this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2025
1073 points (98.9% liked)

196

19094 readers
137 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 106 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Extend this to climate change:

Bob is responsible for .00000015% of emissions.

Shell is responsible for 5%.

But 95% of marketing for a more climate-friendly lifestyles is aimed at Bob.

Or to put it another way, Bob will emit roughly 15 metric tons of CO2 in his lifetime.

Shell emitted roughly 50 million tons in 2023 alone.

But let’s tel Bob he needs to change his lifestyle.

[–] TheSlad@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 year ago

All of that "climate friendly lifestyle" marketing at bob is done by oil and gas companies. Are you tired of hearing about your "carbon footprint"? Good, cause its bullshit propaganda made up by big oil and gas.

There was a huge campaign to shift the blame to consumers so that people would be too busy scrutinizing themselves to scrutinize the oil and gas industry. The sad part is that it fucking worked because people are dumb.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It's those plastic straws! Surely we'll save the planet, once Bob stops using those.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

if we halve 6 and two third million Bobs carbon emissions per year it would do as much as getting rid of shell.

shell would probably rather kill 3.3 million Bobs per year than cease to exist.

both strategies have compelling arguments.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m def no math person, but wouldn’t it take like 70x-800x that? Because halving the yearly emissions of someone who emits 15 metric tons in their entire lifetime vs the company emitting 50 MILLION tons every single year?

It’s early and I’m typically very bad at math, so maybe I’m wrong