Seconded
Pandalus
joined 1 year ago
Considering that this was written almost 10 years ago, it will only have gotten worse.
We can point this out and complain, but really I fail to see a solution unless there is a systematic change. For that to happen though, those at the top will have to give up on their acquired benefits, so I think it unlikely.
Maybe if grants would be handed out on a 'lottery' basis (grant applications should still be screened to prevent handing out to non-serious applications), this could be achieved?
Sure, which is why I mentioned (twice) that everyone should try and limit their emissions in my original comment.
What you however skipped in your reply is the fact that the richest 8 people limiting their emissions has the same effect as the 792 people beneath that limiting their emissions. From a perspective of 'quick wins' (which we sorely need), I am totally in favour of placing more responsibility on those with the highest emissions (without anyone neglecting their responsibility, so please don't just point out one group as 'responsible' to pivot away the blame).
In the same vein, BP pivoting away the blame has about the same impact as thousands (millions?) of individuals pivoting away the blame, which is why they are (or at least should be) held to a higher standard.
According to your source, the top 1% emit 50 tonnes of CO2/capita/yr. The top 0.1% emit 200 tonnes of CO2/capita/yr. That is still an insane increase the wealthier one becomes.
Not saying that one should not try to limit their emissions (we definitely should stop buying stuff from amazon/big companies, if not to limit emissions, at least to break their monopolies), but there is definitely some low hanging fruit in that top percentage (e.g. having 800 people limit emissions is going to be harder when you have the same effect by just limiting the 8 at the top).
Also you're last sentence is quite hostile, BP definitely came up with it to avoid their responsibility and pivot it to other people. The idea might not be 'bad' per se, but if you do it so to avoid your own responsibility, it is definitely bad practice (which, again, is why each of us should try to limit our carbon emissions)
That's not mutually exclusive to datamining though*. Yes they have a product in their stores, but the customers are unwitting products (to another customer-group) themselves (tbf this happens a lot, which does NOT make it ok however)
*not saying this happens, I don't know if the EPIC store datamines, I have never used it as I am on linux so I may as well not exist to EPIC
Thanks for taking the time to educate! I thought it interesting :). It also emphasizes that it took some real effort to make this, instead of just automagically converting the album to only use Mario 64 sounds