this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
112 points (97.5% liked)

BrainWorms

1830 readers
1 users here now

Hey, welcome to BrainWorms.

This is a place where I post interesting things that I find and cant categorize into one of the main subs I follow. Enjoy a front seat as i descend into madness

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
DeadWorld@lemm.ee
112
The world's corporations produce so much climate change pollution, it could eat up about 44% of their profits if they had to pay damages for it (phys.org)
submitted 2 years ago by DeadWorld@lemm.ee to c/brainworms@lemm.ee
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Shikadi@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Jfc not even half their profits and they could save the world? Bloody hell

Edit: my comment heavily ignores nuance, don't take it too seriously

[–] TheZoltan@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

This was my exact thought!

[–] CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Is it though?

[–] Sickos@hexbear.net 17 points 2 years ago

Wait so they could actually fix all their pollution and STILL BE PROFITABLE!?

[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

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.

(Commented this elsewhere on this article being posted, but I think it's important enough to say again.)

[–] Depress_Mode@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Oh, well. Why shouldn't they have to clean up their own messes? I thought corporations counted as people, people who can be compelled to pick up after themselves. Any money they'd lose is money they should have already been spending on this.

[–] gravalicious@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

They'd pass the onus to pay onto the consumer. Their profits will remain untouched.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

if

[–] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I hate those kind of arguments... Those corporations produce stuff that people want, and usually can't even be made without emissions.

[–] Espi@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

There are four ways forward:

  1. Corporations choose willingly to reduce emissions (and probably die in the process as their prices are no longer competitive)
  2. ALL corporations band together to reduce emissions
  3. ALL consumers band together to purchase only from corporations that have low or no emissions
  4. Government forces consumers and corporations to reduce emissions.

So in the real world, there is only one way forward.

[–] wandermind@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And I hate these arguments. Corporations still choose to produce those things. They could choose not to. Why should they be allowed to do anything just because "people want" something?

[–] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago

That's just how the world works... If enough people want it, somebody will eventually start creating that product.