• VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Donyou realize that the top 1% is creating around 25% of the pollution with their Jets and yacht etc… and they horde moat of the houses to profit from the fact you need housing. And they create food scarcity to rise the prices etc… so yeah keep thinking you’ll become one of them some day. Even if you made 1 million a year you would still need to live a thousand years to make a billion.

    • bioemerl@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      the top 1% is creating around 25% of the pollution with their Jets and yacht etc

      This is assinine and doesn’t even slightly pass the smell test. 25 percent is a LOT and private jets and such would have to be absolutely nutty to be accounting for that much.

      In reality this number is based on a shitty study that counts workplace and investments as your emissions instead of consumption. This is basically saying:

      You own a company that produces X, you’re responsible for those emissions, not the people who buy them.

      At that point your emissions figures aren’t a measure of emissions, there a measure of stock ownership. Ending the emissions of the wealthy would also end your access to everything their investments produce, which is like… everything you buy.

      • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am just randomly tossing this into y’all’s conversation, use it as you wish. Aviation in general contributes 2.5% of the global emissions, (3.5% if you would like to read the fine print). That is ALL aviation, not just a selection of jets held by a few people. The 25% value is a real thing too but I think @VieuxQueb is misquoting it. A single private jet round trip from coast-to-coast of the United States with a party of four aboard (not counting pilots) is 25% the CO₂ value the average American will emit. There’s actually a quora that talked about this when whatever news agency said this same thing.

        I distinctly remember some news organization saying this, but it was worded so confusingly, I had a feeling someone would put it back together incorrectly. I cannot blame VieuxQueb, some of this stuff that’s talked about is metrics that are hard to digest.

        So. I just wanted to put that out there for you two. Thank you for your time. Hopefully that helps you all out.

        • bioemerl@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          So. I just wanted to put that out there for you two. Thank you for your time. Hopefully that helps you all out.

          No. You have offended me and I am now very angry at you.

          • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well now I shall drink my coffee knowing that I have angered some random person on the Internet. Not because that I have completed my task of finding someone randomly to anger, because I had no such task, but because my coffee is getting cold and it is solely what is keeping me alert enough to work and post things that anger people at the same time.

            In seriousness, LOL. That does seem to be some people’s reaction to people just interjecting randomness into conversations. I think those people just need a good cup of coffee.

      • Rocket@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You own a company that produces X, you’re responsible for those emissions, not the people who buy them.

        Why is the company that produces X responsible and not the company that produces Y, an input to X? That is very arbitrary.