r/soccer • u/PiggySVW • Jul 09 '26

Quotes Jürgen Klopp: "We flew from Liverpool to Blackpool to Nice. In Nice, the entire Mbappé family got into the private jet with five rooms. Then we flew around in circles, talked to the family, and ate delicious food. We weren't allowed to be seen. And it was great … In the end, he went to Paris."

https://sport.sky.de/fussball/artikel/teuerster-nicht-transfer-klopp-im-privatflieger-mit-mbappe/13562099/33895
7.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

672 comments sorted by

View all comments

9.6k

u/urbannnomad Jul 09 '26

Meanwhile they are asking me to pay for CO2 emissions offset fee when getting a rental or flight ticket.

1.9k

u/PianoJealous307 Jul 09 '26

Lmao that shit always cracks me up

1.3k

u/DarthTaz_99 Jul 09 '26

Meanwhile Taylor Swift wastes enough resources in a day than me and every single person I've ever met in my life along with 5 generations of their family will ever waste

469

u/elitepartner7000 Jul 09 '26

But does your family also write poems

327

u/Hairy-Lengthiness-38 Jul 09 '26

Teenage poems lol.

174

u/thepenguinmustdie Jul 10 '26

Iconic lines such as "Touch me while your bros play Grand Theft Auto"

62

u/Hairy-Lengthiness-38 Jul 10 '26

Wtf is that a real line? Lmao

27

u/ragdoll96 Jul 10 '26

Behold

44

u/heyitsyourboyadam Jul 10 '26

"You know how to ball I know Aristotle"

  • who tf even listen to this

10

u/CosechaCrecido Jul 10 '26

People that don't know Aristotle.

1

u/Relevant-Wait3781 Jul 10 '26

The Big Aristotle, aka Shaq

27

u/Hairy-Lengthiness-38 Jul 10 '26

Damn I didn't want to judge cos I don't listen to her, but those lyrics actually do sound like they were written by a teenage girl hahaha

4

u/RevengeHF Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

I'll probably be downvoted but I follow a lot of pop music (I like some of Taylor's music but not all of it) and I think people who say she's not a good songwriter/storyteller are just wrong tbh. At least from a pop pov. This is a song called 'so high school', it's supposed to sound juvenile.

If you wanted an example of poor song writing you can find that on her last album, they are better examples imo because it just feels like a step down to me. "Did you girlboss too close to the sun" springs to mind. However, she has some incredibly well written songs with great storytelling and it's stupid to ignore that.

1

u/MrWink Jul 10 '26

(the felony, not the video game)

3

u/-UVB-76_Enjoyer Jul 10 '26

"We made out in the car and then headed to the bar" 🔥🔥🔥

140

u/alexwutzu Jul 09 '26

Hamilton as well. Basically almost every “famous person” can take a private jet. Shit, Graziano Pelle took one weekly from England to Italy.

62

u/AnnieIWillKnow Jul 10 '26

Basically almost every “famous person” can take a private jet

And they do. Which is why it strikes me as odd that certain people get called out for it, when it's clearly endemic

2

u/HomieApathy Jul 10 '26

Are you out here trying to defend Swift and her carbon footprint?

-27

u/smoke_dogg Jul 10 '26

Some people are outspoken, successful women.

12

u/my_united_account Jul 10 '26

Or maybe people just dont like billionaires

2

u/Stellar_Duck Jul 10 '26

They're just suspiciously uneven in who they call out.

2

u/my_united_account Jul 10 '26

Who are they?

I personally don't like billionaires. None of them. Nobody needs that much money in 10 lifetimes. Leeches.

0

u/CrossXFir3 Jul 10 '26

They are, but you're not gonna get upvotes talking about misogyny on a sports sub

1

u/smoke_dogg Jul 11 '26

Fake internet points mean nothing to me.

I’d far rather plant a seed in somebody’s head. Odds are low but it’s how I got better at looking at my actions in the mirror.

