This is a false choice between huge lifestyle changes for everyday people and regulating the polluters. Regulating the polluters is going to cause huge lifestyle changes for everyday people.
The idea that any of us get to go on as usual is the main roadblock to meaningful climate action.
I’m cool with that. I also don’t think it would necessarily be huge in terms of inconvenience for the average person because alternatives would pop up before long. For example, if air travel became prohibitively expensive we might actually see an expanse of passenger rail for domestic travel. It’s ridiculous that it’s still cheaper/more convenient to take a 45 min flight (plus the time the whole airport experience takes) vs a couple hours (or less with high speed rail) train ride. Certain plastics might also become too expensive so we might see the return to more sustainable packaging. A lot of the oil and byproduct consumption from the average person comes down to lack of choice ratger than people choosing products made from oil ober alternatives.
It would be a massive inconvenience, but it’ll still be worth it. High speed rail takes many years to build. People hate lifestyle changes. Hell, people will be unhappy at the changes to food packaging. Everything will become more expensive and the economy will contract.
If we go in promising it’ll be easy people will get mad and balk when it gets hard. If we go in explaining how it’ll suck, but that we’ve got a plan to fix the problems and it’ll be worth it then we can succeed
This is a political non-starter, and you’ve pretty much gotten to the point all the people criticising this post are trying to make. Almost no one is willing to make a significant sacrifice in their lifestyle for the sake of the climate, which is why memes like the above exist. They create a make-believe fairytale land where we just have to beat the big bad, and we can all live happily ever after.
But imagine what would happen in any democratically elected nation if a politician actually started making everyones lives worse. Sure, some would keep a stiff upper lip and bear it - but the vast majority would put them out on their ass asap in favor of the first person who said they would make things better.
That’s why literally every climate proposal includes policies to improve things for the average person. Carbon dividends or UBI or trains or street trees or green jobs, etc. You have to be realistic about politics as much as you are realistic about carbon economics.
BLIMPS
Nothing changes until the price of an electric car is less than the cost of a gas one when it comes to the vehicle cost.
A Hyundai Sonata is 35k CAD
A Hyundai IONIQ 6 is 55k CAD
Miss me with that bullshit.
This is why buying new cars is dumb,
A used Hyundai sonata 2024 is ~20k USD
A used Hyundai ioniq 6 2024 is ~24k USD
Yeah it may be more upfront, but most people finance any way and your monthly payment will be offset buy your fuel savings.
There’s enough of a stock of used EVs, quite often with low mileage, at this point that cost is becoming less of an issue for people then the perceived lack of convenience. That and dealerships/manufacturers not promoting them because they get less maintenance fees and they’re lower margin then a giant SUV or pickup.
most people at this point chosing fuel over electric, the main motivation is best case “habit” or worst case political statement, it has very little to do with money or the technical limitations of the vehicles anymore. They just don’t like change, they’re scared of it. They have driven a fuel car all their lives and they will continue their habits as long as they are allowed to. The range on EV’s is crazy now. For christ’s sake, an electric bicycle has a reach of 100km! How far out away from what they need do the average 90% of people live… less than a few kilometers.
It’s really not that hard to put a price on societal collapse and the end of humanity: the money it costs to try to mitigate that is infinite and every decision every person makes right now should be made in that light of exponentially higher costs later if bad choices which now seem slightly less expensive are made now…
I just looked in Canada
2024 sonata. 28k
2024 IONIQ 6. 39k
I’m sorry I’m not paying over 10k more for an electric car that’s absolutely insane.
Isnt byd and other chinese ves a lot cheaper compared to the brand new normal cars? No wonder china has majority ev owners and drivers. It can be done, gas cars can be replaced, but the main problem with the oil company’s is that they have huge influence in the government and hmthey have huge power, boyboy has a wonderful video about this topic. They destroy nature, they only care about profits, they lobby against any ev or even hydrogen cars, they are the main reason why climate change is only accelerating in the west. At this point we as humans cant do anything legally to change this.
