It's ok to be angry about capitalism

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,718
766
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I don't care what the English teacher says about the Slippery Slope fallacy. It's not a fallacy 100% of the time. Look at the ads driving the internet to be an unusable hellscape. First, some jackass likely thinks I will just put ads in newspapers, what can go wrong, and now it's like they are everywhere. IOS, android, PC, MAC, road billboards, central squares, YouTube videos.

WebSurfing on IOs is nearly impossible without malware ads.

Yet Apple being jackasses won't even allow us to use Ublock origin on IOS. I am so sick of ads.
You can't use Ublock Origin on iOS because you can't use any browser other than Safari, any browser you download from the Apple store is just a shell of Safari and not actually a different browser.

I don't know why anyone supports Apple for all the bullshit they do to their customers.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
I don't care what the English teacher says about the Slippery Slope fallacy. It's not a fallacy 100% of the time.
Yes, it's a fallacy 100% of the time. Fallacies are just faulty logic, that doesn't mean the conclusions are necessary incorrect.

I could say the sun will rise tomorrow because it's actually a giant hamster ball in the sky, and the giant space hamsters inside it get tired of rolling it around all day and go to bed, but when they wake up they'll start rolling it again. It's true because I used to own hamsters, and they love to roll around and sleep in their hamster balls.

That's about the stupidest argument I could make for it, but the sun is still going to come up tomorrow.

By the way, that's a reduction ad absurdum. And yes, I did that on purpose to accentuate the point.
 

XsjadoBlaydette

Piss-Drinking Nazi Wine-Mums
May 26, 2022
953
1,265
98
Country
Wales
Is directly a capitalism issue, so probably a more appropriate thread, if it matters;-;-;-;-;

"Carbon footprint" calculation is decades old gaslighting campaign from British Petroleum. Tho this has been on mind for a while, am surprised how few other ppl of similar political concerns are aware of it.




Woman confused by BP carbon footprint calculator on the right with a thumbs up sign while looking at a home with solar panels on the roof after calculating carbon footprint.


Carbon footprint calculators and using an environmental footprint calculator have become wildly popular actions among environmentally conscious consumers, but many of these tools have an origin that goes overlooked: they were initially developed as part of a marketing campaign for British Petroleum (BP) in 2004, and this campaign popularized and proliferated the BP carbon footprint calculator.

And while the concept is a good one… the intent is misleading.

Like many other businesses and fossil fuel companies, BP has effectively created a form of greenwashing to conceal their own massive carbon emissions by presenting a misleading carbon calculator that places the burden of climate change on you, while simultaneously missing the point.1

BP Emissions Calculator Process
The BP carbon footprint calculator is also misleading because it fails to account for a number of details that contribute to your carbon footprint. However, there are many carbon footprint calculators that do provide their users with accurate estimates of their annual carbon emissions, as well as applicable ways to lower those emissions.

Unfortunately, BP’s carbon footprint calculator process is deceptive because it does not provide an accurate estimate of the user’s annual carbon emissions. Nor is the calculator able to provide that data given the simplicity of the survey questions used to provide the user with their footprint. 2

What Is a Carbon Footprint Calculator?
A carbon footprint is a measurement of how much carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions you directly or indirectly generate, either in a time frame (like a year) or by activity (like a single plane flight). In order to calculate it properly, every aspect must be considered.

A carbon footprint is the measurement of the greenhouse gas emissions you produce, but these emissions are represented in units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 equivalent) emitted. For example, garbage placed in a landfill generates methane gas, based on the amount, but this is included in a carbon footprint because the methane is converted into an equivalent measurement.

A good calculator should include all facets of life including annual energy usage, transportation type and distance traveled, waste disposal methods, amount and price of clothing purchased and spending habits, and so much more.

For reference, the average U.S. citizen produces about 16 tons of CO2 equivalent every year. The world average is four tons.

Why BP Invented the Carbon Footprint Calculator
It almost seems like British Petroleum made a mistake in creating and propagating the carbon footprint calculator. After all, a good footprint calculator will show you just how damaging petroleum and other fossil fuels can be for the environment.