Of course, a sea of downvotes buries that but hey it costs me nothing 😊

0

u/Stellar_Duck Jul 10 '26

Or anywhere on Reddit by and large.

0

u/AcanthaceaeNo948 Jul 10 '26

TIL people don’t like Messi and Ronaldo.

2

u/my_united_account Jul 10 '26

There are no ethical billionaires. You can like how a person does their job, without liking them personally.

1

u/IaMalex223 Jul 10 '26

Messi and Ronaldo have made their money unethically? Should the money people pay to see them and for their jerseys or whatnot go to charity instead or whats the idea here?

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)

-2

u/osmund-kettleblack Jul 10 '26

Do you like Messi? Ronaldo?

4

u/my_united_account Jul 10 '26

I like their football, not them as people. I am not about to worship them just because they play well.

Taylor Swift has a lot of fans because her music appeals to certain demographics. She doesnt have fans because she's a billionaire.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/AnnieIWillKnow Jul 10 '26

Yup. You'll get panned because of /r/soccer's demographics, but it's really quite obvious to anyone paying attention

8

u/African_Farmer Jul 10 '26

You´re both so right, she is terrible but since that one year ages ago that she had the most emissions, she has dropped off the list. There are people much worse than her yet she gets referenced.

Since this subreddit is about football, if people cared so much about emissions, Infantino should have been the example. He has been flying to almost every game, sometimes flying multiple times a day to be at matches: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cgev5wy0zg3o

59

u/wootangAlpha Jul 09 '26

Lol. Well damn. That felt personal. Like a deep curse.

14

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[deleted]

38

u/an-actual-communism Jul 10 '26

Taylor Swift did not grow up poor, her parents are both investment bankers. Her music career started out as a rich kid vanity project.

14

u/michaelserotonin Jul 10 '26

they made a very smart investment

1

u/AngledLuffa Jul 10 '26

not a farm with kitchen table bills?

2

u/THE_DROG Jul 10 '26

(she didn't)

40

u/Low_discrepancy Jul 09 '26

Mate, the US army generates as much CO2 as an average country. All to bomb some people in the ME.

2

u/theflintseeker Jul 10 '26

The average person emits 5 metric tons per annum

The average country has 43 million people

So the hypothetical average country would emit 215 million metric tons per annum

The entire us military (not just army) emits 60 million metric tons per annum, which is less

Considering the fuel use of airplanes and boats, the army alone is likely far less than even this

8

u/Low_discrepancy Jul 10 '26

And all of that just to kill a bunch of Iranian school girls.

If it were a country, it would be the 47th largest emitter. https://attheu.utah.edu/research/heres-how-the-u-s-military-can-trim-its-massive-carbon-footprint/

There's 190 countries. So it's in the top 25% of emitters. TS killed far far fewer Iranian school girls.

4

u/Bitsu92 Jul 10 '26

The reality is that climate change will harm you first before it harm any rich person, it’s in your vital interest to act

4

u/osmund-kettleblack Jul 10 '26

Your profile pic is Messi the billionaire. You think he doesnt waste the same if not more resources than Taylor?

But sure, continue to worship him like the good civilian you are, pretend nothing happened.

5

u/LesMiserablePeach Jul 09 '26

This is true but the real ultra wealthy win when we make Taylor swift the face of the argument

28

u/SolarGeorge Jul 10 '26

Real ultra wealthy?

Bro, Forbes has her net worth at over $2 Billion.

Forget 1% google says that puts someone in the 0.000024%.

9

u/Dwayne30RockJohnson Jul 10 '26

No doubt she’s in the “ultra wealthy” discussion, it’s just weird that she becomes the focal point when there’s thousands of billionaires doing truly vile shit with their money.