Now factor in lifetime costs of repairs and gas/electricity!
BTW I have no idea which one is which of your two cars 😅
idk. i got an ebike and my lifestyle didn’t change a while lot. just had to get one with a trunk, uh, big basket strapped to the back.
To the people who are saying “Yeah but you’re the one who buys the oil!!!” Please stop. Please think about any of the context surrounding those supposedly individualist decisions. Please think about what the most practical solutions are for fixing the problem. You can do that and be helpful or you can be smug and look down on others.
Sure, you buy and drive the car, but you didn’t:
- Design towns and cities that can only be easily traversed by car.
- Decide where jobs and housing were located.
- Spend millions of dollars to lobby against public transit.
- Spend millions of dollars to lobby against regulations.
- Spend millions of dollars to lobby against green energy investments.
- Spend millions of dollars to lobby for imperialist wars to access oil.
- Spend millions of dollars to spread misinformation about climate change.
- Decide what cars were available to buy and at what price. (Demand driving supply only makes sense if consumers have a way to signal that they want something that isn’t being offered. The main market way of doing that would be to not buy anything until the right good is offered… but as stated above, people can’t just opt out of needing a car if the places where they can live and work are built around cars.)
- Decide to be too poor to buy luxury goods masquerading as green alternatives.
Framing the issue in terms of individual decisions lets the people who have most actively stood in the way of progress off the hook and ironically shirks any real responsibility to fix the issue. You think by saying that it’s us doing it that you take responsibility for your actions and therefore because YOU got a hybrid car or some shit, you did your part and everyone else needs to do the same and it’s not your responsibility anymore. Needing to put in the political struggle to take on the corporate interests destroying the planet takes effort that deviates from your normal life. You have to actually talk to people, work with them, and take part in collective action. And your responsibility isn’t over until the problem is solved.
Also, sort of related: I always take issue with how dealing with issues like climate change is framed in terms of making sacrifices. Like sure, are we going to be able to do as much excessive consumption as we do now? No. But there are so many climate policies that would also just make life better for people in the short/medium term. We would be happier, healthier, and safer in a world where we got rid of our dependence on cars and replaced it with walkable cities and good mass transit. But instead of talking about how good it could be, instead the message ends up being “You’re a bad person for diving a car. You need to give up using your car and go either walk to your job which is too far away and across a bunch of busy streets or cram yourself onto the underfunded public transportation that is crowded, slow, unreliable, and falling apart.” No wonder people get so defensive. We don’t want them to have to use the bad infrastructure. We want it to be so good that it’s the best option by far. Pitch that future instead of lecturing people.
TL;DR: I WANT TRAINS! GIVE TRAINS!
I agree, I love trains too!
And regarding your other points, don’t forget urban planning. Trains and urban planning go hand in hand. You can’t transform transportation by trains alone if everything is suburbs and city jobs, for example.
110%. Walkable cities and trains. Let’s do it.
Yes, walkable cities and trains but also planning out where people live and work. Where people live is currently left up to the anarchy of the market, real estate speculation, where employment is located, etc. Then they have to get from where they live to other places they want or need to be, usually work. With some planning these things can be made intentionally dense, closer together, cheaper, and on transit lines.
American comment is American
USA #1!.. at a bunch of things you don’t want to be #1 at.
Excellent comment!
Design towns and cities that can only be easily traversed by car.
Just to reiterate, there is something you can do about this. Lobby your local decision makers. They’re not waiting around to be guilted into anything, but they are generally happy to talk to residents and are open for reasonable arguments.
(That doesn’t mean local politicians are reasonable people. 90% of the ones who run things where I live are a lost case. But there are always the odd exceptions who are willing to listen and will work hard to make a difference.)
I posted a question about it a few days ago, but atm my tiny project is to get my town to plant more trees along the sidewalks so it isn’t so torturous to walk anywhere when it gets this hot. I tried emailing someone from a department I think handles this kind of thing, but not 100% sure and I haven’t heard back yet. I guess I’ll follow up soon if I don’t get a response.
