this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
1034 points (95.0% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
40410 readers
4359 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Jeff Bezzos:
So I've wanted to do this for a minute..
But how many paper straws would you have to use to offset one of these explosions? How long would it take to offset one of these explosions through straw use?
Writing this now I was surprised by the results...
Source for plastic v paper straw data
So apparently plastic straws are actually more carbon neutral than paper straws, but for the purposes of this analysis I'm going to carry it through to find out how long it takes to create equivalent emissions.
Paper straws:
Call it 1430 grams of emissions per straw (which is wild btw)
Plastic straws:
Call it 610 per plastic straw. Still wild for something which weighs less than a gram.
This is also from the thesis
So yeah.. not great.
Gonna be using 825 tons of carbon dioxide emitted from Hank Green's video.
I think Hank is working in US standard units here.. which is also weird and annoying but whatever... We're getting to units of rocket explosion per straw so it's fine..
And I'm going to be using 500 million straws per day, which is cited in the thesis from a 2017 study and repeated elsewhere in other studies on this.
It's not great but what even are we doing here..
I don't know how we get a plastic straw versus compostable straw use rate (what proportion of straws are still plastic versus how many are now paper or some other alternatives)
But we get 820 additional grams of emissions for each straw swapped.
500 tons to grams is:
838238016
Divided by the difference in co2e foot print per straw...
838238016 / 820 is about 1022240, in other words, about a million.
So for about every million straws swapped from plastic to paper, one giant fiery rocket explosion of CO2 emissions occurs.
The US consumes straws at a convenient rate of 500 million a day, so if ALL of those straws were converted to paper, we're setting off about 500 of those explosions per day.
I was always given to understand that the straw thing was because plastic straws get out and fuck up wildlife, but that message seems to get buried in handwringing over climate change so often that I suspect bad actors are at play spreading all these memes.
Idk. It's not at all clear to me why or what's the point of these very performative acts.
There is almost no way it represents any practical differences to wildlife. It seemed to me something companies could "do" as a form of visual way of communicating that they were "doing something", and it's something that was done in sync, with no real consent of the consumer. It's not like people were driving this. It was very much from the corporate side.
Source: your ass?
Source: the about an hour of research I did on straws to write the response. I mean I read a fucking thesis on it and probably 4-5 articles. I mean the links in there you lazy fukkah
So maybe shove it up your ass.
Oh you editing now? Go find evidence that the transition from plastic straws to paper has had any measurable impacts on wildlife.
That doesn't really get to the impact of the plastic. Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood. It's there, but mostly it just seems to be inert. There are thousands of problems we are creating that we know are causing widespread extinctions. I'm not opposed to reducing plastic use, but forcing a major inconvenience for dubious results burns a lot of goodwill. That's why this is a popular wedge issue for the right, even though it mostly affects liberal coastal cities.
It blows my mind how you’re saying that like it makes it ok
Well the sentence after that is rather critical. It's not that 100% of humans have it, so who cares about animals; it's that we have an enormous highly-scrutinized test population, and in general the impacts are mild to imperceptible. I'm not blowing off this concern; we need to keep studying it in humans and animals (and the results may be different!).
But right now there are scores of critical world issues that can be tangibly addressed. Asking people to make lifestyle changes for possibly zero meaningful impact is actually counterproductive.
Does that include the co2 generated by the incineration of each straw at the end of their life? Assuming you're in a region that can incinerate trash instead of landfilling it.
I am not sure if that makes me feel better for the explosion or worse for the straws.
But that is awesome!
This is just.. Crazy bruh.. 😭
Have you noticed the intense UV this summer? I think he legit ripped a hole in the ozone layer with that explosion.
Somebody contact the investigative journalists at the Washington Post!
Oh...wait...
This image looks like right wing corpo propaganda to me. Not only does it divert the attention away from the handful of megacorporations emitting 80% of all green house gases, it is attacking a moderate leftist – who admittedly causes a relatively large amount of greenhouse gases.
But Taylor Swift is not making most of those flights on a personal basis. It’s to provide a service to fans. So in that sense we can regard the emissions as those of Taylor Swift the company. And in that sense they are much lower than many other companies who we often give a free pass.
So, yes hold the big emitters responsible, but let’s start with the 57 on the list and work our way down to Taylor Swift.
Bingo.
It invites hatred from a sizeable (though perhaps potentially less politically-aware) fan base that might otherwise be receptive.