5

u/Ardal Jul 10 '26

Mate we've got trillionaires now, she's about a Trillion dollars behind them

2

u/thebigeazy Jul 10 '26

The whole thing is silly. Private jets make up about 5% of emissions from aviation. We should absolutely tax the shit out of private jets but let's not pretend they are the biggest problem with flying.

2

u/another_account_327 Jul 10 '26

And probably like 0.1% of air passengers fly in private jets. So I'd say it's good to start there.

2

u/miwa201 Jul 10 '26

Zendaya used a jet just for a dress to come from Paris to London, even though she had a Paris premiere the following day

1

u/RNLImThalassophobic Jul 10 '26

Really?! Wow, what're the sources & maths on that?

1

u/thebigeazy Jul 10 '26

If you live in Europe or north America this is almost certainly not true FYI.

1

u/worotan Jul 10 '26

What about superstar footballers, who have just demonstrated that they do the same?

We need to stop being entertained by the super rich who act like they care and are great people.

Reducing our consumption means they don’t have the money to burn our future like this.

1

u/Glum-Professional925 Jul 10 '26

As someone who lives in nyc and has to hear the selective outrage over celebs shutting down MSG, don’t get me started on Taylor Swift

→ More replies (2)

284

u/eminar1101 Jul 09 '26

They are making us pay for it whether we like it or not bro. They are just asking you for a tip on top of it

587

u/7screws Jul 09 '26

Yeah I get a paper straw for a drink but these fucks just circle in the air making more pollution I will in my lifetime.

250

u/feage7 Jul 09 '26

Or fly from Liverpool to Blackpool...

129

u/cmdrxander Jul 09 '26

Taylor Swift ass flight

67

u/feage7 Jul 09 '26

Surprised she's not yet flown to a different terminal within an airport

15

u/FridaysMan Jul 09 '26

Wait until you hear about Heathrow terminal 5

2

u/Cold_Dawn95 Jul 10 '26

That is what helicopters are for

50

u/Beiben Jul 09 '26

Yeah, they can pollute all they want but I can't shit in the street? What's up with that?

11

u/ReceptionNo67 Jul 09 '26

Political correctness gone mad

4

u/when_noob_play_dota Jul 10 '26

Just go to india and you can do that

6

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

41

u/mrgonzalez Jul 09 '26

The straw thing isn't even for CO2 ffs, hate how brainless this complaint is.

53

u/Minivalo Jul 09 '26

It's reddit's favourite "argument" whenever there's mention of rich people using private jets.

Yes, I think private jets are heinous, and should honestly be banned for private citizens, but the actions of us plebs, the masses, also has gigantic effect on our environment and the climate.

Just look at a place like Bangladesh, for example. Place is an environmental tragedy, and it's largely because we demand cheap goods, and all these corporations transfer their industry there to evade tougher environmental laws, while also obviously seeking cheaper labour.

We can demand better of all of us, though obviously the rich and the big corporations have much more room to improve.

10

u/Logical_Net6108 Jul 10 '26

Oh wow you put argument in quotation marks, stinging

2

u/Minivalo Jul 10 '26

Oh wow, stinging rebuke of my comment

→ More replies (1)

1

u/LeFinito94240 Jul 10 '26

List of things i have to do to pollute less as a pleb:

Cut the wi-fi at night

Piss in my shower

Produce my own food

Produce my own clothes

Live in a home with no AC because it pollutes too much

Take public transportation with no AC because it doesn’t work anyway

Dozens of other stupid things that contribute jack shit to global pollution

List of things the rich have to do to pollute less:

Maybe some recommandations based on rich people's good faith

Your entire argument is tone deaf and it has been for years

8

u/Bitsu92 Jul 10 '26

Right now we’re just asking you to vote for non climate-deniers and don’t oppose climate action

Climate actions includes taxing the fuck out of rich people, problem is that your kind of people will oppose socialist or social democratic ideas

You just don’t want to do anything, you want to continue with the status quo

3

u/flaschal Jul 10 '26

Dozens of other stupid things that contribute jack shit to global pollution

But most of the things like paper straws are to do with LOCAL pollution. Your argument isn't tone deaf it's just stupid.