We’re all responsible. I’m sure a lot of Romans used this argument when their slaves came after them during the Servile Wars. And it probably didn’t go well.
Sure, you buy and drive the car, but you didn’t:
If you vote for political parties that support these policies it’s on you too, with your vote you handle them your responsibility
Is it also not the fault of the 99% who vote for non-Green parties who then make the laws causing your bullet points?
Waaaaaaaay less than the people who have used their power to corrupt said system. Capitalists wouldn’t have spent this much money on lobbying and propaganda if it wasn’t needed. They try their best to keep some people from voting and the rest from having any viable choices that reflect what they want.
It’s just counterproductive to conceptualize our current situation in terms of individualized guilt. It’s not like going to privately check a box every few years is doing much more than choosing to consume a bit less. We need to be organized. Our enemies are and they’re winning.
Is it also not the fault of the 99% who vote for non-Green parties who then make the laws causing your bullet points?
Waaaaaaaay less than the people who have used their power to corrupt said system.
In the 2024-11-05 US House election there were 149.5 million votes (I don’t know how many eligible total), and 0.2 million voted Green.
In the 2024-11-05 US presidential election there were 155 million votes (only a 64.3% turnout), and 0.8 million voted Green.
In the 2024-07-04 UK election there were 48 million eligible voters, and 1.9 million voted Green. However, polling shows that despite the UK’s first-past-the-post system, the Greens (in Feb and March) regularly polled ahead of both Labour and the Tories.
Godammit. I’ve boycotted Exxon and BP, for their negligence that led to spills, for a long time. I knew shell probably wasn’t much better but I’ve preferred them anyhow. Turns out I was helping the worst offender. Awesome.
And you base that on… a shitpost on lemmy without a source or even a damn label? It’s literally bunch of rectangles.
Cool, you’re a jerk.
These companies are monopolies, they can’t be significantly materially affected by a consumer boycott. Most of their customers are in industry anyways. Any boycott against them is more about raising awareness than achieving something, it’s a diffuse form of political education.
To take on the fossil fuel industry requires having control over big levers at the top of the economy. Those levers are currently pulled, anarchically, by capital, not actual humans. Capital pulls those levers and spurns its highest level servants to get out of the way or feed it more bodies. To end this society-wide violence we must displace capital, it must not be in charge. We must be in charge.
Ah yes companies that famously refine oil only to pour it into a hole and light it on fire for their own amusement, one else uses it at all.
If it’s just these companies that would be affected let’s just close them down. I’m sure it would make no difference whatsoever.
Shell also dodge paying fair taxes. https://www.ftm.eu/articles/shell-shifted-billions-in-profits-to-tax-havens-leaked-files-reveal
We ought to seize all the top companies.
They’re just holding companies. They don’t make anything. They don’t produce anything. They just bleed off a kick, like a mob boss, and use those gains to amass political power.
Seize them all and use the assets (and annual profits) to fund American society.
No thanks, BP and Saudi Aramco already prop up the US enough.
like a mob boss
Who do you think started the first big companies?
Put a garnishing order on their past 50 years of profits. All proceeds go to infrastructure investments for the developing world in climate mitigation and food security.
It’s actually the capitalist system as a whole. The large fossil fuel companies of course push for extraction and maximizing their customer base, but it is the entire underlying economic system that ensues it is wasteful and that alternatives for energy production are avoided or limited.
Let’s go through some examples.
Just think about all the jobs on the planet. How many of them are actually necessary and doing work that prioritizes sustainability or limits environmental impact? How much is producing pointless goods or forcing them to be grown in wasteful ways in order to maximize profit? Is the fruit in your fruit cup grown in Latin America, packaged in Thailand, and sold in Germany? Is your job in or related to finance, real estate, or insurance (all useless or leech industries)? Are there 30 people doing a job when only 3 are needed because 5 companies are doing redundant hiring between each other?