Using someone as popular as Swift as a target for less-pop-culture-interested folks who are politically informed is clearly kicking the hornets’ nest to stir up in-fighting among the working class.
Next time use Bezos or one of the other folks who showed up in that “Dialog” secret society since they also use private jets in the same way someone like Swift does, but in addition are far worse in every other way and who also lobby with their billions towards worsening the world in every way imaginable.
Yeah, if you convinced Taylor Swift to stop using a private plane, it's analogous to fast food companies switching to paper straws while keeping everything else plastic. It helps, but it's just demanding a token solution instead of taking on the bigger problem.
Taylor swift is a leftist just like my racist boss has a black friend and is thus not racist.
I said moderate leftist, but you may have your own opinion about her
There are no ethical billionaires
I didn’t say that. But we have to be pragmatic and focus our energy on the worst offenders, because that’s where the most gain comes from.
Why waste energy distinguish are you a level 4 or a level 5 offender. Our energy would be much better spend dealing with the root of the problem. That is a society allowing that level of accumulation of wealth. No matter if you are performing for your fans or flying to Epstein island.
And the root lies with keeping the oil inside the earth’s crust. Not with Taylor Swift performing through MS Teams.
I'm blown away every time anew how some people on lemmy, like you here, effortlessly cut through manipulation. Reflecting on the state of the internet it's sadly delightful and refreshing.
If you make a snappy meme about it, I’ll start using it.
Didn’t make one, but I found this one:
As i do every time somebody posts this article:
The headline is misleading. It's not 57 "companies". The original source speaks of "Entities".
Number one on that List of 57? The former Soviet Union. Good luck holding them responsible. Next to several state controlled Actors like Gazprom (6th) or Saudi Armaco (3rd), some privat companies like ExxonMobile (5th), there are entities like Chinas Coal production from 1945 - 2004 (2nd) North Korea (57th) or Cinas Cement production (13th).
The list shows that oil companies cause a lot of emissions (but apparently not as much as the former soviet union). To absolutly nobodies suprise.
Next to holding them accountable for their emissions (and their lobbying, pro oil propaganda, etc) we need to find ways to reduce emissions in our lives. Those companies will only stop if their products is less and less needed.
Obviously you can’t do anything about the former Soviet Union –although Ukraine is doing a pretty good job– and China is doing a decent job moving away from coal and towards renewables, rail and EVs.
It doesn’t matter whether the results are surprising or not, we need to move away from the narrative created by oil companies that the end user is at fault. And you’re not helping either in that sense. Oil companies have been doing whatever they can do hide the truth about emissions, lie to the public through propaganda and sow doubt about climate research.
Of course end users need to change something too, but that’s far less easy than it sounds. Especially the USA people seem to have absolutely no idea what they’re doing driving around everywhere in big trucks, even for short distances.
That's just nonsense.
It's completely ridiculous to say that it doesn't matter that someone burns 1,000 gallons of fuel a day because a big company sold it to them.
Targetting individuals people or companies is useless. There's over a billion co-contributers, not a handful. Systematic changes like a carbon tax are necessary.
Definitely not nonsense. Perhaps you can try to read what is said if you make such a strong statement.
I never said you don’t need to look at your own emissions, but the difference can only really be made by taking on these major corps. Ignoring or trying to downplay that is what’s ridiculous.
And I agree with carbon taxes, but let’s make sure they hit corporations much much harder than individuals just trying to get by.
It's nonsense because there's no way to read what you wrote and think it means anything other than a bunch of for-profit corporations are actually emitting that much CO2e. In reality they are just a link in the supply chain, and direct individual use is actually a huge part of emissions (making up the majority when indirect individual use is considered).
How do you imagine one would "take on" a corporation? "Hey Exxon, you're bad for selling me gasoline. Stop doing that!". If you think we should take them on by buying as little from them as possible, then I guess we agree there.
It can be difficult to control the incidence of a tax, but a carbon dividend should overall have a highly progressive effect.
So, holding companies responsible for the product they make and try to downplay the effects of isn’t right because there are more steps after them to create the emissions? While they knowingly have misinformed the end users about the impacts of their products? Yeah that’s absolutely nonsense.
Your reductio ad absurdum is ridiculous. Who ever said we should just have a stern conversation with them? The EU for example can impose restrictions, rules and taxes. Countries can accelerate the transition to green energy through their state-owned energy companies. We can sanction countries who don’t do their part.