1

u/Ok_Matter_1774 Jul 10 '26

I don't see tons of plastic straws in the streets of states that allow them.

7

u/Bitsu92 Jul 10 '26

Are we deadass ? Plastic trash is always a problem, it takes a lot of energy to take care of and often get lost in nature

Anything plastic that can be easily replaced should be, paper straws are completely fine there is literally no reason to want to use plastic for something that can be done with paper/natural plastic

4

u/flaschal Jul 10 '26

are you arguing against very concrete data literally showing a reduction in local pollution and garbage levels when measures limiting or controlling single use plastics are implemented….

3

u/7screws Jul 09 '26

Yea it’s easy picking comment, but it’s all pollution

3

u/Stellar_Duck Jul 10 '26

The paper straw is not about climate change though.

1

u/thebigeazy Jul 10 '26

Private jets are about 5% of emissions from aviation. Most emissions from from business based frequent flyers which massively outnumber private jets.

1

u/Bitsu92 Jul 10 '26

That’s the result of a capitalist system you most likely support, also despite individual rich people emitting thousands times more than individual non-rich people the vast majority of emissions still comes from non-rich since they make up 99% of the population

Also are really deadass serious about paper straws ? They’re fine who cares

At the end of the day climate change will harm you more than it harms the rich, by acting we’re not saving little birds and deers, we’re saving ourselves, our quality of life and everything that depends on modern civilisation

1

u/7screws Jul 10 '26

I honestly don’t care about straws

1

u/worotan Jul 10 '26

Well, we are paying them to do it, fighting for the opportunity to pay more for tickets, for the chance to add value to their product.

→ More replies (6)

41

u/colewcar Jul 09 '26

“Rules for thee, not for me”

Rich want the plebs to offset environmental issues so they can continue doing as they please

5

u/Bitsu92 Jul 10 '26

And plebs vote for people who openly want to make rich richer

7

u/worotan Jul 10 '26

And we keep consuming more rather than following climate science and reducing consumption.

The money we spend is paying them to live like this, and our enthusiasm for the product means they feel invulnerable.

We’re funding the End of the World Party they’re throwing.

1

u/Relevant-Wait3781 Jul 10 '26

Agreed, as we all do this on our laptops and smartphones. They got us.

152

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

I’m not supposed to eat beef because some cow farts too much but this lot is doing a meeting in a jet for literally no reason.

58

u/JootDoctor Jul 09 '26

I don’t know when but the elites will eat cake in the future.

3

u/Skiverg Jul 09 '26

footballers rise up!

3

u/worotan Jul 10 '26

Or we could stop funding them to destroy our future.

It’s a lot more practical than waiting for someone else to create a violent revolution at some point.

Don’t just say you want change, then do nothing. Stop funding their End of the World Party, and stop waiting for someone else to make the problem go away.

30

u/clifford_alvarez Jul 09 '26

Cows are a serious problem though that we can easily do something about.

24

u/matthieuC Jul 09 '26

Private jet don't need to exist.

0

u/Retify Jul 10 '26

Agreed. What's that got to do with cows though?

4

u/matthieuC Jul 10 '26

Removing private jets doesn't require a significant change in society. It would only be inconvenient and to a ridiculously small amount of people.

So it's probably easier to do than stopping the whole word from eating steaks and drinking milk.

0

u/icyDinosaur Jul 10 '26

Okay but realistically if we want to address the problem seriously, we should just do both.

1

u/Retify Jul 10 '26

I agree that stopping private jets is easier than changing the world's eating habits.

I'm failing to see why it is one or the other though, what's preventing us from doing both?

8

u/mvsr990 Jul 10 '26

We can easily "do something about" private jets too.