Look at one of the largest single-entity consumer of fossil fuels on the planet: the US military. More than the vast majority of countries. Now you might say, “hey wasn’t this about the economic system?”, and yes it is. The purpose of the US military is not “defense” of the United States itself, its lands. The purpose of the US military is to enforce its unipolar status as the primary seat of global capital. Bases all around the world, surrounding shipping lanes and energy. Their most conspicuous targets revolving around either energy (Venezuela, Iraq, Iran) or opponents of the capitalist system or peripheral countries trying to assert a slightly higher level of economic autonomy.
The reason for this is that the economic system is driven entirely by profit-seeking, namely accumulating more and more capital via injecting capital into activities. Productive, redundant, destructive, capital doesn’t care so long as more comes back through the activity. Environmental sustainability is not something capital considers except as a new way to market selling more products and therefore increasing itself. Capital industrialized entire nations while dooming generations to lung problems from soot and famine conditions and dust bowls from over extraction and the elimination of the commons. It simply does not care, at all, and it is in control of nearly every human on the planet, including those who own businesses, pressing them into the capital-increasing social activities it spurns.
You could end every energy monopoly tomorrow, even nationalize them, and the vast majority of emissions would still remain, as the actual primary engine would be left intact.
The only way to secure an environmental future is to overthrow capitalism and put people, not capital, in charge.
US and Europe carbon emissions have gone down in the past 20 years, while China’s has grown rapidly. China accounts for %35 of the world’s emissions. Of course lots of manufacturing for goods happens in China, but this just tells me that capitalism is not to blame here, China is. China needs to raise their carbon taxes. Or maybe manufacturing needs to come back to the US and Europe, where it can be properly regulated.
Most greenhouse gas emissions occurred when colonizer Western countries were industrialized. They were not “properly regulated”, instead they were offshored in order to discipline labor and extract even greater profits. The offshoring was not exclusive to China, GHGs accordingly increased everywhere that further industrialized as a result of this. This effect is about as capitalist as it gets, trying to maximize profits via labor discipline and opening new fronts for increased exploitation (more profit per worker).
China’s approach to this shift was to realize it was an opportunity to build their own productive forces, that capitalists would give up productive centers and move them to other countries, and those countries should be able to domestically gain and upper hand so long as they ensured that production could broadly increased with every investment. For example, China requires technology transfer as part of direct foreign investment. China was correct in this and it is why it is an exception to the rule for national development as a former peripheral country. Compare ita development to India, which did not require such transfers or focus on building production.
Now, again, this means that industrial production moved outside the imperial core and into other countries, including but not limited to China. That industry did not suddenly become green nor did it become immune to the global economic system. It meant being wed to it. As we all know China’s strategy is one of interdependency with global capitalism even as they try to steer an otherwise anarchic process in a coherent direction via the commanding heights of the economy.
And yet we can see the difference those commanding heights make even on this specific issue. China is the global exporter and consumer of green energy, leading the charge on solar panels that countries like the US sanction and tariff, instead promoting fossil fuels. China is taking the actual steps you’d imagine Western nations doing (even though they never have), like setting public targets and meeting or exceeding them, and sticking to their obligations.
Imagine what could be done if every country could work in concert for those developments. Specifically, against the anarchic tendencies of the market and capitalist profit seeking.
Why are you acting like China is a poor helpless victim to capitalism here. China chose to shift to capitalism at the end of the 1900s. And they can choose to impose stricter regulation on fossil fuel emissions. They choose not to because it hurts their bottom line. Simple as that.
The US and EU have controlled their emissions, while China’s continues to grow. China has the highest GDP in the world, and 7th highest GDP per capita, it has no excuse anymore.
Why are you acting like China is a poor helpless victim to capitalism here.
I didn’t. I gave a pretty dry analysis. Maybe ask yourself why that feels overly sympathetic to you.
China chose to shift to capitalism at the end of the 1900s.
