• hh93@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah and if the head of an oil company decides to just stop producing then the price will jump for a bit but then others will fill it’s place since demand didn’t change.

    I feel as if this study is only trying to make people angry and have a scapegoat while making them not change anything relevant.

    Sure the use of jets and yachts by the richest is a huge asshole move but the biggest leverage is when everyone would stop eating meat or using bikes instead of cars whenever possible

    • NightOwl@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, because of the revenue and investment source focus of the study what I found interesting is that two people who work at the same place and earns the same salary could lead to the one who invests the money becoming the higher polluter according to the study. Even though the other person is the stereotypical polluter eating meat, mortgage on a huge house, and driving huge cars in contrast to the more minimalistic lifestyle of the other person being the stereotypical green individual who doesn’t eat meat and opts for public transport and a modest home.

      Like this study is formulated in a way where the numbers are more appropriate for industry analysis than individual household analysis. Data is set in a way that it could be said it’s better in the long run to drive suvs than it is to invest, or high polluting companies pay more livable wages. Or if you have million dollars it’s less damaging to the environment in the long run to spend that money buying Suvs for your neighbors over investing it with the risk of the assets increasing in valuation leading to bigger polluter stats.