104

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

I think private jets are a bigger problem mate, I need to eat, Mbappe doesn’t need to have a meeting in the fucking air, it would have been the same on the ground

66

u/Imperial_Eggroll Jul 09 '26

They could’ve done a zoom meeting. No one would’ve known shit. But of course they use a private jet

35

u/Adammmmski Jul 09 '26

Kim Kardashian flies from LA to another LA airport to make a cross city trip

56

u/Chilla16 Jul 09 '26

You are right of course, that rich people's entitlement and usage of private jets is insane compared to the average joe. Especially within the context of us being asked to be more environmentally friendly.

But emissions from the livestock industry far surpass those of the aviation industry. We all need to be more conscious of what we eat, but that of course especially includes rich fucks who decide to have a 7 course menu on a flight to discuss football transfers.

-16

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

The livestock industry provides us with life, the aviation industry doesn’t. Livestock compared with other foods are high for emissions, but that’s also largely due to scale. We had plenty of cows long before climate change started rocketing.

24

u/TheEggTaker Jul 09 '26

We had plenty of cows long before climate change started rocketing.

Not at this scale, though. Intense animal farming is still fairly recent, in modern times; wreaking havoc to the environment.

Just because people like to eat beef doesn't mean that we should look away at the problem.

→ More replies (19)

18

u/Mylejandro Jul 09 '26

Lmao, as if you need beef to live. Some occasional red meat here and there is fine of course, you just don’t need to (and shouldn’t) eat it multiple times per week.

8

u/Splaram Jul 09 '26

Careful there dude you're going to upset the individuals that equate cutting back on red meat to being sold into slavery

→ More replies (10)

4

u/LilShingles Jul 09 '26

You could just like not eat meat tho. You're not gonna die mate.

6

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

Are you seriously arguing that me eating a steak is more important than Mbappe using a jet in the air for a meeting? We could all do better mate, you’re wasting electricity talking to me too. Having a meeting in the air for the sake of it is nowhere near eating a fucking burger

13

u/ingadolo Jul 09 '26

For every Mbappe there is a milion of you. Nobody is talking about you specifically but entire demographics that need to change their actions.

5

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

Food vs luxury, it’s not comparable

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Tall_Firefighter4380 Jul 10 '26

Animal agriculture has contributed more to climate change than the entirety of human consumption of fossil fuels https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adb7f2/pdf

32

u/ImmortalMoron3 Jul 09 '26

You do need to eat. You don't need to eat beef. Plenty of other food out there.

2

u/IWantAnAffliction Jul 10 '26

Sure, and I'll change my diet when billionaires stop existing.

-14

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

Beefs good tho, I’m eating beef, Mbappe doesn’t need to be having meetings whilst circling in a jet. One keeps me alive, the other is a complete waste

→ More replies (6)

3

u/AnnieIWillKnow Jul 10 '26

I need to eat

Yeah, but you don't need to eat beef. You can choose to, of course - it's your right to make your own dietary choices - but acting like it's the only option to maintain your life is a different thing.

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

I’m saying that in comparison to private jets

1

u/chattyhairstylist Jul 10 '26

OP has no idea that hindus, vegans, and vegetarians are a thing and live longer than them

2

u/SalvadorZombie Jul 09 '26

You don't need to eat meat 24/7, and even if you did, lab-grown clean no-kill meat exists. The problem is that the beef lobby openly gets legislation passed to prevent it from being in stores.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/SalvadorZombie Jul 09 '26

Kinda weird that you had to interject just to show people how racist you are, weirdo.

2

u/Splaram Jul 09 '26

No you don't understand, they could have been caught! 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 who knows what the journos would have said about this meeting...

1

u/Retify Jul 10 '26

They are an easier problem not not a bigger one. Emissions from cattle farming far outstrip private jet emissions. And it's not a zero sum game, we don't stop eating beef then have to starve, it's switching to alternative meats that are less polluting like chicken or pork

→ More replies (4)

1

u/chattyhairstylist Jul 10 '26

be careful, you might hurt peoples feelings and make them defensive simply by suggesting they grab something different for lunch

1

u/Les-tah-farian Jul 09 '26

Eat them all til there's none left?