That’s not a particularly accurate or useful description of China’s gambit to allow (mostly foreign) capital to exploit its people to build productive forces while maintaining overall control over sweeping aspects of their economy. If China simply switched to capitalism one then has to explain why it is so different from every other capitalist country. China’s trajectory is responsible for the vast majority of global poverty index improvements and this runs in dramatic contrast to the rest of the periphery that was already fully capitalist and continues to be. The redirection of funds and productive capacity to infrastructure, education, housing, direct poverty alleviation. The limits/outright bans on the financialization and speculation that characterize imperial core economies. The policy of embedding the party in large firms and turning developed industries into state-meditated co-ops. The lack of imperialist expansion required by monopolized, financialized capital. But I digress.
And they can choose to impose stricter regulation on fossil fuel emissions.
Sure. They could set them to any arbitrary level. What is the correct rate for it to be sustained? Remember, they’re almost alone in meeting targets among countries as advanced as they are. What level of production flight should they unilaterally sacrifice, if any, and who picks up the slack? At which limits do they begin sacrificing that production? Are their regulations too loose or strict for the optimal trajectory? Why are we focusing on one of the only countries meeting their targets and making progress on renewables?
They choose not to because it hurts their bottom line. Simple as that.
It is, in fact, not as simple as that and this ignores the active work and debate within China that produces the results we are discussing. They aren’t making their targets because that’s just what capitalism does. It’s deliberate, literally a result of deliberation, research, modeling, and pulling levers at the commanding heights.
The US and EU have controlled their emissions
lmfao you can’t be serious they can’t even meet their own targets. France is the only one that ever does and it’s because they became a primary source of nuclear weapons materials (producing low emission energy as a nice side effect).
while China’s continues to gro
[Edit: nearly] Everyone’s continue to grow. The targets are set, at the moment, for when they will hit peak and then begin dropping. China’s peak target is set to 2030 and they are slated to beat that.
China has the highest GDP in the world, and 7th highest GDP per capita, it has no excuse anymore.
Which part of “the only ones taking this seriously” is not registering?
Everybody’s economy is different, China is no snowflake. But I am not going to debate whether China’s capitalism is “good capitalism” or not, that feels like pulling hairs and is a digression as you yourself said.
How much should China regulate? At the very least enough to stop the growth. I think that’s a simple enough answer.
Everyone’s continue to grow
Not true. The US and EU have been lowering emissions for the past 20 years.
Everybody’s economy is different, China is no snowflake.
Actually it is. The trajectory of other peripheral countries is quite different. Compare to India, look at poverty stats when China is removed.
But I am not going to debate whether China’s capitalism is “good capitalism” or not, that feels like pulling hairs and is a digression as you yourself said.
You can’t debate the topic at all, clearly, but sure want to continue making the claim that it simply switched to capitalism. Maybe don’t say things your can’t bc defend?
How much should China regulate? At the very least enough to stop the growth. I think that’s a simple enough answer.
It doesn’t address the obvious trade-off I laid out. Why are India’s Paris commitments currently greater than zero?
So, what was China’s target for peak emissions? What does peak emissions mean? How are they doing regarding that target?
Not true. The US and EU have been lowering emissions for the past 20 years.
If you focus solely on production you can eke out such numbers, but it ignores the basics of imperialism and the aforementioned offshoring where industry doesn’t just magically become green. Shuffling around where industry is located didn’t decrease emissions by itself. Emissions targets do not stick exclusively to production and, I have to repeat again because you keep ignoring it, the US and EU are failing to meet their commitments. Yet you focus on one of the few countries that is. I wonder why. I wonder why you ignore 80% of what I say. Perhaps you should take a little break.
If you include consumption the plots look very different. And I’m not aware of easily available stats that track based on industry ownership.
Compare to India, look at poverty stats when China is removed.
i’m a trained economist and i don’t know what this means. why would china be included when looking at india?
