I was expecting it to be cow farts.
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
258 points (99.2% liked)
World News
54784 readers
3139 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How does this compare to the methane from beef? (seriously, I'd like to know)
Negative externalities like these must be re-imposed on polluting companies through democratic governance. Regulatory capture and subversion are carried out by individuals and must be treated as crimes against humanity.
But make sure you turn lights off, consumer, because it's all your fault.
Please stop turning this into an either / or.
Where did I do that?
I admit my thoughts on this go far beyond just your comment. This is a widespread narrative about how corporations pollute, therefore consumer footprint is bullshit or an outright conspiracy.
People keep standing up and pointing at commercial polluting and saying “well? Which is it? Should I turn off the lights at home or should corporations stop polluting?” It’s not either / or. It’s both. You should absolutely turn the lights off when not in use.
Here’s how this should go:
- consumers do what they can to conserve
- corporations pollute
- consumers get mad at the corporations and pressure them to stop
Instead, with your now highest-voted comment, here is what’s happening:
- consumers do what they can to conserve
- corporations pollute
- consumers get mad that they ever bothered to conserve
Do you see how this is the wrong outcome?
The thing I never buy about this is that people make out as if someone is going around with a bell crying SHAME SHAME at them every time they don’t recycle. IMO this is a phantasm: we all know what’s the right thing to do - maybe we feel guilty if we don’t do it, but there is no oil company representative going around wracking us all with guilt.
There are 8 billion consumers, with projections of 12 in our lifetimes. It absolutely matters what consumers do. If you want to reduce this to you personally agains the actions of some corporation, that’s simply bad faith. Collectively, consumer action is extremely important, especially in purchase decisions, which put direct pressure back on the companies polluting the worst, and at the ballot box, where we put pressure on our governments to regulate them.
Please stop moaning about the injustice of “personal footprint” every time you see evidence of a corporation misbehaving. It’s not either they have to act or we do. It’s both!
My aim was at the incessant drumbeat pointing to individuals to "do better" when there's basically silence about corporate interests. People are conditioned to feel personally responsible, and either feel like there's nothing more for them to do outside of their own behaviors, and/or bear the guilt personally which should be borne by the aforementioned corporations.
While it is of course proper for individuals to tailor their own behaviors for the greater good, make no mistake: when you see or hear produced messaging pointing to how individuals should modify their behavior with respect to climate, it is propaganda.
Taking over a coal power plant by force and shutting it down will do much more to combat climate change than separating paper from plastic in recycling.
I'll have you know, my energy utility just emailed me today that I'm ranked in the top 20% of energy and water savers in my city and I use less than half of the average household. /s
That's good news, if more people in your area were like you, they could probably open another AI data center and only jack your rates up a little bit. :)
What’s your carbon footprint
I get what you're saying and the "individual carbon footprint" is often used to blame shift to regular people just living their lives, but we do still have a carbon footprint. It may be a tiny, rodent-sized footprint compared to the Kaiju-sized ones of big industries, but our actions and choices do have an effect (especially collectively).
I just don't like dismissing the individual carbon footprint as total propaganda because it's not wrong (though I acknowledge it is abused). Dismissing it like that just puts out a defeatist "nothing I do matters" message when our individual choices do matter and add up.
Can you live a totally carbon-neutral life in the modern age? No, probably not. But we also shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater and do nothing.
You're taking about fixing the leaky sink while the house is on fire.
No one is saying that we don't have a carbon footprint. All life does.
But we, as a society, need to first focus on the things that are most destructive. In this case, fossil fuel infrastructure and the institutions keeping it in place.
It's not an "or" situation. It is and always has been an "and".
My gripe is with people refusing to do anything on a personal level because "what does it matter when X industry pollutes more in 5 minutes than I do in a year?".
Well these d-bags aren't operating these oil or gas wells for funzies
The researchers said it was “maddening” that such easy action to fight the climate crisis was not being taken, and said people should be angry. Stopping the leaks can even be free, given that captured gas can be sold – methane is the “natural gas” that fires power stations.
It's maddening but expected.
When corporate decisions are based solely on pleasing investors, fixing a leak isn't a priority. It might be a long-term investment that eventually pays for itself, but it comes with a front-loaded cost that diminishes the profits of the current quarter.
The only way to get them to care about the problem is if it's actively unprofitable or comes with personal liability for the leadership, and the only way that will happen is with regulations.
In other words: "why about the survivability of the species when we can instead care about making our investor's loins tingle?"
When corporate decisions are based solely on pleasing investors, fixing a leak isn't a priority. It might be a long-term investment that eventually pays for itself, but it comes with a front-loaded cost that diminishes the profits of the current quarter.
The shitty thing is the vast majority of the leaks weren't from investor owned corporations. The vast majority were from state owned and operated entities, mainly turkmenistan. The top 25 list were filled entirely by turkmenistan, Venezuela, Iran, and one corpo from texas.
I saw last week the Gas Leaks Project published some more data on this subject. The largest leak they found was something like 50-60 times higher than the EPA definition of a 'super emitter'. Incredible really.
When compared to coal, methane is obviously much more efficient at energy generation. But this is true when we measure only the material burned, not when we look at the supply chain. With methane being 80-90 times more damaging to the atmosphere than the byproducts of burning coal, the end result is very tight once these leaks are accounted for.
So tight that, given the reporting requirements for methane leaks are 'we trust you to use the honour system', it's more likely than not methane is doing more damage per resulting kilowatt than coal ever has. The equivalent 'leaking' for the coal supply chain is a lump of it falling off a train car and becoming a rock, to the benefit of only one guy. Rocks don't tend to destroy the air, only naughty children's Christmas mornings.
Of course this isn't to suggest we build more coal infrastructure, just to point out that with these methane leaks being so prevalent, it's not remotely as useful an energy source as has been believed. Remember a decade ago when 'bridge fuel' was mentioned in every conversation about clean energy? Honestly it's shocking that these companies have deemed it cheaper to not even look for leaks than to keep the product they sell from floating away.
Here's an interesting quote from former Exxon mechanical engineer, Dar-Lon Chang:
"When they were marketing natural gas as clean energy, they didn't really know what they were talking about because they were fixated on the idea that natural gas, when burned, produces half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal.
The industry was not monitoring methane leakage, so they did not have data about how much was leaking, and there wasn't much appetite for management to measure methane leakage because if they found out there was a problem they would have to do something about it."
Source (I lost the timestamp, but it's in part three, apologies)
Very one sided story. Doesn't mention gas industry profits at all.
Yes, we are destroying the environment. But, did you see how high our stock prices are!?
I know YT shorts are bunk, but for anyone who partakes and wants to curate their stream, may I present climate town on this issue:
It's a miracle we didn't get extinct yet
There are people that can fix that any day at this point.
It's started, it's just unevenly distributed among the poorer populations