Disclaimer: This is a joke. Ecofascism is obviously bad, kids. Don’t be that guy.
You must log in or # to comment.
Don’t do this, but remember: the richer a person is, the bigger the ecological footprint. You are higher on that list than you might realize. Especially ecofascists tend to forget that fact.
Yeah you know what would actually be better? Fixing legislation so that the 100 companies that create the majority of pollution stop doing that
Lmmfao, yeah good luck with that… (hint: the people who own those companies also own the government who makes the laws, there is no reforming capitalism, it’s designed that way)
I don’t disagree with this but the offered alternative is checks notes GENOCIDE
Genocide is happening right now in the current system. Some learned from past mistakes some didn’t. We can do better either way.
They own the people in government, not the government itself. Change the people, change the ownership.
The trick is you have to start small, cause the ones in the bigger positions rely on the small ones to maintain their power.
The problem is that to obtain those big pistons, you need the financial backing of those big companies. So eventually as an honest politician climbs the ladder, he has to sell out, or fizzle out. You can’t win federal elections without PAC money.
Until you hit critical mass on those small politicians, and they change the playing field. The problem is seeing them only as stepping stones on the way to greatness, and not as a power in their own right.
Even better than that is changing the system so the 100 companies are no longer around to create a majority of pollution.
The statistic that “Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions” is better understood as “Just 100 companies responsible for selling 71% of global fossil fuels”. It’s fundamentally saying that there’s a few large coal, oil and gas companies worldwide selling us most of the supply.
If you want those companies to stop polluting, that amounts to those companies not selling fossil fuels.
Which is honestly the goal, but the only way to do that is to replace the demand for fossil fuels. Cutting the US off from fossil fuels would kill a ton of people if you didn’t first make an energy grid 100% powered by renewables, got people to buy electric cars, cold climate heat pumps, etc.
That’s true! But I think more than one “front” can be open in this battle. And we also need the ones that can be won quicker or easier. Or at least start those too.
How do you think we could stop the pollution from those companies (most of which are oil producers) without also directly impacting normal people? There’s no way of getting at the structural that avoids individual change.
Individuals should change. We absolutely do not need the majority of products, and can still keep the modern conveniences without all the excess and waste.
Yeah - everyone is shitting on the top 1% here in Germany until they realize that half the population here makes it into that percentile and suddenly it’s the 0,1% that’s the problem.
It’s all about putting the blame on someone else so you don’t have to question if you might be a little bit responsible, too, with your lifestyle…
That’s not how math works. Half the population is 50% not 1%
I was talking about the global 1% since that’s usually what those kind of stats are aimed at
Are you implying that the climate crisis is a global issue? I thought it’s all about recycling
Recycling and liking pictures of polar bears.
Don’t forget sharing posts. Sharing is caring
They’re talking about the top 1% of Germany VS the top 1% of the world. If you reframe your thinking to be about the world instead of just your country, you might find your position as one of the 99% percent changing. I don’t make much in the USA, I certainly wouldn’t call myself rich, but just being employed, above minimum wage, and single means I’m probably above that threshold.
Especially ecofascists
Do you think so-called “ecofascists” are unaware of their contributions to climate change? Or do you just assume that based on their behavior?
You are right. Never trust a fascist’s propaganda. There always is a gap between their announced beliefs and their real ones.
Also much less important than the top by multiple orders of magnitude.
You could make a religion out of this
Least insane religion
I feel like this argument is way too imprecise, to the point of being basically untrue. That’s probably based on the average emissions or something like that, but people are not the same and “emission responsibility” is wildly different.
Imagine killing 34k exploited African people, the world’s climate won’t even notice that. On the other hand, killing 34k middle class Americans or Europeans would probably be a little more effective, but still won’t fix anything. Now, killing 34k high-profile megacorp executives would definitely be much more effective, but would also collapse some economies, leading to various climate unfriendly events (like riots, war and shit).
But the simplest empirical evidence is: COVID killed 6 million people and the climate is still shit.
Source: I made it the fuck up, I’m talking out of my ass
The 34k wealthiest ppl in the world emit more than 3,200,000,000 average people.
It looks like my ass is very knowledgeable. Definitely a good source
Removed by mod
What is this a reference to?
Removed by mod
Bullshit.
The investments of just 125 billionaires emit 393 million tonnes of CO2e each year – the equivalent of France – at an individual annual average that is a million times higher than someone in the bottom 90 percent of humanity.
That is to say, if you multiply the emissions of the gasoline sold by ExxonMobil by whatever percentage of ExxonMobile that’s in Bill Gate’s portfolio, you get an absolutely ridiculous emissions number.
But that seems to assume that if it weren’t for those dastardly billionaires investing in oil companies, we’d all be living in 10-minute cities with incredible subways connected by high speed rail, powered entirely by renewables, and heated by geothermal heat pumps. And I honestly don’t beleive that.
Considering that the oil companies bought up the trolley companies, and shut them down, I would argue that without those particular billionaires, we would still be building walkable cities the way we did for centuries, until they decided that cars should be essential, but a luxury at the same time.
Edit: this is specifically applicable to the US
Sure - blame Rockefeller, Henry Ford, etc. for that. Also e.g. Robert Moses, not that he was a billionaire. But they’re all dead. They’ve been dead.
Is America’s suburban sprawl the fault of Bill Gates in particular? Or Bezos, Musk, or Dell?
