• MeanEYE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Start by taking away private jets and private flights from rich people. As all laws do, this one will also apply only to regular and poor people, not even big companies and certainly not for rich. Just look at what Musk is doing to nature reserve nears his launch pad. He was warned, didn’t get launch permissions, doesn’t have permission for letting untreated water into ground from cooling… and yet he does all that and no one bats and eye. Just look at the main page of Lemmy and you’ll see news of some dude flying alone in 747 because he can. Royal family has been known to fly across the ocean to get lunch.

    I meant you can live as carefully as possible, walk everywhere, never fly a plane and live only on solar for multiple lives and you couldn’t offset what they fuck up in a day.

    • ThisIsMyLemmyLogin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, they’d be able to afford the best lawyers. It’s the poor who would be punished the most. We already have fines for not recycling properly, even though the rubbish all gets mixed back together in Turkey or China and burned anyway. We have to use soggy paper straws with our drinks while the rich blanket the atmosphere in burned fuel from the private jets.

    • Yokana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thats a true revolutionary cry. But since being “rich” is quite a relative term, you might wake up in the realization that most of the world considers you rich and your lifestyle complicit in the mass destruction of the global environment.

      • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s quite the stretch. Don’t regulate the rich cause we might be caught up?

        I don’t take private flights from one side of a city to another. I don’t own a yacht (or 6). I don’t own a fleet of vehicles with a staff that drives them around. I don’t throw away more food than most people eat. I don’t horde dozens of acres of land that contain nothing but wasteful lawn.

        There’s a pretty stark contrast between the ultra wealthy, and the vast majority of people living in highly developed countries.

        • bundes_sheep@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          When people get in a rage about “the rich”, those kinds of distinctions generally go out the window.

          • RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re not wrong, but it’s not likely that a bunch of moneyless people from third-world countries are going to come over and genocide us.

      • Seasoned_Greetings@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a form of slippery slope fallacy. Rich in this context refers to portion of society contributing to pollution on a massively higher scale than even an upper middle class American. How many ‘rich’ Americans regularly fly private jets or take yachts? How many average joes own and operate a cruise line or a refinery?

        I think with regards to poorer people in other countries, they’d be on the same page with 99.99% of Americans about who’s considered so rich that they alone pose a threat to global health.

    • Cait@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They should but never will, Laws don’t apply for rich people and even if, jail would BE to good for them

  • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I love the idea but wonder how it would be handled for things like oil spills in the international waters space. Those are more more often accidental versus the types of just bad practice things like forrest destruction or such. Take that along with the notion of it being in international space would make even deciding jurisdiction a mess.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think those responsible should be fined the same as you or I would be for dumping used motor oil down a storm drain.

      By the quart.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jurisdiction would be based on nationality of the business, just like it is now for other crimes. You can’t just commit a crime in international waters and go home scot-free.

  • Arotrios@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Looks like the non-profit founded by Higgins and Mehta is active in promoting this law on a worldwide scale, with ongoing legislative efforts in Spain, Finland, and Brazil. Here’s their action page to get involved and offer support.

  • Jack@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    “On oil and gas companies who have spent decades burning fossil fuels - ramping up the world’s carbon emissions - Mehta said the law couldn’t go back in time and punish past activities.”

    Since we gave people the death penalty at the Nuremberg trials ex post facto, we can do the same with anthropogenic climate change. I would support such death penalties now already, tho I suspect more than a hundred million people would have to die directly from unambiguous climate change events within a short period like a week, before more people would agree. The problem is that the climate-change tipping-points will cascade, which means that the 1st one may cause other tipping points to be triggered, at which point billions of people will die unnecessarily in a Mad Max world.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “On oil and gas companies who have spent decades burning fossil fuels - ramping up the world’s carbon emissions - Mehta said the law couldn’t go back in time and punish past activities."

      Are they fucking serious? Why have any legal system at all then? People would just be allowed to rape and pillage as they please under that auspice.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It needs to change then, at least for stuff like this. It’s too serious to let off on a technicality.

          Letting criminals off on technicalities is one of the things that put us down this dark road in the first place. Justice is far more important and letting them off is not justice, I don’t care how the original U.S. system was set up.

          It needs to go.

          • Spedwell@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well the general principle is that you can’t be punished for behavior that was legal when you did it. Otherwise you open the door to “doing X is illegal now” and then locking everyone who was documented doing X in the last several years.

            Which maybe sounds nice when it’s destroying the climate… but it’s less nice when it’s gay marriage, alcohol consumption, owning X book, etc.

            • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Which maybe sounds nice when it’s destroying the climate… but it’s less nice when it’s gay marriage, alcohol consumption, owning X book, etc.

              Funny how quickly people forget that they’re supporting authoritarianism just because it happens to line up with their belief system in one instance.

  • adamth0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think we need to address this not just at individuals or corporations, but at nation states in which those individuals reside and are licensed.
    We need to kick them in the wallet. Allowing rampant pollution? Extra trade tariffs, and exclusion from various international groups/events. Complicit in rampant pollution? Punitive economic Sanctions, and loss of access to certain technologies, financial networks, etc.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Trade tariffs hurt both countries and now is not really the time to be shooting your economy in the foot.

      Targeted sanctions would be referable but are a much more serious form of leverage and will damage credibility.

    • orrk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      not really, civilization for a long time was perfectly fine living alongside nature. this problem is only really become a thing since the later industrial revolution

      • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s bollocks. Humans have been clear-cutting land, burning fields and forests to enable agriculture, and hunting species to extinction since we came down from the trees, to say nothing of shitting in every body of water we lived near. The industrial revolution only made it tip the scales into an existential threat to our continued way of life.

        • Smoogs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Burning fields and forests is called back burning . It’s a practice that is saving the forest. If you don’t, the burning forests gets out of hand and all is lost. Just ask Australia circa 2019 when the PM refused to do the needed.

          • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a very different thing to clear cutting, it’s like saying dumping toxic waste in your fish pond is the same as feeding them.

            • Smoogs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I wasn’t responding to the clear cutting. I was responding to the burning. I don’t know what you’re on about but way to mangle a topic.

              • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ok let me explain in more detail, there is what you describe of back burning which exists in some places but there is also the widely practiced method of clear cutting which often involves burning down the forest to get rid of it and create farm land. Did you not see all the stories about deforestation in Brazil using this method?

                • Smoogs@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yea, I said backburning. Glad we finally agreed what words mean now.

            • Smoogs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Calm down. you either clearly cannot understand the differences or refuse to understand the differences of back burning and deforestation. And until you do you should stop speaking on the subject of ‘what is good for the world’ cuz clearly you are doing it in a very bad actor/sensationalist way.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                burning fields and forests is called back burning

                Not always. Sometimes it’s deforestation. Most often throughout human history, it’s been deforestation

                You’re talking nonsense man

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’ll be the same Scotland with a shitload of oil rigs off the coast, would it?