44% of PROFITS, not gross income.
Which means that even if companies were actually charged for the mess they made, they would be operating in the black AND their profits would still be 66% of normal.
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
649 points (99.5% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5194 readers
1082 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
I'll be that guy.. 56% of normal
So, they'd still be wildly profitable, then?
Huh.
'Wildly profitable' would not be enough to them.
'Extremely profitable' would not be enough to them.
'Insanely profitable' would not be enough to them.
Infinite growth is one hell of a drug.
See also: any other form of cancer.
The only time infinite growth would be possible is if we became a space faring species and colonized other planets. That would allow us to continue population growth.
Outside of that, infinite growth is impossible since there’s only so many people on this planet and even less who can afford their products.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Capitalism and infinite growth is a microcosm of an organisms drive for infinite growth, which is usually curtailed by all sorts of biological and evolutionsry processes. Like space limitations and scarcity of resources, and I'm trying to figure out what is different between the individuals that form these mega corps and the average organism.
I dunno. Is this a stupid train of thought?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah it really drives home just how fucking cooked the situation is.
Sorry kids the biosphere is fucked and human society is an echo of what it once was but there were some rich people who didn't want to be slightly less rich than they already were.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Huh that's very reasonable actually. Generous even. Now let's see what they can pay workers.
As little as they can get away with. And then they'll brag about record profits.
So, 44% of their profits are in fact 100% of our futures? That money didn't come from nowhere. All of us will pay that debt. Reporting needs to start reflecting that, and legislation needs to be enacted to get restitution. Until then, it's all toothless.
So what are we waiting for? Fuck em
Oh no not 44% of profits! Won't somebody please think of the margins!
Sounds like a win win
So 44% of corporate profits are subsidized by the fact they don’t have to pay for waste disposal.
Boo fuckin' hoo. Pay up, shitbags.
Oh no, not 44% of the extra money that goes into the pockets of already obscenely wealthy people
So in other words, they can afford to pay damages for it. Make them pay!
Oh shit what will I do if a couple ceos don't get paid hundreds of millions of dollars?? Won't someone think of the billionaires and their profit margins???
Lol every single cent of profit above 250 million should be taken from them and that's being generous
Fossil fuels are the main actors in this. Corporations can only use the energy we provide them with.
Fossil fuel producers will never pay damages for climate change due to political donations. You may get the odd instance now and again, where there is selective scapegoating and that will be that. The tobacco industry (AFAIK) has never paid for the damages they have caused. They poured billions into politics and offset the argument against them for decades. Fossil fuel companies are doing exactly the same thing.
So rather than finger point towards specific actors, we should be sorting our political systems out. Political donations need to be banned. Campaigns should only be allowed to run through a single channel that is funded by the country. All other types of political advertising should be stopped. It is well known that the most successful campaigns have a price tag attached. Therefore it is easy to buy votes with campaigns. Moreso in a FPTP system. While we allow political donations we will never stop egregious profiteering without consequences.
People need to make a conscious effort to buy less shit. It's easy to blame corpos but we create that demand.
If it doesn't solve a problem you have, you don't need it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Several companies have faced criticism for their environmental practices over the years. Here are some sectors and notable companies that have been highlighted for their environmental impact or poor environmental practices:
1 Fossil Fuel Industry:
This sector is the most significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Major companies in this sector have historically downplayed or denied their role in climate change.
ExxonMobil: Accused of knowing about climate change as early as the 1970s but funding climate change denial for years.
Chevron, BP, Shell: All have faced criticism for their contributions to global CO2 emissions.
2 Mining:
Mining can lead to deforestation, habitat destruction, and water pollution.
Vale and BHP Billiton: Responsible for the Mariana dam disaster in Brazil in 2015.
Glencore: Faced allegations of polluting rivers and not handling toxic waste appropriately.
3 Fashion:
The fashion industry, especially fast fashion, is a major polluter due to its high water usage, waste, and carbon emissions.
H&M, Zara, and Forever 21: All have been criticized for promoting fast fashion, leading to enormous waste and questionable labor practices.
4 Agriculture:
Large-scale farming, especially meat and dairy production, contributes to deforestation, water consumption, and methane emissions.
Tyson Foods, JBS, and Cargill: Significant contributors to global methane emissions due to their meat production.
5 Technology:
While tech companies often promote sustainability, some have been criticized for their environmental impact.
Apple: Previously criticized for not making products that are easily repairable or recyclable, though they've made significant strides in recent years.
Amazon: Criticized for excessive packaging and its carbon footprint from deliveries, though it has also made pledges to become carbon neutral.
6 Automotive:
Many car companies have historically relied on fossil fuels, contributing to CO2 emissions.
Volkswagen: Caught in a major scandal for cheating emissions tests in 2015.
7 Palm Oil Producers:
Palm oil production has led to significant deforestation, especially in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Companies like Nestlé, Unilever, and Procter & Gamble have faced scrutiny for not ensuring their palm oil is sustainably sourced, though many have made commitments to improve.
8 Plastics and Packaging:
Companies that heavily rely on single-use plastics contribute to plastic pollution.
Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé: Have been named among the top plastic polluters several times in global audits.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So it means we could start saving the world if corporations let go of less than half of their profits?
Even with the fine, their huge profits hardly change. This shows that the penalty isn't enough to discourage pollution. Stronger actions are necessary to make companies responsible.