But it’s actually a genius marketing strategy. To understand why, you need to know the history of the BP carbon footprint calculator.3

History of BP Carbon Footprint Calculator
British Petroleum first promoted and popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early 2000’s. The company unveiled the first carbon footprint calculator in 2004.

This calculator allowed the average consumer to calculate their direct and indirect carbon emissions, ostensibly so that they would better understand how everyday routines can have an impact on the environment.

If you take the marketing at face value, this calculator seems like a really good idea. It helps average people better understand their role in the oncoming climate crisis and encourages individuals to act in ways that are more environmentally friendly and sustainable.

That’s a good thing.

BO carbon footprint calculator location page.


(Image: bp5)

But this was a marketing stunt, bought and paid for by a big and powerful oil and gas company, not environmental activists, or scientists, to shift the blame of climate change away from the fossil fuel industry. 3

BP’s Greenwashing Campaign
There is a term for what BP was doing, and that term originated in the mid-1980s when Chevron attempted to convince U.S. citizens that their business was environmentally friendly. That term is “greenwashing,” and it’s exactly what BP was doing in the early 2000s.

Greenwashing is the corporate practice of making sustainability claims that conceal a questionable, if not outright destructive, environmental history and operation.

Although the concept of identifying your carbon footprint is good if it leads to reduction in greenhouse gasses, that wasn’t the intent of the first carbon calculator. The calculator itself helped shift the desire for accountability and change from big oil and gas companies. In that way, BP’s campaign has been incredibly successful. 4

And for BP, that begins with their calculator.

Breaking Down the BP Emissions Calculator
To best demonstrate its lack of features and inaccurate readings, you need to analyze each section of BP’s carbon footprint calculator. You will quickly see just how imprecise this “carbon calculator” is. 5

Location
The BP carbon footprint calculator asks that you select your country of residence.

It also tells you that your answer to this question matters because any future calculations will be dependent on this answer.

Now, this question would be perfectly suitable if it then asked what state or province where you live. But it doesn’t. Instead, it continues directly into the next set of questions concerning travel.

But why does this matter?

It’s mostly important for residents of countries like the United States where each state has its own method(s) of producing energy, especially electricity. The source of your energy, whether that is for your vehicle, household, or other appliances, has a significant impact on your overall carbon emissions.For example, if electricity is generated by coal burning power plants (like the majority around the world), the eco-cost of that energy is higher than if the electricity was generated by a hydroelectric dam.

A person who receives most or all of their energy from renewables, such as solar and wind power, will have a much lower rate of emissions than a person who is dependent on fossil fuels.

Being able to select your specific state ensures that your carbon footprint is derived from information about your specific location (and how it generates electricity) and provides you with a far more accurate depiction of your carbon footprint.

Types of CO2 Emitters
The next page of the BP carbon footprint calculator asks that you decide whether to calculate the carbon emissions of your annual road or air travel, or that you enter your carbon emissions in tonnes if you already know your footprint.

Choose road or air travel to calcualte on the bp footprint calcualtor screenshot.


(Image: bp5)

It implies that your carbon footprint is limited to the emissions of your transportation method.

This utterly fails to recognize that your carbon footprint is a holistic analysis of your lifestyle. It is not limited to transportation.

In fact, other calculators tend to break up your carbon footprint into several categories. These are often:

  • Transportation: This category tends to include all forms of transportation that you use throughout the year, which includes personal vehicles, public transportation, aircraft, etc. All of these disparate forms of transportation produce some amount of greenhouse gas emissions, but they vary widely depending on use. For example, the same trip taken on a bus 30 miles, will have a lower ‘personal’ carbon footprint than if taken in a car by one person.
  • Household: This category can include a lot of different things, including the type and amount of clothing you buy, the furniture and appliances you purchase, and the sorts of brands you choose. However, the most important part of this category is about your energy usage. Most carbon calculators will ask about where you source your energy from and how much you use each month. It may also ask about your eating habits, are you vegetarian, vegan, or neither.
  • Waste: This last category includes questions about how you dispose of waste (landfill, recycle, etc.), approximately how much food you throw away, and whether you compost organic waste.
  • Spending: Personal spending is directly related to your carbon footprint. The more you spend, the higher the emissions generated by producing those goods.
  • Online Activities: Texts and emails have a footprint too, and the more spam sitting in your inbox, the higher it is.
  • Recreational: Boats, ATV’s, motor homes and even lawnmowers generate emissions, so an an accurate calculator will include them.

