Great question! The reason why I was using the 2017 report is that the Guardian arrival you originally referred to was from 2017, so I looked at the report they were working off of.

That is sensible, yes.

I regards to the graph you posted, it shows how emissions from private comps is have fallen and emissions from nations and nation owned companies have rissen. I think this is a relevant distinction to make, because the meme and the report as they are show a one sided picture (capitalism is the sole drive of climate change) whilst, looking at the complete data, a more nuanced picture emerges (like the role of nations in upholding the capitals system).

You know, this sounds liks something good old American capitalism could dab into. Obviously there is no war in the US (yet). But I see potential there.

Visit the Californian Homeless-Camps. Have a tour around a Texas school where kids have no idea evolution exists and think Noas Ark was real. While you are there, visit an Emergency rooma parking lot: you might be lucks and see a pregnant teenager die in her car. Then go to West Verginia and play a fun game of "spot the Junky". Bath in the misery of black people working three jobs to live from their hand into their mouth all around the country. Be a shocked but o so entertained bystander while they are beaten up, or, if you are lucky, even shot by a police officer on their way home.

Danke, dass du deine Expertise hier geteilt hast.

It reminds me of how German fire departments are build often with the multiple big electric doors all around. (German fire departments have less decoration and more firetrucks in there tough, just in case you wondered)

Looking at the numbers you should maybe include Chinas Coal Industry in there, since it is responsible for about 25 % of global emissions alone, according to the up to date report.

And the people at Gazprom also deserve a prominent spot in that line.

Why are you using data from the 2017 report?

You are referring to page 15, which shows emissions in 2015. In the up to date 2024 report this has been replaced with emissions after the Paris climate agreement, so 2016 till 2022.

As you can see, the same picture emerges as I stated in my first post: the top actors are Nations or state owned producers. The contribution to global Co2 emissions is listet, but still only refers to fossil fuel and cement Co 2 emissions.

https://mander.xyz/comment/15166141

I'll refer to this comment where I showed why the article quoted here is very missleading.

This meme is not true and missleading. I know it fits the narrative of "companies bad". But it's not based on fact.

It's based on an article by the guardian.

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

The article is based on the Carbon Major Report.

It describes itself like this:

Carbon Majors is a database of historical production data from 122 of the world’s largest oil, gas, coal, and cement producers. This data is used to quantify the direct operational emissions and emissions from the combustion of marketed products that can be attributed to these entities.

As you can see, they speak about "entities", not companies. Who are said entities?

75 Investor-owned Companies, 36 State-owned Companies, 11 Nation States, 82 Oil Producing Entities, 81 Gas Entities, 49 Coal Entities, 6 Cement Entities

As one might realize, only 75 are Companies. Most of them are either States, or producers of Oil, Gas, Coal and Cement.

The 71 % is not at all about global emissions. This is wrong.

72% of Global Fossil Fuel & Cement CO2 Emissions

So it's 100 entities that are responsible for 72 % of the world's fossil and cement Co2 emission.

https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/05dfb9e1-ace2-4072-9fc5-7ed6f6eddfb2.png

Looking at them you can see how the top emitter are very much not companies. Also, it's historical Co2, a fact made prominent by the former Soviet union beeing the top emitter.

Let's look at some more findings:

The Carbon Majors database finds that most state- and investor-owned companies have expanded their production operations since the Paris Agreement. 58 out of the 100 companies were linked to higher emissions in the seven years after the Paris Agreement than in the same period before. This increase is most pronounced in Asia, where 13 out of 15 (87%) assessed companies are connected to higher emissions in 2016–2022 than in 2009–2015, and in the Middle East, where this number is 7 out of 10 companies (70%). In Europe, 13 of 23 companies (57%), in South America, 3 of 5 (60%) companies, and in Australia, 3 out of 4 (75%) companies were linked to increased emissions, as were 3 of 6 (50%) African companies. North America is the only region where a minority of companies, 16 of 37 (43%), were linked to rising emissions.

Here the report mixes state and private companies. The rise is most prominent in countries with state owned companies. Privote companies, as seen in Europe and North America, haven't increased that much.

So, all in all: The idea that 100 companies are responsible for the destruction of earth is plain wrong.

I know the ideas that companies are responsible and to blaim for the current state of affairs fits our world view (it fits mine!!), but please don't run into the trap of believing everything you read just because it does.

