Study reveals how much carbon damage would cost corporations if they paid for their emissions
phys.org
The world's corporations produce so much climate change pollution, it could eat up about 44% of their profits if they had to pay damages for it, according to a study by economists of nearly 15,000 public companies.
  • bill@fedia.io
    1191·
    1 year ago

    44% of PROFITS, not gross income.

    Which means that even if companies were actually charged for the mess they made, they would be operating in the black AND their profits would still be 66% of normal.

    • Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      541·
      1 year ago

      ‘Wildly profitable’ would not be enough to them.

      ‘Extremely profitable’ would not be enough to them.

      ‘Insanely profitable’ would not be enough to them.

      Infinite growth is one hell of a drug.

      • Enigma@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        The only time infinite growth would be possible is if we became a space faring species and colonized other planets. That would allow us to continue population growth.

        Outside of that, infinite growth is impossible since there’s only so many people on this planet and even less who can afford their products.

      • jandar_fett@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 year ago

        Capitalism and infinite growth is a microcosm of an organisms drive for infinite growth, which is usually curtailed by all sorts of biological and evolutionsry processes. Like space limitations and scarcity of resources, and I’m trying to figure out what is different between the individuals that form these mega corps and the average organism.

        I dunno. Is this a stupid train of thought?

    • Nonameuser678@aussie.zone
      15·
      1 year ago

      Yeah it really drives home just how fucking cooked the situation is.

      Sorry kids the biosphere is fucked and human society is an echo of what it once was but there were some rich people who didn’t want to be slightly less rich than they already were.

    • senoro@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      No. Because some companies would make no profit and others would be unaffected. Who’s going to pay more, Shell or novo nordisk? Shell would simply cease to exist

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.caEnglish
    67·
    1 year ago

    Huh that’s very reasonable actually. Generous even. Now let’s see what they can pay workers.

    • NightAuthor@beehaw.orgEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I was thinking… only of their profits? So they can afford to still make a shitload of money and not put out all that pollution?

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          3·
          1 year ago

          I’d like to see a calculation for that. It seems expenses to be more careful would be comparable, but who knows.

  • uphillbothways@kbin.social
    29·
    1 year ago

    So, 44% of their profits are in fact 100% of our futures? That money didn’t come from nowhere. All of us will pay that debt. Reporting needs to start reflecting that, and legislation needs to be enacted to get restitution. Until then, it’s all toothless.

  • Nurgle@lemmy.world
    12·
    1 year ago

    So 44% of corporate profits are subsidized by the fact they don’t have to pay for waste disposal.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    10·
    1 year ago

    Oh no, not 44% of the extra money that goes into the pockets of already obscenely wealthy people

  • LotrOrc@lemmy.world
    91·
    1 year ago

    Oh shit what will I do if a couple ceos don’t get paid hundreds of millions of dollars?? Won’t someone think of the billionaires and their profit margins???

    Lol every single cent of profit above 250 million should be taken from them and that’s being generous

  • Echo71Niner@lemm.ee
    7·
    1 year ago

    Even with the fine, their huge profits hardly change. This shows that the penalty isn’t enough to discourage pollution. Stronger actions are necessary to make companies responsible.