- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
I’ll be that guy… 56% of normal
I think you will find most companies expect 110% minimum….
What company are you with that makes 110% profit margin? Most I’ve worked at are between 10%-40% and that’s including tech companies.
Think it was just a “always give 110% effort” joke.
So, they’d still be wildly profitable, then?
Huh.
‘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.
See also: any other form of cancer.
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.
They don’t want infinite population growth. They want infinite growth in their wealth. Big difference. They just need enough uneducated masses to continue bearing the brunt until they Crack the code where they don’t need people anymore.
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?
Nah, it’s a intelligently reasonable argument. The world would be saved if we could be rational like this.
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.
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
Huh that’s very reasonable actually. Generous even. Now let’s see what they can pay workers.
As little as they can get away with. And then they’ll brag about record profits.
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.
So what are we waiting for? Fuck em
Oh no not 44% of profits! Won’t somebody please think of the margins!
Sounds like a win win
So 44% of corporate profits are subsidized by the fact they don’t have to pay for waste disposal.
Boo fuckin’ hoo. Pay up, shitbags.
Oh no, not 44% of the extra money that goes into the pockets of already obscenely wealthy people
So in other words, they can afford to pay damages for it. Make them pay!
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
Fossil fuels are the main actors in this. Corporations can only use the energy we provide them with.
Fossil fuel producers will never pay damages for climate change due to political donations. You may get the odd instance now and again, where there is selective scapegoating and that will be that. The tobacco industry (AFAIK) has never paid for the damages they have caused. They poured billions into politics and offset the argument against them for decades. Fossil fuel companies are doing exactly the same thing.
So rather than finger point towards specific actors, we should be sorting our political systems out. Political donations need to be banned. Campaigns should only be allowed to run through a single channel that is funded by the country. All other types of political advertising should be stopped. It is well known that the most successful campaigns have a price tag attached. Therefore it is easy to buy votes with campaigns. Moreso in a FPTP system. While we allow political donations we will never stop egregious profiteering without consequences.
Several companies have faced criticism for their environmental practices over the years. Here are some sectors and notable companies that have been highlighted for their environmental impact or poor environmental practices:
1 Fossil Fuel Industry:
This sector is the most significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Major companies in this sector have historically downplayed or denied their role in climate change.
ExxonMobil: Accused of knowing about climate change as early as the 1970s but funding climate change denial for years.
Chevron, BP, Shell: All have faced criticism for their contributions to global CO2 emissions.
2 Mining:
Mining can lead to deforestation, habitat destruction, and water pollution.
Vale and BHP Billiton: Responsible for the Mariana dam disaster in Brazil in 2015.
Glencore: Faced allegations of polluting rivers and not handling toxic waste appropriately.
3 Fashion:
The fashion industry, especially fast fashion, is a major polluter due to its high water usage, waste, and carbon emissions.
H&M, Zara, and Forever 21: All have been criticized for promoting fast fashion, leading to enormous waste and questionable labor practices.
4 Agriculture:
Large-scale farming, especially meat and dairy production, contributes to deforestation, water consumption, and methane emissions.
Tyson Foods, JBS, and Cargill: Significant contributors to global methane emissions due to their meat production.
5 Technology:
While tech companies often promote sustainability, some have been criticized for their environmental impact.
Apple: Previously criticized for not making products that are easily repairable or recyclable, though they’ve made significant strides in recent years.
Amazon: Criticized for excessive packaging and its carbon footprint from deliveries, though it has also made pledges to become carbon neutral.
6 Automotive:
Many car companies have historically relied on fossil fuels, contributing to CO2 emissions.
Volkswagen: Caught in a major scandal for cheating emissions tests in 2015.
7 Palm Oil Producers:
Palm oil production has led to significant deforestation, especially in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Companies like Nestlé, Unilever, and Procter & Gamble have faced scrutiny for not ensuring their palm oil is sustainably sourced, though many have made commitments to improve.
8 Plastics and Packaging:
Companies that heavily rely on single-use plastics contribute to plastic pollution.
Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé: Have been named among the top plastic polluters several times in global audits.
I don’t see your point. This does not alleviate the problem of political protections for party donors.
People need to make a conscious effort to buy less shit. It’s easy to blame corpos but we create that demand.
If it doesn’t solve a problem you have, you don’t need it.
Or we could create enough green energy to satisfy that demand. I totally agree that we have a social problem with greed. This is not something any government will fix because more taxes makes their live easier. Fight the battles you can win, not the ones you can’t.
We don’t have time to spin up enough infrastructure to match current production with renewable energy. Consumption must come down until then, and only scale up once the new infrastructure can handle it.
No you cannot do it overnight, but it will never happen at if we do not start. The first step is to stop giving money to fossil fuel companies so they can gouge us further with higher priced energy.
So it means we could start saving the world if corporations let go of less than half of their profits?
It’s one of the things that infuriates me when I hear refusals to address climate change: the “business as usual” way of doing things entails externalising countless costs, meaning comparing costs is an apples-and-oranges endeavour.
@theendismeh @silence7 @climate
The “business as usual” approach reminds me of the saying “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”
