this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
514 points (98.9% liked)

World News

32285 readers
640 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well sort of. The source says it’s from their investments, not from their lifestyle.

Unless people have made an active choice to move their savings into an ESG pot, this will be true for everyone, just scaled according to the size of the pot.

[–] psilocybin@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sort of an important mention, yes, but also sort of skewed.

As the article points out 50%-70% of their emissions are due to their investments, meaning those 125 billionaires still have more direct emissions of the size of up to half the country of france.

And I don't think its fair to equate having some little money in the bank, with employing brokers to ensure the exploitation of human labour and planetary resources enables you and your children to live in luxury without ever having to work

The difference is living off of what you work for and needing a bank account vs living off of your capital (meaning other peoples labour)

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago

But the “little money in the bank” is in aggregate making a huge contribution.

So it’s easy to find the people who we want to blame big. But in aggregate we all have a role to play. That’s a harder message to swallow.