Examining the details of your lifestyle ensures that an individual’s carbon footprint is a summation of all the major components of their life, and not just limited to how far they drive or fly.

View attachment 10443

BP’s Carbon Footprint Calculator Lacks Detail
It’s easy to critique the limits of the BP carbon footprint calculator. It simply cannot accurately depict the actual carbon emissions of an individual’s lifestyle.

And that is because the BP calculator lacks detail.

As an example, let’s look at the section on personal vehicle usage. For a resident of the U.S., it begins by asking what sort of vehicle you drive:

  • Motorcycle
  • Passenger Car
  • Light Duty Truck
  • Heavy Duty Truck
  • Medium and Heavy Duty Truck
For this example, you may decide to select a passenger vehicle.

It then asks what sort of fuel type it takes. The options are limited to:

  • Petrol
  • Diesel
This is already emblematic of other problems you will notice with this section. While these two options are prevalent (the majority of Americans do drive gasoline-fueled cars), they are not the only choices.

In fact, this calculator is wholly missing any mention of renewable energy, and with electric vehicles becoming more common in the U.S., this seems like an obvious omission. Unless BP doesn’t want to draw attention to the differences in the carbon footprint of electric cars vs gasoline?

In this example, the user selects “Petrol.” They are then asked to enter their annual distance traveled and their vehicle’s fuel efficiency if they know it.

That’s it. The calculator doesn’t ask about the make or model, or even whether it receives annual maintenance, which can have a big impact on how much fuel is burned every mile.

bp carbon footprinr calculator results screenshot.


(Image: bp5)

This could be forgiven in most carbon footprint calculators, as they do not expressly advertise their ability to accurately depict the carbon footprint of your vehicle, but in a calculator that can only calculate the carbon footprint of air or road travel, there’s no excuse.5

Your BP Carbon Footprint
In the concluding section of BP’s carbon footprint calculator, it gives you your calculation and presents your carbon emissions in metric tons of CO2e. In the example above, 200 miles was entered for the annual amount driven.

It then tells you how much you can pay BP to offset your carbon emissions.

This is as blatant as greenwashing gets. For context, BP produces about 374 million metric tonnes (412 million U.S. tons) of CO2e every year.

If you live in the U.S., you might annually produce 16 tons of CO2e, which is the average, per capita emissions.

So, this massive CO2e emitter is asking you to pay them to offset your carbon emissions through emission reduction projects that are funded by gas and oil companies. 6

The rest of the website is similarly focused on how individuals can alter their lifestyles to lessen their carbon emissions.

What Was VYVE? Did It Really Calculate Emissions Correctly?
On the surface, VYVE was an app produced by a subsidiary of BP that supposedly tracked your carbon footprint in real-time and prompted you to buy carbon offsets, specifically helping new offset projects that BP is funding. 7

Unfortunately, it was just another example of corporate greenwashing, and now, no longer exists.

While experts were unsure whether VYVE accurately calculated your emissions, the underlying principle was the same as the original BP carbon footprint calculator. It was designed to focus attention on the individual’s carbon emissions instead of the top 100 companies that are producing about 70 percent of global emissions.

Carbon Footprint of Energy: Why Science Fact Is Glossed Over by Big Oil
Big oil and gas companies gloss over scientific evidence surrounding climate change because it is financially beneficial for them to ignore it.

In fact, many of these companies successfully lobby against any actual legislation that might create a more sustainable and environmentally friendly society.

Fossil Fuel Industry Impact on Climate Change
In 2019, fossil fuel combustion accounted for 74 percent of the United States’ total annual greenhouse gas emissions, which includes the burning of coal for electricity generation. And, just two years earlier, in 2017, a report from the Climate Accountability Institute (CAI) stated that just 100 companies were responsible for over 70% of the world’s CO2e emissions since 1988.

