268
submitted 9 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AlteredStateBlob@kbin.social 29 points 9 months ago

"Listen, we thought you dirty hippies might actually be winning and figured we'd be early betting on that horse. But then money was still in the planet killing juice, so we'd rather make all the money."

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

We’ve had one Earth, yes— but what about second Earth?

[-] brothershamus@kbin.social 28 points 9 months ago

Article: The changes come as Republican lawmakers step up efforts to punish businesses that consider climate change and the environment in their operations.

TL;DR: RepubliQans fucking everything up to destroy the planet, yet again

Comments: Dang Bank of America! oooo that bank! banks, right?! Let's all make sure not to vote for the current Democrat

[-] spacedout@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

While true, it's guilt by omission not to remind people that Biden has thoroughly broken his campaign promise of "no more drilling on federal lands", and in fact granted even more drilling permits then Trump did before him.

[-] deur@feddit.nl 3 points 9 months ago

It is not guilt by anything, you are not obligated to derail other discussions with information linked to the topic tenuously at best.

[-] spacedout@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

OP is about climate change and funding petroleum. Parent comment was about US party politics. My comment brought up petroleum drilling permissions in a US party political setting. Why don't you think that is related?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net -1 points 9 months ago

It's a commercial enterprise, not a government one

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 10 points 9 months ago

But governments passed the bills against sensible business practices, by preventing lending money to fossil fuel companies, which are obviously in significant danger due to additional government regulation in other areas. Bloody Communists! Sorry Republicans.

The biggest problem is that this is global, so we are going to see large international banks also dropping similar language, due to the US market being massive and it being hard not to get sued over this.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

Even still, surely the laws preventing them from refusing to invest in coal and other fossil fuels are uncosntitutional?

[-] vexikron@lemmy.zip 23 points 9 months ago
[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 8 points 9 months ago
[-] vexikron@lemmy.zip 3 points 9 months ago

Oh my god, thats perfect, saved. =P

[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago

I don't understand what compels people to use BOFA. It's so fucking expensive to bank with them.

[-] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

And the people that run it are scum

[-] ARk@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago
[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 9 months ago

Bank of America

[-] bingbong@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

A bank founded by Sir Ligma

[-] suchwin@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Honest answer? I have one of their CC that gives 3% on all online shopping/purchasing. Plus BoA has a program for all card members to get free entrance on the first weekend of each month to select museums.

Between both of those and paying it off each month, I like to think that I'm actually costing BoA a little bit of money (and getting some money from bank-hands into museum-hands)

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The AMEX Blue Everyday card offers the same 3% cash back for online purchases with no yearly fee, along with their reputation for excellent customer service. Bank of America, on the other hand, has a reputation for atrocious customer service.

[-] suchwin@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I will consider this. Is Amex a better organization than BoA? They both kinda seem like banking behemoths to me. Cust supp is nice, but it's not something I use often.

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 3 points 9 months ago

I mean, environmentally, probably not substantially (Though BofA is known for being one of the worst offenders). But as far as credit card companies go, they seem like one of the better ones from a customer perspective.

A Debit card from a Credit Union would likely be the most environmental option, but seeing as in the US, Debit cards do not have the protections they do in the EU, I believe we're stuck with using credit cards from companies that don't give a crap about carbon emissions.

[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Meanwhile, they invest in the worst markets. If you use a local credit union, your money goes into your community, with some you can vote on banking decisions (I use BECU), and all credit union ATMs are in network, so your fees get refunded.

[-] suchwin@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I agree, I even have a savings account at a local CU. Tbh their dividends on that account have been disappointing. I may look into CDs through the same institution.

Considering I only have a CC through BoA, and I've explained how I believe I'm a net negative for them, how am I contributing to their investments? Perhaps they're selling my data? Or perhaps I'm boosting their numbers by simply having an account? Honest question.

[-] suchwin@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Downvotes for answering D: I'm not opposed to closing the account. But the museums alone could be costing boa 10-30/month, assuming each admission is paid out close to face value. Surely this helps the community more than a CU, and costs boa more than they could possibly make off me (since I pay no interest, and hold no checking/savings there).

CMV?

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Bank of America announces new program where they go to the home of a customer picked at random and kill a puppy in front of them.

[-] Mannimarco@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago
[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

Really showcasing BOFA’s ties to China 🇨🇳

Way to go Brian Moynihan, your grandchildren will certainly thank you later for this

[-] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Ha! Like his grandchildren will have a "later"....

[-] SpiceDealer@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

I have mixed feelings about this one. On one hand, banks aren't our friends. On the other, having 'reluctant allies' on a path towards a certain goal might be beneficial.

[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 5 points 9 months ago

It's possible to manipulate a capitalist into doing the right thing, as long as the right thing happens to be more profitable than the bad thing.

this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
268 points (98.9% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5237 readers
488 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS