this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
14 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

10348 readers
1569 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Tell me, who are these companies making all the emissions for? Are the global citizens consuming goods from another realm that don't require companies to make?

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Lol you think a link is going to stop anyone scraping Lemmy data for AI training?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, what it means is that if they can prove someone scraped their data and used it for commercial gain - they can sue them for real money.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

There's nothing to be skeptical about.

The difficulty isn't in establishing legal precedence, the difficulty is in the proof. How do you prove that your data is distinguishable from any of the other countless people who have had their data scraped?

I don't think it's bad to set yourself up for a future payday, but it will take a lot of work from someone else in order to see it pay off.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No one but complete morons are asking to specifically make a product by emitting carbon dioxide. No company is emitting co2 for "the global citizens". They make products to earn money. Emissions are an avoidable by-product no one asked for.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No one but complete morons are asking to specifically make a product by emitting carbon dioxide

Agreed

Emissions are an avoidable by-product no one asked for.

...

How is this not a contradiction?

No company is emitting co2 for “the global citizens”. They make products to earn money.

How do you expect them to earn money without selling to global citizens?

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Saying that our only options are to produce stuff or not produce CO2 at a gargantuan scale is a false dichotomy. CO2 production at the scale that it is now is the result of the production processes that result in that CO2 being cheaper than the ones that on the whole, do not. We are flushing this planet down the drain not because we cant do otherwise but because its cheaper right now to do what were doing instead.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

Saying that our only options are to produce stuff or not produce CO2 at a gargantuan scale is a false dichotomy.

Completely false conclusion to my questions. I'm saying companies make stuff because they want to make money. They can make money because people buy it. So, if people didn't buy stuff, companies couldn't sell stuff, and they couldn't make money.

We live in society of waste and overconsumption. The EU throws away more food than it imports, but if you think that's wasteful, the average USAian consumes double to triple the amount of energy a European does and even more food.

Yes, companies don't make a big effort to reduce wasteful production processes, don't voluntarily make an effort to reduce emissions, and lobby as hard as they can to continue doing so because it's cheaper. However, we the consumers, the "global citizens" - and let's actually be clear, it's the global north - consume more than we should, waste more than we should, and lot of it happens by ignoring the destruction wrought by the companies we buy from.

We are all the fucking problem. We work at these companies that pollute. We buy from these companies that pollute - and not even the least amount possible; we lavishly indulge. We vote for politicians that choose to turn a blind eye. We generate billions of tons of waste and happily do more.

Anti Commercial-AI license