It’s paper straws and compostable cups for the masses, space travel and $600m weddings for their overlords. No wonder everyone who can afford it wants a doomsday bunker, writes Arwa Mahdawi
Interesting article. Newer numbers (2023) are 37.200 Mt CO2 yearly human civilisation output. "Private" cars count around 10% of that (which to my knowledge includes vans driven by tradesmen and "independent" delivery drivers among other uses, vastly distorting the impact of individual car ownership), aviation between 2 and 20% depending on which "emissions factor" the counting organization attaches to it. The IEA numbers vary between 2-4%.
Increasingly I think it actually might protect them. Not in a postapocalyptic bunker or a libertarian private island but rather in the upper echelons of a less climate-striken authoritarian country. One where there's still a functioning society, enough labor to sustain an economy and a compliant political and law enforcement classes happy to maintain some form of apartheid. The Arabian peninsula countries could be a model.
As long as the markets are open, the "free market" will ensure that they are comfortable. That's the purpose of the free market. They only suffer when markets close (and their money becomes useless).
Yep. Why do you think these creeps are so exciting about building walls and murdering refugees? Fortress europe and fortress canada must be defended against the desperate masses.
You could go into a Starbucks while it's busy, and when it's your turn to order go. "I want a ... thing. One of those ... cylindrical" Basically, try to waste as much of the workers time as possible, without actually ordering anything. An important thing is that there's people waiting behind you, so that you waste their time as well.
Or just order water? It’s free for you, but costs the company money, while not making it difficult for the employees. Doing what you suggested is all around shitty for the workers who are just trying to get through their day and earn a wage, as well as the people in line wanting a drink. The company will not be affected in any way with your suggestion.
I’ve been boycotting the company for years now, even the items you can get in grocery stores (since at least some of them are made by Nestle, so double boycott points). Anytime anyone suggests we grab starbucks, I offer an alternative and we end up trying a local coffee shop or other non-terrible franchise.
My take is that the super wealthy already know there's no saving this mess, and they won't survive much longer either, so they're just squeezing the lemon for whatever juice is left before it all blows sky high.
In Ministry for the Future, one of the major plot points partway through the book is that eco-terrorists (eco-partisans, really, considering the subject matter and general gist of the book) start blasting planes out of the sky. They hit a few civilian airliners, but the vast majority of their targets are private jets.
how do they all do it? It's like going over a certain threshold of wealth makes ones face take one some subtle traits that increase the desire of others to punch.
“And, for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human.”
― William Gibson, Count Zero
Idk, billionaires are homogeneous where it counts, & for the majority of them, the way they got it or the way they use that wealth & power speaks to parasitic & sociopathic tendencies, SO I’m super frikkin ok treating them as a homogeneous group
Let me give you one example: Yvon Chouinard, the founder of Patagonia. He gave the company away to a non-profit 2022 making him no longer a billionaire. Patagonia gives 1% of its total sales to environmental groups and he started the company himself by selling hand-forged mountain climbing gear.
Just because people don't make the negative headlines doesn't mean generalizing is a good idea, even if such high positions are more likely to have people with sociopathic tendencies as ruthlessness in business is often rewarded.
"Let's not pretend the super-rich care..." is not the same as "the super-rich should stop pretending they care". Words have meaning but so does grammar
When where? Haven't heard that message for a while. Do you mean Elon just because he sells EVs? Jeff Bezos because he groups your purchases in one box?