The reason I’m not debating China’s flavor of capitalism is because it’s irrelevant. They don’t get a free pass on carbon emissions no matter what economy they have.
And yes there’s a trade-off, regulating fossil fuels increases production costs. That’s the trade-off everybody makes.
Bottom line is that China’s emissions are huge and still growing. They are meeting commitments because those commitments were low in the first place. For example China only commited to peak emissions by 2030. The US and EU never needed to make such a commitment because they had already reached their peak in 2005.
And yes they perform a large portion of the world’s manufacturing, this “shuffling” of industries that you mentioned. But their lower regulations on emissions is precisely one of the reasons why manufacturing moves there. If they regulated more heavily, then some manufacturing would move out, but at least total global emissions would go down. Every country needs to participate in raising the cost of fossil fuels, in order for it to work.
schmalexa, adjust numbers for per capita emissions
I addressed that here
nice stats, now lets talk about emissions per person - neat how you picked the stat that ignores the current state of things and only focuses on how even more emissions the west used to produce
also, the reason the wheels haven’t well and truly fallen off of the global economy is because china has halved oil imports recently to avoid the ill advised us war on iran leading to an oil availability cliff. they (regrettably, but perhaps unavoidably) have used coal heavily (in combination with larger oil reserves than the rest of the world combined) to cut their own demand dramatically and abruptly to bail out the rest of the world
it isn’t unreasonable to see china’s short term reliance on more dirty forms of energy as a tool for energy independence (critical when the us can single handedly cause an international fuel crisis) being used strategically while china continues to rapidly switch to renewables at a rate that puts most western countries to shame
in short, maybe china isn’t to blame; capitalism and neoliberalism is
I mentioned this in another thread which tried to use “emissions per capita”, but that isn’t a great metric because it is biased towards low productivity. We had very low emissions pre-1800s, for example. And North Korea has 4x less emissions per capita than China, are we supposed to follow North Korea’s lead?
Also I hate how everybody constantly frames China as a poor helpless victim of capitalism. This was also mentioned in another thread here. China chose to shift to capitalism at the end of the 1900s. And they can choose to impose stricter regulation on fossil fuel emissions. They choose not to because it hurts their bottom line. Simple as that.
The US and EU have controlled their emissions, while China’s continues to grow. China has the highest GDP in the world, and 7th highest GDP per capita, it has no excuse anymore.
China has all the hallmarks of capitalism - widening wealth gap, massive housing speculation, horrible working conditions, etc. If China gets to use dirty energy as a “short term strategy” with some vague promise to do better in the future, then why not the West? We could call all the evils of the world just “short term strategy”.
not some vague promise - china is famously switching to renewables very quickly - check the same website you linked in your previous comment if you need a source for china outpacing the west on renewables - and did the whole thing about china leveraging coal right now to very literally save the world economy from the very predictable crisis caused by the us aggression towards iran just bounce silently off your brain? china focusing on energy resiliency is a trade-off but one you should be presently grateful for (and again, despite that trade-off, china is at or near the top of the list for rate of renewable adoption)
do you really expect china to cap their per capita emissions well below the current per capita emissions of the us? let’s be serious. as you point out, to do so would be to expect china to kneecap itself economically in a way you wouldn’t demand of a western country - are you just mad china has so many more citizens? or are you scared of how far china would be ahead economically if it allowed itself as many emissions per person as the us?