Do they have any investments in the oil sectors? And Musk is absolutely trying to keep cars and kill mass transit. He admitted it. Bezos definitely has invested in making our cities the unwalkable hell scape that the oil companies started.
Are you not responsible for the things you own?
well well well
The meme is about saving oxygen, not reducing CO² emissions.
Interestingly, every CO^2 molecule consumed 2 oxygen molecules from the atmosphere. CO^2 emissions are the cause of the loss of oxygen.
Which is even further off because that’s not the problem.
I kind of appreciate your sourcing. The same citation is used by many, without disclosure.
Removed by mod
Planting 20 million trees wouldn’t have much of an effect on the climate. Definitely not for the next 10 years.
Hemp/ Cannibis/ Marijuana are the best crops for carbon capture. Not only do they store 80%+ of the carbon in their roots, one acre of hemp will capture 10 times the amount of carbon as one acre of trees, provided the hemp is harvested at least once a year, and the roots are stored at the bottom of the ocean or something. You can harvest that acre up to 4 times a year in some parts of the world, and hemp can be used for food, fuel, clothing, rope, paper, shelter, concrete, and a ton of other stuff.
There’s no need to kill anyone. As our climate collapses, that’ll start to happen on its own
Yeah but the people that will be dying won’t be the ones with the biggest carbon footprints. It’ll be climate migrants from underdeveloped areas or island nations.
That’s the saddest part.
A lot of it won’t happen on its own though. While direct deaths from climate-related things (floods, fires, wet bulb events, whatever) will happen, you can bet your ass that there’ll be a lot of murderizing too.
Business as usual
Oh yes, the default setting for a disconcerting percentage of humans is to get violent when things get rough.
We’ve been violent since we started.
Probably 90% over our whole species timespan
Or…
We could kill the people who are not only directly responsible for, but who are actively refusing to stop the climate collapse because they want to keep making money and lording over us all from their super yachts (after giving them the opportunity to surrender their wealth for redistribution and stop their exploitation of course, which they will refuse), and actually have a realistic chance of stopping it.
Go after who you want, but the climate yacht has sailed. Drop it to zero tomorrow and we are still toast.
You are talking about the average ppl. Probably 10 billionaires would have the same impact.
Or 100 westerners.
What’s going on with these comments. Is it tankies or campists?
Mate, it’s not tankie to acknowledge that we use far more resources per person compared to the rest of the world.
The rich far outweigh the plebians
It only takes ~30k USD to be in the global top 5%.
Yeah, but cost of living differs. Nonetheless, killing people without attributing the actual cause of pollution to the polluters (companies, private or state controlled) is meaningless.
Production will kill us all
Killing people for the environment is fucking stupid, agreed.
I’m not in favour of OPs picture.
Israel’s new propaganda wave: “We’re just environmentalists.”
Or kill a billionaire
What about a billion which includes all billionaires
Do we have a billion billionaires? I don’t think so.
No, the set would include them
Let’s just start with the billionaires, see how far we get and reassess as needed?
Let’s go for 2 now
Roger roger
Killing one or two people would have a substantially bigger impact if you get the right one or two people. So if you’re gonna, choose wisely
This is the eugenicist’s dilemma. You very rarely meet one who would advocate euthanizing themselves.
Probably because killing me has zero affect vs killing billionaires.
Sort by net worth descending and go from the top
I’m just going to leave this here:
Trees are actually oxygen neutral for most of their lives, their main purpose is in sequestering carbon.
Contraception is the morally ok way.
But it would significantly reduce all waste and carbon as well!
Remember: we don’t have a lack of oxygen, we have a surplus of Greenhouse Gases and trash… So less humans is the way to go…
Even if we planted a trillion trees it would only have a tiny affect on climate change. Same with killing large amounts of people. The only way we combat climate change effectively is getting off fossil fuels.
It’s disturbing that so many think that just more trees is the solution. It really shows how dumb and ignorant most people are.
To take it seriously:
No it wouldn’t; time exists.Good Guy Putin sending waves of Russians to die in Ukraine was just trying to help the environment all along.
Are we concerned about the amount of oxygen available now?
Well it did cause the first and largest mass extinction event so far…
Sure but anthropogenic climate change is an issue of greenhouse gas accumulation rather than a lack of oxygen, no? Rather than there being too many people literally just using too much oxygen.
CO^2 production consumes oxygen from the atmosphere; Carbon capture that doesn’t make oxygen will leave that issue alive and well.
I was joking. We wouldn’t be alive if that particular extinction even hadn’t happened.
Photosynthesis by ocean-dwelling cyanobacteria produces around 1/3rd of oxygen IIRC. CO2 causes ocean acidification which reduces their ability to grow, thus limiting O2 production. When it is hotter, plants ability to store carbon and photosynthesise goes down. So not right now, but O2 will be cause for concern in the future if we don’t turn away from fossil fuels.
Thanks, I’d never really considered the impacts climate change would have on oxygen. I looked into this a bit and it seems to also be the case that rising ocean temperatures also reduce the capacity of the water to hold dissolved oxygen, which causes a nasty feedback loop.
So while there’s not an immediate risk of atmospheric oxygen concentration dropping by any significant amount, there is a real concern of oxygen concentrations in the oceans dropping pretty drastically. This then accelerates climate change even further and could have longer term effects on atmospheric levels as well.
Climate Refugee is confused!
It saved oxygen in it’s confusion.