At the time, four of the highest emitters were ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron, and they were joined by all other major oil and gas companies. Of course, this list wasn’t limited to oil and gas companies, but it does give you a sense of how destructive the fossil industry is. 10

They are responsible for the majority of global emissions.

Making a Difference
It is possible to reduce your footprint, using carbon offsetting companies that help restore the planet using a tree planting offset strategy like a daily driver carbon offset. However, these should be fully vetted before buying.

The BP carbon footprint calculator is an element of a larger scale marketing movement to convince the public that the individual is solely responsible for climate change, and while everyone does bear some responsibility, workable energy solutions should be everyone’s goal… including BP’s.
 

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
12,093
8,305
118


Enjoy the plague cocktails, may they shred bowels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlaydette

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,232
8,694
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,177
3,020
118
Country
United States of America
Yes, it's a fallacy 100% of the time. Fallacies are just faulty logic, that doesn't mean the conclusions are necessary incorrect.

I could say the sun will rise tomorrow because it's actually a giant hamster ball in the sky, and the giant space hamsters inside it get tired of rolling it around all day and go to bed, but when they wake up they'll start rolling it again. It's true because I used to own hamsters, and they love to roll around and sleep in their hamster balls.

That's about the stupidest argument I could make for it, but the sun is still going to come up tomorrow.

By the way, that's a reduction ad absurdum. And yes, I did that on purpose to accentuate the point.
Note: if you can argue for a reason that a slope would be slippery, e.g. "the reasoning of this legal precedent would allow ____ as well", then that's also not the slippery slope fallacy.

I don't care what the English teacher says about the Slippery Slope fallacy. It's not a fallacy 100% of the time. Look at the ads driving the internet to be an unusable hellscape. First, some jackass likely thinks I will just put ads in newspapers, what can go wrong, and now it's like they are everywhere. IOS, android, PC, MAC, road billboards, central squares, YouTube videos.

WebSurfing on IOs is nearly impossible without malware ads.

Yet Apple being jackasses won't even allow us to use Ublock origin on IOS. I am so sick of ads.
This isn't really slippery slope, fallacious or otherwise, because the chain of events isn't really inaugurated by the original newspaper ad sin. This shit is driven by profit motive: it's systemic. The reason for it is not that something like it happened in the past, it is that there are reasons for people to want to do it here and now that would exist regardless of the past.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,497
3,489
118
Filtered water ice cubes?! No thank you, friend; give me that raw glacier ice, so that I can brag to all my rich friends just before I'm rushed to the hospital with severe gastrointestinal distress.
At first that seemed stupid, but then I read that they are going to be doing this for ridiculously overpriced bars in places like Dubai. So...that's ok then.
 

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
12,093
8,305
118

TLDR: bunch of C suits butthurt they don't have as many folks to lord it over in person so they can feel like they matter, resulting in extreme cringe

Also amusing several of those suits couldn't be arsed to do their bit in the office, but opting for green screens.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,830
5,737
118
Country
United Kingdom

TLDR: bunch of C suits butthurt they don't have as many folks to lord it over in person so they can feel like they matter, resulting in extreme cringe

Also amusing several of those suits couldn't be arsed to do their bit in the office, but opting for green screens.
Working in the office rather than at home "encourages organic breakout moments of creativity"? Lol, fucking hell, they're not an artistic commune, they're a fucking corp.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,376
2,033
118
Working in the office rather than at home "encourages organic breakout moments of creativity"? Lol, fucking hell, they're not an artistic commune, they're a fucking corp.
There is a point here - in the office you "bump into people" and chat, and this does often involve knowledge exchange and sparking ideas. If everyone's at home on Zoom / Teams, these moments are potentially lost.

However, I would be far more interested in seeing organisations present actual evidence of a decrease in productivity or creativity rather than nebulous theoretical claims. Because I can't just help it's that managers are suspicious that home workers are slacking, or just don't like the fact they are harder to monitor, rather than having data to prove there's a problem.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,718
766
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
There is a point here - in the office you "bump into people" and chat, and this does often involve knowledge exchange and sparking ideas. If everyone's at home on Zoom / Teams, these moments are potentially lost.

