this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2025
620 points (98.6% liked)

Political Memes

9868 readers
2023 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago

I don't like the methodology of the study (done by Oxfam if you want to look it up). It attributes emissions to a person when it is done by a company they're invested in. From the press release:

Billionaires’ lifestyle emissions dwarf those of ordinary people, but the emissions from their investments are dramatically higher still —the average investment emissions of 50 of the world’s richest billionaires are around 340 times their emissions from private jets and superyachts combined. Through these investments, billionaires have huge influence over some of the world’s biggest corporations and are driving us over the edge of climate disaster.

Nearly 40 percent of billionaire investments analyzed in Oxfam’s research are in highly polluting industries: oil, mining, shipping and cement. On average, a billionaire’s investment portfolio is almost twice as polluting as an investment in the S&P 500. However, if their investments were in a low-carbon-intensity investment fund, their investment emissions would be 13 times lower.

I'm of the opinion that we should look at people's consumption behavior rather than their production behavior. When Exxon Mobil or Delta Airlines pollute, they're doing it for their customers. Reducing the consumption from the customer point of view does reduce the overall emissions, so I'm gonna continue to reduce my own contributions to this crisis.

This is why all the articles telling me to use paper straws feel like nothing but propaganda to me now. Stop telling me and the other poor people this shit is on us. All the recycling, cleanup and conservation i do in my life will be undone in one day by a billionaire. You want to lower emissions, start making heads roll

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

damn, good efficiency for them considering they're about a billion times richer than me

my gasses per dollar are way higher! the problem is obviously with people like me

1% and .1% are also drastically different.

A quick search told me the "poorest person" in the top 1% in the U.S. would have a net worth around 13.7 million.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Well, you're probably spending somewhat over two dollars per day on your survival, so unless they're ALL blowing through half-a-billion dollars every year, their pollution-per-dollar is also greater than your's

[–] Geobloke@aussie.zone 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who is the average person? Is it the global average person? Is it the average American? I mean as an Australian I am responsible for far more emissions than the average Papuan.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The worst countries for energy use per capita are mostly middle-eastern oil and gas producers, and places that are very cold and energy producers (Iceland, Norway, Canada), and for some reason Singapore and Trinidad and Tobago.

If you look at just fossil fuel use per capita the picture is slightly different. Iceland drops way down the list. They use a lot of energy, but it's mostly geothermal and hydroelectric. After the middle east, Singapore and Trinidad and Tobago it's USA and Canada at the top. Canada is basically USA with cold winters. Then it's South Korea, Russia, Australia, etc.

I think what they mean in this case is "the average person", i.e. divide all the CO2 produced by 8.2 billion. Since half of those people live in massive poverty and have virtually no carbon footprint, the per-person number is much less than any Australian, Canadian, American, etc.

[–] Geobloke@aussie.zone 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, i think separating billionaires from the rest goes some way to making working and middle class people feel like that we've done our bit. By that, I mean it may as well be a billionaire compared to some one in extreme poverty.

On a side note, I wonder if those maritime countries pay a penalty for all the fossil fueled powered shipping they need. Also Singapore is a major oil refiner which might be affecting them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] badmancrooks@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago

I keep saying that the simple math is that it's about 8 billion of us vs about 2000 of them.

[–] nuko147@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

And that was 2022 guys. Feels like different era.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why? Don’t they use cardboard straws for their frappes?

[–] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Listen. These people are a cancer, and they need to be fully removed from society. They are literally killing us.

load more comments
view more: next ›