this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
356 points (98.9% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5301 readers
415 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The two tobacco companies Altria and Philip Morris International combined made up 2% of the branded plastic litter found, both Danone and Nestlé each produced 3% of it, PepsiCo was responsible for 5% of the discarded packaging, and 11% of branded plastic waste could be traced to the Coca-Cola company.

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 53 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Time for the beneficiary's of these companies to start footing the bill for cleaning up their garbage.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago

Nah, best we can do is privatize the profits and let the public pay the costs.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 30 points 7 months ago (3 children)

This is for large plastics. Big pieces of trash.

Microplastics are almost entirely just tire dust.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Last I heard was about 75%

It’s a lot but a pretty far cry from “almost entirely“.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 months ago

And yoga pants. Don't forget yoga pants. Though if I get rare cancer, I hope it's from girls in yoga pants.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

When they grind up large plastic it turns into small plastic

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

And yet even still the overwhelming majority of that "small plastic" is just... tire dust. That's still the bulk of the material.

That's the vast scale of automobile pollution. Another piece of how horrific auto-centric society is for the entire planet.

[–] narp@feddit.de 23 points 7 months ago

Survey finds that 60 firms own half of the worlds companies.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

11% of branded plastic waste could be traced to the Coca-Cola company.

More than ten percent from a single company...

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 21 points 7 months ago (3 children)

When I buy a bottle of Coca-Cola I am not actually paying much for the sugary water. I'm paying for the convenience of having it in a bottle.

In my mind, this convenience fee ought to be enough to pay for the convenience of also discarding said bottle. Otherwise, they really sold me the inconvenience of having to deal with the bottle that they use to distribute the sugary water.

So, get on with it, Coca-Cola, clean up your shit. I already paid you.

[–] federalreverse@feddit.de 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This is really close to truth. So many of those products producing trash are useless (bottled water) or even actively harmful (soda, cigarettes). You don't actually need to pay Coca-Cola at all. You just need a reusable bottle and a water fountain or tap.

Coca-Cola and Phillip Morris will not suddenly start being helpful.

In that sense: encourage your municipality, employers, etc. to set up public water fountains and no-smoking zones. (And if you really want sweet drinks, buy syrups.)

[–] Qwaffle_waffle@sh.itjust.works 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I believe this is true, Circle K gas station near me still has soda fountain drinks for 80-110 cents. The cans and bottles start at 2.50 or more.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

I'm old enough that it was normal and not a hassle to bring your glass bottles to buy Coke and wherever fizzy drinks. But at one point that option disappeared.

Also it helped that a family dinner would consume like a liter, and we didn't have it everyday.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Is it also a pretty safe bet these are most of the top 60 companies in the world, and we are the ones that buy all their generic crap in plastic containers?

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No. It is the faceless people who are to blame. Not me.

[–] Sizzler@slrpnk.net 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's really about who litters surely?

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Surface level - yeah I suppose? What about those who make it, those who don't dispose of it correctly, then those in waste management who don't care where it ends up?

[–] Sizzler@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It seems everyone in that chain has a responsibility of waste management. When costs inflate and services are reduced we see increased fly-tipping, and litter produced by uncollected bins, as well as shoddy disposal.

I think it's closely related to the broken window theory. One broken window = more crime. Some litter = more litter. Most are led by influence.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I think you've hit it on the head with everyone in the chain being responsible- and I've never heard of the broken window theory but it makes alot of sense.

[–] yoyolll@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I wonder that any time these statistics are brought up. Like 100 companies are responsible for 70% of greenhouse gases - well isn’t it cause there’s 8 billion people buying their shit? They’re not just running those factories for the fun of it.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Thank you, kind stranger!

[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com 7 points 7 months ago

It’s not their fault! People should recycle everything! /s

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

On those drink companies alone we have 21% of all plastic waste. Amazon packaging has to be a good 30% probably.

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Excuse my ignorance but what is Amazon packaging? Everything I've ever gotten from Amazon was packaged in cardboard, but maybe that's a local thing.

[–] Crowfiend@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Don't forget the big plastic bubble bags they use to pad the product inside.

In my experience, they send your purchase in a box that's easily 4x the necessary size, with the padding bubbles taking up the rest of the space.

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago

I've gotten a mix of bubble and paper cardboard but your right. Not just the padding but also the bubble bags they occasionally ship smaller stuff in.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Every now and then I'd get the package in one of those opaque gray plastic bags that many postal services use. Probably means those.

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 7 months ago
[–] 0x2d@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

when will something start to be done about this :(

[–] Trollception@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

When society fails

[–] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

It could end tomorrow.

[–] birthday_attack@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Less than half of that plastic litter had discernible branding that could be traced back to the company that produced the packaging; the rest could not be accounted for or taken responsibility for.

The branded half of the plastic was the responsibility of just 56 fast-moving consumer goods multinational companies, and a quarter of that was from just six companies.

This seems to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course the biggest companies with the most easily identifiable packaging are going to be the ones identified in this study. The majority of the plastic, however, is not, and it's difficult to tell who produced it.

The article addresses this as well, mentioning that this is the reason we need traceability, so we can get the true metrics on who is creating and thus responsible for the bulk of plastic waste.

The big players like Coke and others are obviously very much responsible for a big part of the problem. I just didn't see people mentioning this part of the study in the comments, so I wanted to bring it up.