• sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well sort of. The source says it’s from their investments, not from their lifestyle.

      Unless people have made an active choice to move their savings into an ESG pot, this will be true for everyone, just scaled according to the size of the pot.

      • psilocybin@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sort of an important mention, yes, but also sort of skewed.

        As the article points out 50%-70% of their emissions are due to their investments, meaning those 125 billionaires still have more direct emissions of the size of up to half the country of france.

        And I don’t think its fair to equate having some little money in the bank, with employing brokers to ensure the exploitation of human labour and planetary resources enables you and your children to live in luxury without ever having to work

        The difference is living off of what you work for and needing a bank account vs living off of your capital (meaning other peoples labour)

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But the “little money in the bank” is in aggregate making a huge contribution.

          So it’s easy to find the people who we want to blame big. But in aggregate we all have a role to play. That’s a harder message to swallow.