• MeanEYE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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.

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

        We’re well beyond the point of industrial activity being done “more safely.” Either it stops entirely, or everything collapses before the turn of the next century.

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay then, we just build Lofstrom loops and run them on nuclear reactors. Launch materials to put a solar shade up in a Lagrange point to cool the planet down until we stop all fossl fuel use and sequester enough CO2 when it is no longer needed. Construct the shade out of millions of smaller mirrors so that we can move mirrors away slowly over time so as to sync with the lowering CO2 levels.

          Those loops only cost like $10 billion. That’s like a third of NASA’s yearly budget.

          It’s not pie in the sky or some dumbass excuse to give the ruling class an out on climate change. Actually, the opposite – with cheap access to space, we will have access to near unlimited solar energy so we won’t need fossil fuels anymore, we can mine NEAs for metals making surface mining unnecessary, and actually build the Jetsonian post scarcity future our abusers promised us and failed to deliver on.

          We really don’t have a choice anyway – we don’t have access to enough resources down here to make any of that happen, and without the solar shade no surface-only effort to stop climate collapse will work anyhow since the temperature will go up without it no matter what we do down here.

          So we are left with a choice to kickstart human expansion into space or allow the biosphere to collapse. Grow or die. I say we grow.

          Sauce: Wiki - OG paper

    • Yokana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      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
        19
        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
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          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
            5
            ·
            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.

    • Cait@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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
    21
    ·
    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.

    • Diocese3049@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are they truly accidental? Or are they because of cutting corners on maintenance etc and then “just happen”

      • iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And is it really cutting corners? Or is it saving your life and family while your job/government ‘threatens’ to cut you off money and food?

        (Rhetorical/Sarcasm)

        Climb the ladder, find the cause.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      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
      6
      ·
      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
    18
    ·
    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.

  • adamth0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    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.

    • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And who is going to enforce these sanctions?

      Because the capable ones to enforce these sanctions are the main culprits of the climate crisis and it would be incredibly convenient for them to use these laws to get even more ahead of underdeveloped nations.

      Unless thats exactly what you want, keep the exploited poor and the exploiters rich. Think better.

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

        Like, instead of doing this, we could simply tax carbon and achieve much more realistic results.

  • Jack@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    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
      3
      ·
      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.

      • ironhydroxide@partizle.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You do understand how much energy (and therefore pollution) it takes to launch any significant mass above the karman line, right?

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Who gives a fuck? Emotional satisfaction is the goal here, not energy efficiency.

          We can always build a Lofstrom loop or a skyhook on something and fling them off into space on that.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

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