1110

America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bstix@feddit.dk 3 points 1 year ago

One point of view could be that since these billionaires are the ones financially benefitting from the companies, that they should also be the ones paying the true cost of the production.

It's true that the consumers are consuming, but why are the companies making products without cleaning up after their production? Why are billionaires allowed to extract money out of this and leave the environment in an irreparable state.

Consumers would probably prefer that their money went to the product including all the associated costs of producing it, but consumers don't get that choice, because the company owners extract the money for themselves.

[-] Zippy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Consumers would lose their shit if they had to pay that additional cost of all the associated costs. Just look at the US response to fuel prices when has hit 5 dollars a gallon. And that was due to supply and demand issues. Can you imagine the outcry if the government put a real tax on the carbon component of every produce? Hell had likely would be 8 dollars a gallon. Your milk prices would like double overnight. Not only would transportation costs increase but it would be taxed for the carbon component of animal to your mouth. All good and clothing and necessities would have to increase significantly.

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 3 points 1 year ago

So xonsumers would have to consume less and profit margins would need to drop.

I'm all for it.

[-] Zippy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Overall profits would naturally drop if consumers consumed less. Not profit margins. Margins would settle at some arbitrary amount not really tied to our consumption.

In other words prices would not natural decrease. They might even increase. Your personal wealth should increase more though as you overall decide to buy less. Ie. Smaller cars, fewer ATVs, don't upgrade your Xbox as soon.

But with all this additional spare money individuals have because they are consuming less, it is only human nature to eventually spend it and ultimately end up right back with the same personal carbon footprint. The only way I could see a sustained reduction is if governments added significant taxes to nearly every product that was energy intensive in its construction.

In other words food and housing and that car and ATV would need to increase significantly to encourage smaller houses, small cars, purchases of more efficient food stock etc. Things like digital entrainment that have a fixed cost should ultimately have a low carbon footprint as the reproduction of it per person is minimal. The cost would be low.

The ideal ecological system is where people sit at home and watch TV all day expending the least amount of calories so we eat less. People only work the minimal hours to build a ten foot by twenty foot house and ensure they have food and water. Outside of that, have few pleasures. The reality is that people will consume to near the maximum they can afford. And even if you do not consume much and leave your children large inheritances, they will simply do the consumption for you. Just delayed a bit.

this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
1110 points (97.0% liked)

World News

32363 readers
261 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS