Study reveals how much carbon damage would cost corporations if they paid for their emissions
phys.org
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, according to a study by economists of nearly 15,000 public companies.
  • Double_A
    23·
    1 year ago

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

    • wandermind@sopuli.xyz
      31·
      1 year ago

      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
        2·
        1 year ago

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

    • Espi@kbin.social
      31·
      1 year 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.

    • Jax@sh.itjust.works
      44·
      1 year ago

      “Stuff people want” isn’t really an excuse.

      A morbidly obese 800lb land whale, incapable of moving because they’ve fused with their bed, wants food.

      A heroin addict, track marks on their dick, wants heroin.

      A suicidal individual wants to unalive themself.

      Do you give them the food that will contribute to their death?

      Do you give them the heroin that will either kill them or contribute to their death?

      Do you hand them a gun?

      • AbsolutelyNotABot@lemm.ee
        1·
        1 year ago

        This is a very dangerous argument because it infringes the democratic base itself.

        It’s not necessary wrong, but be careful because with the very same logic you could argue the people don’t really know what they want, they aren’t able to govern themselves, we, enlightened creatures, should decide the way forward.

        Again, it’s not necessary false, but it leads to authoritarian and paternalistic consequences