and truth is just another feeling, because of “journalism” and reposts like this. Which is the infuriating part in this particular case. I guess you want to spread awareness about the climate crisis, which is good, but you cannot do so by propagandizing science and spreading lies.

    All that from the top of my head. Both the ominous TG article and the fairly short report are easy to find. In just a couple of minutes you can check and confirm how criminally misquoted it was.

    • geogle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      There’s a second more obvious component that people neglect in any statement like OPs.

      These companies exist because people buy their products. We can blame companies, but fossil fuel use is a collective problem.

      • Spzi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s true. A lot more could be said about this, on various levels in various directions. Ultimately I don’t think this systemic crisis can be solved on a consumer level. The attempt leads to the status quo; different subcultures with some people paying extra to calm their consciousness, while most don’t care or cannot afford. I’m afraid if we try to work with individual sacrifice against economic incentives, the latter will win.

        It’s also true that some companies use their economic power as a political lever, to influence legislation in their favor. Or as a societal lever, to sway public opinion in their favor. I guess this meme here tries to address that. I honor the motive. Just the chosen vehicle is broken. With mountains of evidence supporting the cause, however, there are plenty of other, perfectly fine vehicles available.

    • ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Maybe if you’re on shrooms or LSD, yeah “it’s all the same if you use what they make maaaaaaan”

      But only if you ignore the power dynamics behind wealth, and aren’t aware of the concepts of bribery, temptation, and unlimited influence.

      Or the fact that people want greener options but they are intentionally unavailable, sabotaged, prohibitively expensive (but never subsidized), or publicly demonized in media with disinformation and propaganda.

      Between consumers and corporations, only one gets to call all the shots

      • pumpkinseedoil@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sustainable energy is heavily subsidised in Europe. Thanks to that we have 80% renewable energy production in Austria (and buy some non-renewable energy from other countries but still, we’re on a good way).

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        prohibitively expensive (but never subsidized)

        …while the unsustainable options are, massively…

    • Chestnut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think you’re being downvoted a bit unfairly because you’re strictly correct

      That said, fossil fuel companies also spend a considerable amount of money and effort keeping us dependent on oil

      The Drilled podcast and Climate Town have both done excellent reporting on this

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I think you’re being downvoted a bit unfairly because you’re strictly correct

        No, he’s not. Deliberately ignoring the larger context is blatantly incorrect. He’s pushing corporate propaganda. The downvotes are well-deserved, and maybe even a ban would be too.

        • Chestnut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think that’s a valid opinion to have but also the person could have just been a bit glib and not careful with their words

          They’re a commenter on Lemmy, not a politician. I don’t expect them to always have well crafted takes

    • Johanno@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because oil companies paid millions or even billions for propaganda that climate change isn’t real or not their fault.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think that’s mostly just Western world shit. I’m talking about the vast majority of the world’s population who aren’t as comfortable that they’d care or willing to worsen their quality of life or pay for more etc. They’re not victims of oil company propaganda, they are victims of their circumstances.

        • Kratzkopf@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Isn’t that basically why laws need to be put in place ensuring that these high emitting companies (which are mostly from the global north) reduce their carbon emissions? The circumstances are often consequnce of ongoing western exploitation and they will just get worse if nothing is changed because it is not the rich countries which will suffer most from climate change.

  • Gabu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Unfair comparison – Isildur was a great leader, defeated Sauron and resisted the dark pull of the One Ring for decades. Corporativist scum, on the other hand, brings no benefit to anyone.

  • CluckN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Use paper straws so Whole Foods can sell individual slices of candied bacon in sealed plastic bags.

  • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I mean I feel like 90% of that would require inventing a way to achieve trans oceanic shipping without the use of fossil fuels, and the answers to that have basically been ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

      • FMT99@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah just build a wooden frigate that can handle 100 megatons of containers, simple.

        • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I’ve seen legitimate proposals for basically just raising tower sails on a cargo vessel, and I always am flabbergasted that these people never seem to consider that super tall sails can cause the boat to capsize.

          Torque increases the further you get from the center of rotation, and windspeeds pick up damn quick when you start building upwards.

          If you wanted to protect the ship from a capsize you’d need to make it into something like a Polynesian style double hull to act as a buoyant force against the wind trying to push the boat over, and voila, now you’ve made a bunch of major canals unnavigable to your ship.

          • FMT99@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I mean I could see there might be clever optimizations, ways to handle wind power or even some kind of tidal/wave harnessing. But it definitely won’t be the way Columbus did it.