Dammit, you are totally correct. Deleting this post

Of course the carbon footprint of the billionaires is nothing compaired to what the industry sector emits. My point was in relation to how the per capita emissions are used, not in comparison to the economy as a whole. While keeping in mind that it’s big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed, so that we focus on personnal choices, instead of collective action.

I would be interested in seeing the methodology behind that figure

If you click on the relevant link above, you will find the report itself. You can even download the methodology note seperately.

The super rich are (…) a vast minority

It seems to me that the math in this is overwhelming. If a single person in this minority emits in 90min more than an average person in their lifetime, we should take into consideration that their lifetime is made of many, many, many 90min slots.

Apart from that of course I’m all in for sustainable living and redistribution of wealth for lower classes. Preferably abolish the class-system all together, of course.

Emissions per capita are a distraction that makes us focus on a us, everyday people, instead of the major polluters: the super wealthy and their toxic coorporations. Don’t fall for it!

• Billionaires emit more carbon pollution in 90 minutes than the average person does in a lifetime
• 36 Fossil Fuel Giants Responsible For Half of World’s CO2 Emissions: Report

The Nordic model’s approach is relevant in imo, because this article is about Sweden, and because this path proved not be safe from capitalism taking over. This does not contradict what you said, that the entire world is electing right wing populists right now. It is a reminder that this is a mechanism that capitalism traditionaly uses to resolve its crises.

Yep. To my understanding, in the Nordic model, capitalism continues to devour all socialist tendencies.

It looks like there is an expansion of the oil industry in the whole continent lately.

(Naively, I started writing the previous sentence with the word Unfortunately just to realise mid-sentence it’s not a matter of fortune, but of planning.)

Africa’s new oil frontier: Exploration hotspots across the continent

I think it’s non-binding, after all.

Dammit, I am confused.

In this article from BBC, it says:

The ruling is non-binding

In another article from the Guardian, it says the opposite:

Countries are now bound under international law

Which one is it?

I’m afraid you’re totally right.

Edit: The strikethrought. Now that I think about it, all this destruction is part of the ethnic cleansing. It’s a way to forcefully displace Palestinians. By making Gaza unlivable, it’s also a way to prevent them to return there.

I don’t see effective regulations being put into place to restrict capitalist exploitation. On the contrary, the regulations are in favor of capitalism, and capitalism is ferosiously distructive.

So, what I mean by saying organise is that due to the fact that neoliberalism has bought off politicians (political systems I should say) worldwide, it is important to organise ourselves in order to get rid of its eternal growth model, which is destroying life on this planet.

The Rojava example is one of my favorite approaches.

I have only lived in europe and these are the conclusions I’ve made so far.

Ok, you say the following

Regulation is just how we make that choice as a collective.

For me, the answer is

Organize.

I suppose it depends on one’s perspective.

To dislike (or worse) an article and its author, it’s one thing. From that to draw conclusions about all americans seems like a stretch to me.

Nevertheless, I would appreciate some clarification on the following statement, if you don’t mind.

Americans being unable to understand the public space as a concept

What do you believe you understand about public space as a concept that americans don’t?

Edit: Looks like the author is Bolivian, not american
Edit2: Sorry my bad. That’s another Ana Flores. This one is

Ana Karen Flores is a first-generation Latina communications strategist who commands the narrative and drives real political change. She’s a Public Voices fellow with The OpEd Project and works alongside the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice and the Every Page Foundation.

For me, there are to many “ifs” and assumptions in this hypothesis.

Copy-pasting here my comment to this article from another community:

Carbon Capture and Storage/Sequestration (CCS) is a topic I changed my mind about, not that long ago, including its subsets like Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), Direct Air Capture (DAC), etc. Up to last year or something, I was thinking that it’s important for these kind of tech to be researched.

Now I see things differently:

• To my understanding, the only CCS tech that makes sense is the one that catches emissions at the source, the factory chimneys.

• The others that claim to suck up GHG and store them “out of sight out of mind” are highly problematic for so many reasons. They are distractions from the real issue which is phasing out fossil fuel.

A few relevant links:

Fact or fantasy? Can carbon dioxide removal save the climate?

For fossil fuel corporations, keeping CDR on the agenda as a credible climate change solution is a Get Out of Jail Free card. Instead of stopping emissions, they promise to capture and bury them. Not now, but someday. As the CEO of Occidental Petroleum told a conference of her peers in 2023, “We believe that our direct capture technology is going to be the technology that helps to preserve our industry over time. This gives our industry a license to continue to operate for the 60, 70, 80 years that I think it’s going to be very much needed.”[

Climeworks’ capture fails to cover its own emissions

The car­bon capt­ure comp­any Cli­meworks on­ly capt­ur­es a fracti­on of the CO2 it promises its machines can capt­ure. The comp­any is fail­ing to car­bon off­set the em­issi­ons resulting from its operati­ons – which have grown rapidly in recent ye­ars.

More articles in the relevant community:
cdr@slrpnk.net

Your comment reminded me of a recent article from Carbon Brief:

Experts: Which climate tipping point is the most concerning?

It was a huge disapointment that contrapoints demonstrated this way of thinking on the genocidal settler colonial movement called zionism.

Personnaly, I listen to anti-zionist Jews on on the matter, like Jewish Voice for Peace, since they are the largest Jewish anti-zionist organization in the world. Having JVP’s input, I can say this word substitution doen’t work for me.

Still thank you OP for posting this because, somehow I wasn’t aware of it. I unsubscribed from contrapoint’s channel, and I will not watch any of her videos again, unless she has a change of heart.

Just to note that at some point in this article it looks like SDGs are portrayed as something positive. I don’t share this view. I am more of the view that it is SDG-washing.

Edit: In principle, SDGs could be a step towards the right direction. In practice, to my understanding, they are used for PR. Companies and corporations, more often than not, are vaguely supporting some of these goals in order to be considered as SDG compliant, while covering up the sectors that are actively harmful. And that’s perhaps one of the best case scenario.

I tend to agree with what you say but I feel like mentionning a couple of things I see perhaps differently.

I believe saying marine mammals are a myth has nothing to do with claiming alpha males don’t exist. The first is about a biological classification, the latter is about observed (or projected) social behaviors within one species.

Apart from that, and to my understanding, the manosphere has taken a hold of the alpha male narrative and expanded it far beyond the scientifically debunked myth. I do not imply that the fact that the alpha male myth has been debunked means that there are no hierarchical structures in species, just that when they are present, they are misrepresented in order to promote competitive narratives. This is why primatologist Frans de Waal inadvertently popularized the term ‘alpha male.’ Now, he’s debunking common stereotypes to explain what an ‘alpha male’ really is – empathetic and protective.