on the subject of china not being a “poor helpless victim of capitalism” i will just point at cuba and so many historical examples of what the global north does to counties that don’t bow sufficiently to capital to be labeled comfortably capitalist enough to slot easily into the neo-liberal international economy. (even if not capitalist enough to not constantly be called communist at the same time)
out of one side of your mouth you say that emissions per capita isn’t a great metric because it is biased towards low productivity - presumably meaning you think it makes china look better unfairly because you are lumping it in with north korea and you see both as under-developed backwaters (also it’s cute how you put “emissions per capita” in quotes as if it’s some made up measure and not literally the first stat on the page for each country on the webpage you use as a source)
but out of the other side of your mouth you point out that china has the highest gdp in the world and is in the top ten for gdp per capita and so it is an advanced, economically powerful country and so should be more strictly controlling its emissions per capita (dramatically more strictly than the us, you seem to believe)
you can’t have it both ways. instead, let’s be consistent and expect the countries with the highest emissions per capita to aggressively reduce those emissions and expect developing countries, like china, to stay below or equal with the emissions of developed countries
(we could argue about if the huge headstart the currently developed countries have means that is already unfair but at this point, personally, i believe the need to work together to reduce emissions makes that a backseat issue.)
out of one side of your mouth …but out of the other side of your mouth
Both can be true. I’m saying that even though China is less advanced than the US (as evidenced by the lower GDP per capita and lower emissions per capita), China still has enough GDP per capita to be amongst the top nations of the world.
At the very least, they should be reducing their emissions like the other top nations. I’m not asking more from China than I am from western nations. I’m asking for them to do the same.
except you literally are - it will be a decade or more until china’s per capita emissions match either the us or canada if current trends continue, but considering the current administration in the us doesn’t believe in lowering emissions and china continues to ramp renewables, one could reasonably expect convergence with the us to slow even beyond that.
given that situation, pointing to china as the problem is truly laughable. the world can’t afford for the us to give up on reducing emissions (which it has, at least temporarily seems to have done), and china has a long way to go before it is in danger of not keeping up with the top emitting nations in terms of curbing its emissions.
taken from a forbes article, even on total emissions the current view is very different from the picture you are trying to paint:
Global CO2-equivalent emissions reached a record 41.0 billion metric tons in 2025, increasing 1.1%, according to the Energy Institute’s 2026 Statistical Review. This rise occurred even as renewables met the entire net increase in global electricity generation, indicating non-power sectors like transport and industry are driving emissions. Notably, the U.S. saw a sharp 3.2% rebound, contributing nearly half the global increase, fueled by rising demand and a surprising return to coal. In stark contrast, China, the largest emitter, experienced near-stalled growth due to massive non-fossil power expansion. India’s growth also slowed. The data underscores that while clean energy scales, overall decarbonization remains insufficient, with regional shifts dictating global progress.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2026/07/05/global-emissions-hit-a-new-record-as-us-emissions-rebounded/China is behind the EU in per capita emissions. And anyways as mentioned before, per capita emissions is not the metric I would use. The wiki on carbon emissions also shows per GDP emissions, and on that China is behind.
But there’s another simple metric that China is behind on. Reducing emissions. Not just slowing growth. Reducing them. The US and EU can do it, so should China
I’m not sure about the data sources for this image but from some quick research it looks like this includes scope 3 (end user emissions) for shell and chevron by not the others. The data realistically looks a bit more like this:
🇸🇦 Saudi Aramco: ~2.0 Billion metric tons (Estimated; excludes Scope 3 from official tracking) 🇬🇧 Shell: ~1.1 Billion metric tons 🇺🇸 ExxonMobil: ~813 Million metric tons 🇺🇸 Chevron: ~600 to 780 Million metric tons (Varies by accounting method) 🇬🇧 BP: ~400 Million metric tons
Context: For all these companies, Scope 3 makes up 85% to 95% of their total climate impact. This is why state-owned giants like Aramco and US majors like Exxon/Chevron focus their climate targets almost entirely on their own drilling operations (Scope 1 & 2) while excluding the footprint of the products they sell.
In any case this is pretty bad and we are probably gonners.
I still feel like these numbers are not appropriately representative… iirc, the vast majority of world oil supplies come from nationalized oil companies, which keep the lions share of the profits of oil production as a source of national revenue. So assuming I havent been misled, my best guess is that the private firms are contracted for extraction and refinement, and so the total carbon footprint gets lumped together under them, rather than being split between the national governments who contract them
Congress. For not taxing carbon emissions according to the damage they cause.
