this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
249 points (98.1% liked)

World News

43275 readers
3787 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iii@mander.xyz 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

If Saudi Aramco was a country, it would be the fourth biggest polluter in the world after China, the US and India, while ExxonMobil is responsible for about the same emissions as Germany, the world’s ninth biggest polluter, according to the data.

Wouldn't that be counting the same emissions twice? As the fuel they produce is likely to be used in countries like China, India, Germany. In other words: a calculation as usefull as taking the sum of assets and liabilities in a balance sheet.

It's not like they make the fuel, and then burn it, for the fun of it. It's supply matching demand. Take away a supplier, another will substitute.

[–] RandAlThor@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's about scale, not counting twice.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 3 points 5 days ago

Yet in attempting to do the first, they do the latter.