It's one of the things that infuriates me when I hear refusals to address climate change: the "business as usual" way of doing things entails externalising countless costs, meaning comparing costs is an apples-and-oranges endeavour.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They would still be insanely wealthy, even with 44% less profit.
And what if everyone were honest about what these "damages" should be?
Even this fantasy scenario of consequences is an incredibly low-balled Cost of Doing Business of murder.
Yes please!
Who gets paid the damages? Countries that will just keep subsidising these industries to the detriment of everyone?
It's called internalizing the externalities, and desperately needs to happen.
But don't forget, the climate crisis is a hoax, but if it isn't then it's your fault for not recycling hard enough
Good.
I haven't read the article, but it sounds fair that they should pay for it. Fuck em.
Corporate pollution and your pollution are the same thing
Say there is a manufactured necessity. One cannot reasonably make it themselves or go without it. The manufacturer chooses to skimp on pollution controls or illegally dump so that the owners can make more money. How is that my fault?
I mean this more literally than you think. What youre thinking of as pollution isnt as prevalent as you think. Its not a lot of ghg's emitting from factories themselves, and its not factory waste filling dumps. What you throw out as pollution is also the bulk of corporate pollution. Plastic packaging in plastic trash bags in their own packaging to throw out, all of it needing gas burning to ship around. The gas itself being another major "corporate" pollution that oil companies produced but is being burned in your car and the trucks delivering goods to you. You demand all of this pollution.
I don't agree with those metrics, and also the main response I could give is pretty much exactly the same as what I just said. Perhaps one of my problems is your phrasing: "You demand all of this pollution.". No, I sure as hell do not. If you were to say "consumers demand all of this pollution." that would be less confrontational, but still incredibly incorrect. Do individuals consume the products of industry? Yes, amazing conclusion you have there.
I personally didn't design the city in which I live to have no reasonable public transportation and it's fairly bizarre and insulting to say that the average person did. I was born into this insanity. Saying that I 'demand pollution' because the fossil fuel industry suppressed renewable energy while investing in polluting sources is similarly so wrong that it's insulting. I never at any time said "you know, rather than cloth diapers, people 40 years before I was born should start using weird plastic diapers they just throw away!" High-level people who operate companies absolutely choose to skimp on pollution control for their profits and convenience, not that of the public or their customers. Take mining waste for instance. Do consumers use the products? Yes. Do consumers choose personally to abandon mines and allow them to fill full of toxic acidic water and pollute the nearby waterways? Uh, no, the owners of the mines do.
I never at any time went to a grocery store and said "you know, when you sell a single banana, it sure would be nice if you put it on a styrofoam tray wrapped in plastic". I never at any time said "you know, rather than invest in solar, we should frack the shit out of eastern Colorado and SE New Mexico" or "tar sands oil is a really, really good idea!". And personally, i do seek to reduce my consumption and be efficient.
So for some reason you're blaming every individual for society being set up in such a way as to benefit oil and gas companies. Guess who arranged that: people who profit from and operate petroleum companies. Essentially your claim is that since all industry exists to benefit the end user (ignoring the owners/executives/employees benefits) that consumers are 100% responsible for everything. It's a ludicrous and highly confused way to view the world.
Alright, you might be more personally aware than others. You also gotta be aware of the responsibility of most consumers. Sales of large trucks and SUV's are on the rise. No one's electing people to design less car centric towns, most people want more car focused transportation. Renewable energy has not been supressed at all, in fact its cheaper and more efficient than ever and available for anyone to buy. I think consumers are the only ones that can stop this
I think you're wrong. Renewables were suppressed for a very long time by companies who stood to profit from them being suppressed. I think you're vastly underestimating the amount of political sway large corporations can have on politics.
Where I am we have two parties with near identical climate policies who both receive the majority of their funding from coal and gas companies and who both choose to debate about any other topic.
People have also been flooded with so much disinformation that even now some people still think climate change isn't real. Putting the responsibility on individuals instead of on the actual perpetrators of this mess is kind of ridiculous.
I do agree we're the only ones who can change it but we're not responsible for it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
big oil literally destroyed public transit so we'd be dependent on their products. believe me, living without a car is hard and I'm lucky enough to make it work. and the situation is artificially created for the benefit of the oil and auto industries
Yep, I went without a car for several months in a large US city that theoretically is decent for public transit and my life became much more difficult. I was able to make it work, but it has seemed barely sustainable. Now I live somewhere (not by choice really) that is completely impossible without a car/delivery... unless I spend hours a day walking, which would be very hazardous due to everyone else's cars.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
Stupidly click baity title. The only corporation that does not pollute is the one that doesn't produce anything. Sure, regulations such as carbon taxes are necessary to contain negative externalities, but if there's a demand for cheap products there will be a lowest bidder that will take all market share.
Lowering our consumption is unfortunately the way to make those companies pollute less.
People don't want to hear about their personal responsibility to consume less, but it's true. Corporations aren't run by Captain Planet villains polluting for the same of pollution. They sell what people buy.
You can buy a bag of bite sized croissants individually wrapped in plastic and wholey wrapped again. I'd like to think this was an isolated incident but the general census is this is what every one of those cunts does because it's cheaper and easier.
Sure consumers buy... But the producers bear the responsibility. There's only so much boycotting small groups can do. Others will still buy. The mentality of wrapping every fucking thing in plastic is what need to change.
It is true that corporations need to change, but when that happens it means you also will have to change. So why wait? Change now. Use less overall, and look for better alternatives for what you still use.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›