However, I would be far more interested in seeing organisations present actual evidence of a decrease in productivity or creativity rather than nebulous theoretical claims. Because I can't just help it's that managers are suspicious that home workers are slacking, or just don't like the fact they are harder to monitor, rather than having data to prove there's a problem.
It's like playing DnD remote vs in-person is quite a bit different. I only played remote once and I hated it.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,376
2,033
118
It's like playing DnD remote vs in-person is quite a bit different. I only played remote once and I hated it.
I've done it remote - although as it was a lot of years and with a new group since the last time I'd done any, I can't really draw a meaningful conclusion.

The other issue here is "horses for courses". Some workers may be better with home or hybrid work and others in the office. Obviously the effort of discriminating between who is what type might be potentially hard for an employer, so they'd rather take what evidence suggests is better on average and make everyone conform, accepting they make some employees do worse to get others that do better.

But fundamentally, I think organisations, including corporations, make lots of decisions that have nothing to do with real efficiency or productivity, and really just represent the will and whims of bosses. The boss just doesn't like people working from home (e.g. because he's a 60-year-old dinosaur and doesn't "get" it), so bans it.

A famous example of this might be executive pay. Back in the 70s / 80s there were lots of studies looking at how executive remuneration affected performance. Companies looked at papers showing that higher pay led to better results, and thus the explosion in executive pay starting in the 1980s. The interesting thing was all the studies that also were around saying more pay wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. We should not be surprised that the executive class focused only on the research that justified them enriching themselves to a disgusting degree.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,718
766
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I've done it remote - although as it was a lot of years and with a new group since the last time I'd done any, I can't really draw a meaningful conclusion.

The other issue here is "horses for courses". Some workers may be better with home or hybrid work and others in the office. Obviously the effort of discriminating between who is what type might be potentially hard for an employer, so they'd rather take what evidence suggests is better on average and make everyone conform, accepting they make some employees do worse to get others that do better.

But fundamentally, I think organisations, including corporations, make lots of decisions that have nothing to do with real efficiency or productivity, and really just represent the will and whims of bosses. The boss just doesn't like people working from home (e.g. because he's a 60-year-old dinosaur and doesn't "get" it), so bans it.

A famous example of this might be executive pay. Back in the 70s / 80s there were lots of studies looking at how executive remuneration affected performance. Companies looked at papers showing that higher pay led to better results, and thus the explosion in executive pay starting in the 1980s. The interesting thing was all the studies that also were around saying more pay wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. We should not be surprised that the executive class focused only on the research that justified them enriching themselves to a disgusting degree.
I think overall production went up, at least in the people I know that switched to remote and said their/their team's production increased. Those results will be confounded with the fact that people knew each other before this happened vs a team of people working together that never met before. I'd say doing some hybrid method would be best but might not make sense money-wise because then you need an office but then it's used probably less than half the time so it might not make sense to rent or own if that's the case.
 

XsjadoBlaydette

Piss-Drinking Nazi Wine-Mums
May 26, 2022
953
1,265
98
Country
Wales
brief breakdown on the brands of extreme hypocrisy from GOP members about what they say and what they do with public spending


Hi. Let's look at some of the loudest, most perpetually online GOP politicians, and see if they're actually doing things that help their constituents. Next week we'll do the Democrats!

Chapters:
00:00 - Intro
03:36 - Matt Gaetz
16:46 - Lauren Boebert
24:30 - Ted Cruz
30:58 - Jim Jordan
37:57 - Marjorie Taylor Greene
46:32 - Fame Is Fleeting
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,376
2,033
118
brief breakdown on the brands of extreme hypocrisy from GOP members about what they say and what they do with public spending
I've gotta say, in a way I love how catty MTG is about so many others - she's viciously clawed her way up to near the top, and now she's making sure that if anyone's going to grab attention as the crazy-ass livewire bullshitter, it's going to be her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlaydette