Wait so they could actually fix all their pollution and STILL BE PROFITABLE!?
Jfc not even half their profits and they could save the world? Bloody hell
Edit: my comment heavily ignores nuance, don’t take it too seriously
This was my exact thought!
Is it though?
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.
(Commented this elsewhere on this article being posted, but I think it’s important enough to say again.)
Oh, well. Why shouldn’t they have to clean up their own messes? I thought corporations counted as people, people who can be compelled to pick up after themselves. Any money they’d lose is money they should have already been spending on this.
They’d pass the onus to pay onto the consumer. Their profits will remain untouched.
if
I hate those kind of arguments… Those corporations produce stuff that people want, and usually can’t even be made without emissions.
And I hate these arguments. Corporations still choose to produce those things. They could choose not to. Why should they be allowed to do anything just because “people want” something?
That’s just how the world works… If enough people want it, somebody will eventually start creating that product.
There are four ways forward:
- Corporations choose willingly to reduce emissions (and probably die in the process as their prices are no longer competitive)
- ALL corporations band together to reduce emissions
- ALL consumers band together to purchase only from corporations that have low or no emissions
- Government forces consumers and corporations to reduce emissions.
So in the real world, there is only one way forward.
“Stuff people want” isn’t really an excuse.
A morbidly obese 800lb land whale, incapable of moving because they’ve fused with their bed, wants food.
A heroin addict, track marks on their dick, wants heroin.
A suicidal individual wants to unalive themself.
Do you give them the food that will contribute to their death?
Do you give them the heroin that will either kill them or contribute to their death?
Do you hand them a gun?
This is a very dangerous argument because it infringes the democratic base itself.
It’s not necessary wrong, but be careful because with the very same logic you could argue the people don’t really know what they want, they aren’t able to govern themselves, we, enlightened creatures, should decide the way forward.
Again, it’s not necessary false, but it leads to authoritarian and paternalistic consequences