The study addresses this on page 3:

"While violence affects people of all genders, not all people experience violence to the same extent. As a complex phenomenon, the impact of violence can differ based on the gender of both the victim and the perpetrator, their relationship and the type of violence involved. People’s experiences may also differ depending on other personal characteristics besides gender – such as age, disability, sexual orientation and ethnicity – and the intersection of these characteristics. The results presented in this report concern the experiences of women in the 27 Member States based on 114 023 interviews (10). Compared with men, women are more likely to experience violence by perpetrators in the domestic sphere, with many incidents taking place at home (11). Because of these close ties between the victim and the perpetrator, it can be difficult for victims to disclose their experiences and seek assistance, including to report incidents to the police (12). For these reasons, some official statistics, including police-recorded crime and generic crime victimisation surveys, capture the experiences of women to a limited extent. This is particularly the case when those producing the statistics do not specifically set out to ensure that experiences of intimate partner and domestic violence are captured in detail, or when they do not use specific questions or appropriate measures to make women feel that they can safely disclose their experiences. Surveys such as the EU gender-based violence survey provide a detailed and comprehensive picture of the range of offences and the consequences that women experience. At the same time, administrative statistics – such as those on police-recorded offences, prosecutions and court decisions – are also important to collect, because they help monitor the functioning of the criminal justice system and its responsiveness to the needs of victims. Efforts are therefore being made to enhance the quality and use of these administrative statistics (13). Thus, both population- based surveys on violence against women and administrative statistics should be considered when examining the extent and nature of violence against women."

Aus meiner Erfahrung hilft:

Schnell zusagen, wenn Sie dir gefällt, und nicht lange rum machen, sonst ist sie weg.

Unterlagen wie Gehaltsnachweis, Mieterselbstauskunft, Schufa schon fertig haben und direkt nach dem Termin zusenden.

Hm, ja, fair.

Also mein Neurowissenschaftsprof hat aus dem gleichen hier angegebenen Grund nur handschriftliches Mitschreiben erlaubt.

Dein Prof. behandelt also erwachsene Menschen wie Kinder, denen er etwas erlauben oder verbieten kann das für ihn völlig belanglos ist. Finde ich jetzt ziemlich übergriffig, ehrlich gesagt. Sowas kann man empfehlen und kann Studien dazu zeigen, aber ob man das jetzt umsetzt sollte einem erwachsenen Menschen doch bitte selbst überlassen sein.

Dafür nahmen sie mit einem EEG-Gerät die Gehirnsignale von 35 Studierenden auf, während diese vorgegebene Wörter schrieben oder tippten. Beim Schreiben verwendeten die Testpersonen einen digitalen Stift und ein Touchscreen sowie Schreibschrift, beim Tippen nur einen Finger und eine gängige Tastatur. Alle Testpersonen waren Rechtshänder.

Geil. Tippen mit einem (1) Finger ist also nicht so gut fürs Gehirn wie schreiben mit der Hand.

In der Studie steht übrigens das die das so machen mussten, damit sie die Hirnaktivität beim schreiben mit einer (der rechten) Hand vergleichen konnten, was beim tippen mit zwei Händen nicht möglich gewesen wäre.

Führt die Studie aber auch irgendwie ins absurde, finde ich.

Weil Füße und Genitalbereich besonders schlimm mocken?

Ernst gemeinte Frage, was ist die Logik dahinter?

Eigentlich alle Medien, seien es Spiele, Filme, Bücher in Englisch, sofern es Originalsprache ist. Das heißt für mich eigentlich 99 % English.

Sachen, die aus anderen Sprachen übersetzt wurden, meistens auch auf Englisch, weil die Übersetzung tendenziell besser ist. Ausnahme davon sind Bücher, aber das war ja nicht die Frage.

Then we talk magic mirrors, they have evil rocks in them that get in our rivers and we don’t contain well. That aside, we show tradition to our ancestors by making much of them with slavery.

Sure, because mining uranium is total helaty and no problem at all.

https://genesenvironment.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41021-015-0019-3

Okay, I'll not downvotes but try to engage.

The right I activly holding back information from their echo chamber that can objectively view as factual (climate change is the most prominent example that comes to mind). So they are indeed ignoring reality in a messuarable way. Why do you think the right is not perseved as a thread then? For example the thread of ignoring climate change or science in general? Do you think "the middle" doesn't see that as a problem?

How, in your option has the left removed itself from reality? Can you provide some concrete examples please?

I can think of examples for the silencing both on the right or the left. In regards to the left I'm thinking of speakers at university's beeing canceled or yelled over. And I do see how speach controll might be seen as silencing. Is it a thing? Where I am from it seems to be more of a right wing point pretending that they are speach-controlled while nobody is forcing speech on anybody, just suggesting more inclusive ways of speaking (let's use pronouns as an example).

So I guess what I am saying is: Is the perception of the left grounded in reality or has it been crafted by right wing propaganda? And since the answer has to be "yes to both", do you think it's more grounded in reality than it is constructed by the right?

From this response and the others given here I think you should have better said "... this is MY roleplaying game". I don't think I would enjoy this attitude as a player.

That beeing said, you do yours. As long as you are having fun and you have players that enjoy your style of DMing, that's all fine.

Not everybodies playstyle is compatible, and that is a good thing, because different people enjoy different things. I'm saying this because I want to make clear that I'm not trying to make a personal attack here.

This isn't a physics sim. This is a roleplaying game.

😉

That's a very low bar.

I'll show myfself out.