(And other countries’ legislatures, but as an American voter, I first need to hold my own legislature responsible.)
I first need to hold my own legislature responsible
Don’t think that’s really a thing in America anymore.
It’s just a vibe I get. It may have something to do with felon rapist pedophiles running the legislature.
There are a lot of “who gives them the money” posts here - and on a basic level they’re right.
But there’s also the part where these companies were spearheading climate research initially - and instead of trying to pivot into renewable energy they doubled down on oil, muddied the waters in discussions by first denying global warming and then when that didn’t work out anymore, emphasizing scientific uncertainty, lobbied against environmental regulations, and shifted blame to the individual.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with this. But the above meme always irks me, because it implies that if only those mean ol’ corporations would just stop it, all us good people could stop climate change and get back to driving our F150s in peace.
Spoiler alert: if we weren’t 8 billion and fertilized our crops with fossil fuels, then we wouldn’t need that much fossil energy…
Yes, it’s you. It’s me. It’s your 5 kids. The oil didn’t pump itself out of the ground and set itself on fire for fun.
It’s your plane trip, it’s your military, it’s your proxy wars.
Whenever I see posts like this, I really don’t understand if people really think they produce oil/gas/fuel/food packaging, etc. for themselves.
If someone offers a money for a product, there will be someone else willing to sell it to you. You are the consumer.
Think of it like this - a electricity company generates electricity, as much as it’s needed for current demand. I’m the final consumer, the demander, the reason infrastructure exists. And I shall be happy burning my RTX 5080 while looking into ACs to cool the room from that PC at the same time, hitting 2kW usage just so I can do nothing and game, because who cares. I tried living green, but when you see MFs producing more footprint in their shitty trucks in a day than you do in a month using Ebike, and people still decide to blame some placeholder instead of our own society and way of living, then it’s quite clear nothing will change and it’s a lost cause.
And God said “LET CORPORATIONS DESTROY THE PLANET AND ERADICATE ALL LIFE”.
Guess this is the modern alternative to the flood.
Where does the money they get come from?
Oil extraction
You’re confused.
The money comes from you. I welcome you to no longer use a car and walk to the job. Poof, suddenly their profit falls. Multiply that by a society, and suddenly much of these firms can no longer exist.
The question has always been about how much humans are willing to sacrifice to save the earth, and the answer has pretty much always been “best I can do is blame a placeholder (some CEO/company, doesn’t matter which one, because it’s just demand from society and there will always be new companies as long as there is demand from you and me) and assume it’s 100% their fault”
Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t really an individual problem, it’s how society/humans work. We’d vote for someone who speaks against oil, but hang them as soon as the oil price goes above 5$
I don’t own a gasoline car you fool
I want the price of oil to be $2028 a gallon
The products you buy were made in factories powered by fossil fuels, shipped across oceans in fossil fuel powered ships, and arrive at the shop in fossil fuel powered trucks. The food you eat is fertilized with fossil fuels, and the industrial growing, processing, and packaging process puts carbon into the atmosphere. The streets you walk on are made from concrete, which releases carbon into the atmosphere from the chemical process used to synthesize it. And even if you live some magical life where you can avoid personally paying the cost of all of these things, the same is not true of everyone else, who needs to drive cars to work on asphalt highways, heat their homes with wood/propane/ng stoves, eats industrially produced food, and have all this economic activity protected via a fossil fuel powered military. And an increased price of carbon means that their lives cost more, which means they need higher wages, which means everything they produce that you might buy also gets more expensive.
I don’t disagree with you that gas prices should be higher. In fact, I think the only way to get from here to there is to appropriately price carbon. But to act like there is no potential for hardship among average people - that there arent legitimate challenges to weening off the carbon-heavy economy we are used to - is disingenuous at best
Right, but why are you ready to live green when 8 out of 10 people would take the cheaper oil that you didn’t buy? Just keep doing whatever you like, we don’t matter on the grand scheme of things.
