1062
I'm doing my part (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
182 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 248 points 4 months ago (30 children)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [–] 184 points 4 months ago (13 children)

    Jeff Bezzos:

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 51 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    So I've wanted to do this for a minute..

    But how many paper straws would you have to use to offset one of these explosions? How long would it take to offset one of these explosions through straw use?

    Writing this now I was surprised by the results...

    Source for plastic v paper straw data

    So apparently plastic straws are actually more carbon neutral than paper straws, but for the purposes of this analysis I'm going to carry it through to find out how long it takes to create equivalent emissions.

    Paper straws:

    Call it 1430 grams of emissions per straw (which is wild btw)

    Plastic straws:

    Call it 610 per plastic straw. Still wild for something which weighs less than a gram.

    This is also from the thesis

    So yeah.. not great.

    Gonna be using 825 tons of carbon dioxide emitted from Hank Green's video.

    I think Hank is working in US standard units here.. which is also weird and annoying but whatever... We're getting to units of rocket explosion per straw so it's fine..

    And I'm going to be using 500 million straws per day, which is cited in the thesis from a 2017 study and repeated elsewhere in other studies on this.

    It's not great but what even are we doing here..

    I don't know how we get a plastic straw versus compostable straw use rate (what proportion of straws are still plastic versus how many are now paper or some other alternatives)

    But we get 820 additional grams of emissions for each straw swapped.

    500 tons to grams is:

    838238016

    Divided by the difference in co2e foot print per straw...

    838238016 / 820 is about 1022240, in other words, about a million.

    So for about every million straws swapped from plastic to paper, one giant fiery rocket explosion of CO2 emissions occurs.

    The US consumes straws at a convenient rate of 500 million a day, so if ALL of those straws were converted to paper, we're setting off about 500 of those explosions per day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    I was always given to understand that the straw thing was because plastic straws get out and fuck up wildlife, but that message seems to get buried in handwringing over climate change so often that I suspect bad actors are at play spreading all these memes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Idk. It's not at all clear to me why or what's the point of these very performative acts.

    There is almost no way it represents any practical differences to wildlife. It seemed to me something companies could "do" as a form of visual way of communicating that they were "doing something", and it's something that was done in sync, with no real consent of the consumer. It's not like people were driving this. It was very much from the corporate side.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    There is almost no way it represents any practical differences to wildlife.

    Source: your ass?

    Eighty of 135 (59%) species with studies reported in the literature between 1962 and 2012 had ingested plastic, and, within those studies, on average 29% of individuals had plastic in their gut.

    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1502108112

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago*

    Source: the about an hour of research I did on straws to write the response. I mean I read a fucking thesis on it and probably 4-5 articles. I mean the links in there you lazy fukkah

    So maybe shove it up your ass.

    Oh you editing now? Go find evidence that the transition from plastic straws to paper has had any measurable impacts on wildlife.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    That doesn't really get to the impact of the plastic. Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood. It's there, but mostly it just seems to be inert. There are thousands of problems we are creating that we know are causing widespread extinctions. I'm not opposed to reducing plastic use, but forcing a major inconvenience for dubious results burns a lot of goodwill. That's why this is a popular wedge issue for the right, even though it mostly affects liberal coastal cities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood

    It blows my mind how you’re saying that like it makes it ok

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Well the sentence after that is rather critical. It's not that 100% of humans have it, so who cares about animals; it's that we have an enormous highly-scrutinized test population, and in general the impacts are mild to imperceptible. I'm not blowing off this concern; we need to keep studying it in humans and animals (and the results may be different!).

    But right now there are scores of critical world issues that can be tangibly addressed. Asking people to make lifestyle changes for possibly zero meaningful impact is actually counterproductive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 52 points 4 months ago* (12 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    There are no ethical billionaires

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago

    Why waste energy distinguish are you a level 4 or a level 5 offender. Our energy would be much better spend dealing with the root of the problem. That is a society allowing that level of accumulation of wealth. No matter if you are performing for your fans or flying to Epstein island.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    As i do every time somebody posts this article:

    The headline is misleading. It's not 57 "companies". The original source speaks of "Entities".

    Number one on that List of 57? The former Soviet Union. Good luck holding them responsible. Next to several state controlled Actors like Gazprom (6th) or Saudi Armaco (3rd), some privat companies like ExxonMobile (5th), there are entities like Chinas Coal production from 1945 - 2004 (2nd) North Korea (57th) or Cinas Cement production (13th).

    The list shows that oil companies cause a lot of emissions (but apparently not as much as the former soviet union). To absolutly nobodies suprise.

    Next to holding them accountable for their emissions (and their lobbying, pro oil propaganda, etc) we need to find ways to reduce emissions in our lives. Those companies will only stop if their products is less and less needed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases

    That's just nonsense.

    1. The top two providers in that list are the governments of USSR and China. They are not "megacorporations"
    2. It not a list of "emitters". These entities are just "linked to" the emissions -- i.e. they provided the fuel that someone else burned.

    It's completely ridiculous to say that it doesn't matter that someone burns 1,000 gallons of fuel a day because a big company sold it to them.

    Targetting individuals people or companies is useless. There's over a billion co-contributers, not a handful. Systematic changes like a carbon tax are necessary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It's nonsense because there's no way to read what you wrote and think it means anything other than a bunch of for-profit corporations are actually emitting that much CO2e. In reality they are just a link in the supply chain, and direct individual use is actually a huge part of emissions (making up the majority when indirect individual use is considered).

    1. State "companies" should be treated differently because they have different structures, motivations, scope, and controls
    2. It is not useful to focus on oil conglomerates because they are basically interchangeable. What is the behavior change you want from them? To all stop existing? To raise prices to discourage use? To collude into providing some correct amount of their product?

    How do you imagine one would "take on" a corporation? "Hey Exxon, you're bad for selling me gasoline. Stop doing that!". If you think we should take them on by buying as little from them as possible, then I guess we agree there.

    It can be difficult to control the incidence of a tax, but a carbon dividend should overall have a highly progressive effect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products

    This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.

    State companies are just as accountable

    My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.

    we can completely stop using fossil fuels for power generation and travel over land

    This is exactly my point -- how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?

    Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them

    What I'm pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like "taking on" the big bad 57 companies doesn't actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.

    The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes.

    100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?

    I don't think we've disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement's veracity, do you think saying "80% of emissions come from megacorporations" drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?

    Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?

    Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.

    You've answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point -- the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.

    Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.

    And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Pay attention to the response that you are getting -- people aren't about to take action; they are going to internally fester.

    What inaction?

    The inaction of useless discussion. Oh, here's a meme blaming "corporations" for everything; I can see emissions dropping already.

    Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?

    Why would it have to be?

    It wouldn't. That's my point. The list doesn't matter.

    I already said start at the top and work your way down.

    As you just pointed out, there is no need for that; we can address the whole problem at once.

    A lot of people simply don’t care

    Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?

    It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem

    It's more effective to direct your efforts towards organization and action instead of blame.

    We've already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let's work toward that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (-1 replies)