This is a different point and independent of production quantities. Yes, that should be punished, but that will serve to deter the next corporate coverup, not resolve the ones in the past.
My point about state companies is that they have completely different levers of control. Yes, they need to change, but how to get them to change is vastly different than a multinational.
This is exactly my point -- how is focusing on some of the companies that pump oil out of the ground going to change power generation or transportation?
What I'm pointing out is that vague inflammatory language like "taking on" the big bad 57 companies doesn't actually suggest any action. Rather it provides an easy scapegoat and excuse for inaction.
100% agree. Would that only be on the 57 largest entities?
I don't think we've disagreed about a single actual action that should be taken, so this basically breaks down to rhetoric. Setting aside the statement's veracity, do you think saying "80% of emissions come from megacorporations" drives people toward seeking solutions? Does it stimulate discussion about carbon taxes and regulations? Does it make people think about taking more efficient transport or pushing for solar generation in their area (or getting their own panels)?
Or does it encourage people to self-righteously finger-wag and ignore any personal and community responsibility?
Nobody can fix the emissions of the past, and deterring the next coverup is the only thing we can do. But I do think some reparations are in order, especially to poorer nations who are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
Obviously, the change will have to come from the country’s government. But we can still sanction the countries and the oil companies.
Simple, if they realise their products aren’t as profitable anymore they will invest more into green energy that is not taxed as heavily.
Inflammation is a normal bodily response to a parasite.
What inaction? It will cost us all a lot of effort to move away from fossil fuels. You’re just protecting the worst offenders who have made the consumers the scapegoat for decades.
Why would it have to be? I already said start at the top and work your way down.
A lot of people simply don’t care about their own personal responsibility, finger-wagging or hand-waving. They don’t care. It’s more effective to direct your efforts towards the root of the problem than go a snip off every twig individually. I mean, that conservative uncle of yours will never get no god damn ee-vee now will he?
You've answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point -- the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.
And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Pay attention to the response that you are getting -- people aren't about to take action; they are going to internally fester.
The inaction of useless discussion. Oh, here's a meme blaming "corporations" for everything; I can see emissions dropping already.
It wouldn't. That's my point. The list doesn't matter.
As you just pointed out, there is no need for that; we can address the whole problem at once.
Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?
It's more effective to direct your efforts towards organization and action instead of blame.
We've already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let's work toward that.
Nope. There are more ways to make a company change their operations. Think of the EU making USB-C the standard charging port. And of course you can make companies pay for the carbon they dig out of the earth.
And I’m just getting that response from you. Otherwise I got a bunch of upvotes for the comment.
Like this one? The point is that propaganda works. This was propaganda and I called it out. Most people reacted positively to that. And that will never be useless.
These things do not follow each other logically. Let me try to explain this to you: let’s say you’re on a tight budget and you can cut your costs by 15% by not buying anymore Dubai chocolate crap… or you can save 1% on buying fewer tomatoes, another 0.5% on buying less canned beans, another 2% by switching to a different brand of dairy products etc… where would you start your cost-cutting?
What on earth are you talking about? It’s not like I go around telling people to take as many flights as they can. Of course you try to get people to do stuff on a smaller scale as well. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reduce the emissions of the megacorporations as well.
The point is who is going to be paying them? The companies who knowingly lied to the consumers and hid the facts or the consumers who were systematically made more reliant on the product these companies sold?
It's crazy how long that misrepresented study stays alive. The point wasn't to find fault, it was to figure out how much comes from people in general. After all, nature does create it's own green house gases.
By the logic of the study, the oil company that sold Swift her kerosene is 100% responsible for it. By that studies logic me, you and Swift are EQUALLY not responsible for ANY oil we use, ever. That's obviously stupid.
Just a different way of interpretation. Of course the user and producer share some of the blame, but now it’s the other way around, now Taylor Swift gets the full blame.
And the point is that the oil companies have actively lied to their customers about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, even though they knew about it since the ‘50s.
So if I sell you a box, and I tell you it’s completely safe, but the box explodes and kills a bunch of people, who, in your mind, is responsible?
taylor swift's private plane is a 1947 boeing b-47 stratojet?
girl's got style.
I thought that was a lobster disintergrating at first
Everything looks like a lobster disintegrating when your only tool is a lobster reintegrator.