• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    100
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Extend this to climate change:

    Bob is responsible for .00000015% of emissions.

    Shell is responsible for 5%.

    But 95% of marketing for a more climate-friendly lifestyles is aimed at Bob.

    Or to put it another way, Bob will emit roughly 15 metric tons of CO2 in his lifetime.

    Shell emitted roughly 50 million tons in 2023 alone.

    But let’s tel Bob he needs to change his lifestyle.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        27
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I mean, yeah, I get the sentiment. But continuing to fight amongst ourselves and excluding potential intraclass members from the fight before we fight the ruling class is truly a self defeating tactic.

        Look at the trump movement. There are so many potential comrades. His entire lie that got people on bird was “fighting the elite.” Too many people fell for that that could truly be on our side if we tried.

        I dunno. I harbor those same feelings, so I’m not trying to high road you, but we were talking about class solidarity, I just feel like we need to extend that to the rest of the people in our class that we’ve been artificially pitted against and manipulated into fighting.

      • @gibmiser
        link
        181 month ago

        Focus your energy on the bigger threat

      • @jaybone
        link
        101 month ago

        Reminds me of that old children’s book

        Bob Rolls Coal, Coal Rolls Bob

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      261 month ago

      All of that “climate friendly lifestyle” marketing at bob is done by oil and gas companies. Are you tired of hearing about your “carbon footprint”? Good, cause its bullshit propaganda made up by big oil and gas.

      There was a huge campaign to shift the blame to consumers so that people would be too busy scrutinizing themselves to scrutinize the oil and gas industry. The sad part is that it fucking worked because people are dumb.

    • Diplomjodler
      link
      41 month ago

      It’s those plastic straws! Surely we’ll save the planet, once Bob stops using those.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      129 days ago

      if we halve 6 and two third million Bobs carbon emissions per year it would do as much as getting rid of shell.

      shell would probably rather kill 3.3 million Bobs per year than cease to exist.

      both strategies have compelling arguments.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        I’m def no math person, but wouldn’t it take like 70x-800x that? Because halving the yearly emissions of someone who emits 15 metric tons in their entire lifetime vs the company emitting 50 MILLION tons every single year?

        It’s early and I’m typically very bad at math, so maybe I’m wrong

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    76
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Right, but Shell spends that money and that stimulates the economy.

    Bob sticks those food stamps in his investment account and sits on them until one of his execs gets caught doing something highly illegal and needs a $100mil early retirement package.

    Selfish Bob.

    Edit: /s in case it’s not obvious that I swapped the names “Bob” and “Shell”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    161 month ago

    some notes, the 2Bil may be misinformation, but I will instead ignore that and just use the subsidies to the oil industry.

    We could give every single human living in the US (even babies) that $1500 and it would be 130b cheaper than oil subsidies according to forbes.

    We could give every household in the US (127,482,865 according to US census) $5,100 for what we spend on oil subsidies yearly.

    Please note those numbers are from 2015 so its likely much higher now, but a quick google didn’t give me exact numbers for the US and I’m too lazy to go into that. (it would likely be closer to $7000 per household)

  • @jaybone
    link
    141 month ago

    Also, Bob can’t use the restroom at Shell.

  • Diplomjodler
    link
    121 month ago

    But… but… Bob might use some of that money to buy cigarettes!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    121 month ago

    It would take 1.33 million bobs to equal the same cost that shell takes in. Each bob has a family of roughly 4 including bob, feeding 5.33 million people. The kids in the family are able to pay attention in school bc they are well fed and bob is able to hunt for a better job since he doesn’t have two jobs to make sure his family doesn’t starve.

    Shell is definitely worth the expense, plus Exxon, and even non oil companies like spaceX/Tesla subsidies that are rarely generating value for the taxpayers who funded it.

  • NutWrench
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 month ago

    Goober Nation has no problems with “socialism” when those government handouts benefit a billionaire.

    Maybe when 80% of this nation is living in Trumpville tent cities, people will finally stop voting for, “Punch me in the dick repeatedly.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 month ago

      Its 1.7 billion in tax exceptions. Given how much politicians love to argue tax deductions and negative tax rates are handouts to normal folks, I’ll count those as handouts to oil companies.

        • @pjwestin
          link
          31 month ago

          It says exactly what they claim it does:

          Good Jobs First, among other things, serves as a watchdog for government subsidies, and maintains a database of subsidies and tax bonuses awarded to companies. Of note is the page for Royal Dutch Shell…The value presented on the page for RDS is $1.725 Billion…

          • Gloomy
            link
            fedilink
            01 month ago

            Why stop the quote there?

            $1.65 Billion, or 95.7%, comes from a single deal with the state of Pennsylvania for a tax-credit to build a massive petrochemical plant there.

            The tax subsidies are a summation of all subsidies since 2003, not per year as the image claims.

            The image tries to link federal SNAP benefits to total tax benefits for RDS. Of the $1.725 Billion listed on the page for RDS, total federal tax benefits account for $4.9 Million, or 0.2% of all total tax benefits.

            • @pjwestin
              link
              11 month ago

              Why stop the quote there?

              Because none of that information contradicts the statement, “Its 1.7 billion in tax exceptions,” so the rest of the quote was irrelevant information.

    • Ziglin (they/them)
      link
      English
      41 month ago

      Most of the data seems to be accurate but there are so many links in there that don’t exist anymore (at least in the top reply).

  • @ZILtoid1991
    link
    61 month ago

    Guess which one Elon’s “Department” of Government Efficiency wants to cut!

    • @gibmiser
      link
      191 month ago

      No numb nuts, It’s an international company , meaning it has to abide the laws of multiple governments and pay taxes To multiple governments.

      And sorry for Calling you numb nuts.I just wanted to say numbnuts.

  • @HexadecimalSky
    link
    51 month ago

    but they could pay thier workers and stimulate the economy, I mean that’s why they get the money, it’s called trickle down economics.

    Do they do that, no.

    Does it work…no.

    (Sarcasm)

    It went from bribery to “trickle down economics” and now I think they call it the cost of keeping business.