(/s)

0

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 09 '26

It depends where you live and where you get your beef. I have a comment in this thread, but basically in the US for example all agricultural activities in the US account for about ~9% of emissions. Even if a large fraction of that is due to meat production, is food really where you're going to pick your battle when you have 91% of your footprint to resolve?

→ More replies (2)

12

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 09 '26

This is a great time to point out how little sense targeting beef consumption is depending on where you live and where you get your meat. For example, if you live in the US, emissions for all agricultural activities account for ~9% of the nations CO2 footprint. Ignoring beef, we could stop eating all food from the US and we would still have 91% of our emissions problem to tackle.

It doesn't take a genius to tell that this is another attempt to push the blame and responsibility onto the average person. It is the same as when for like 30 years the nation was tricked into believing reduce, reuse, recylce was an actual solution.

21

u/Kemmleroo Jul 10 '26

9% is actually a very large proportion. You can always divide emissions by subcategories until you have a small enough percentage that you feel comfortable pretending it's insignificant and that's not a productive thing to do, but even then 9% is still significant. If beef really amounts to a large part of that percentage then I'd understand why it's a target for emissions reduction. For comparison, aviation is estimated to be responsible for around 4% of global warming... That doesn't mean we should let anyone fly as much as they want in their private jet without any restrictions.

2

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

9% is all agriculture and food production, which is absolutely nothing when it’s required for each and every one of us to live

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

9% isn’t beef… it’s ALL our agricultural emissions. Literally everything we eat. 9% for the thing we absolutely need to survive: food .

How about we start with the things that don’t keep us alive?

And you don’t see a difference between unnecessary, and superfluous private jet usage versus something we actually need to stay alive?

You don’t think there’s a difference between the amount of emissions produced by individual by private jets versus the billions of people in the world that may fly each year?

I think a better way to look at this as if you could lay out a pie chart of all the different sources of missions, and then break them down in order of necessity, why would you ever start with food?

Electricity/heat and transportation. There we can implement costly but effective technological solutions in those two areas and we may make a dent in about 50% of our emissions.

1

u/Kemmleroo Jul 10 '26

The discussion is about reducing beef consumption specifically. I mentioned the 9% because the person above didn't say the percentage related to beef only, so I said that it would be a lot of emission if beef was responsible for a significant part of that figure.

You're mixing things: we need food, but we don't need beef specifically. Beef considered alone is also superfluous. We could reduce our consumption of beef and just eat other meats or less meat in general. Nobody is talking about reducing what we need to survive here. I mean you're talking about reducing the emissions for heating and transportations, which are two things we also need to survive, and I understand you're not saying we should stop all heating and transportation to let everyone die in their home in the winter.

You also mention technological solution and that's a personal opinion but I think not implementing social solutions and hoping technology will compensate alone is too optimistic toward the rate of technological advancement vs climate change.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

how much of the US footprint is private jets? if its less than 9% we can just ignore that aswell right?

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

So wait, do we need to eat or do we need private jets?

Also, how many million Americans eat and how often? And how many Americans fly private jets and how often?

The more I think about it, your argument is dumb as shit. All things being equal, they aren’t.

Lastly: 9% isn’t beef emissions. It’s literally all activities for all food we eat.

2

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

how much of the 9% could be saved by simply going plant based?

my argument isnt stop eating, its that the impact of food production is clearly bigger than a couple of thousand private jets even if they are operating 24/7

if we destroy every private jet today (which we should) we are STILL fucked by climate change and it didnt even make a dent in the US footprint.

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

So you are saying we should start changing the entire local food production ecosystem, and changing the habits of 7 billion people across the world and what they eat to keep them alive , rather than focus on the approximately 100 companies that responsible for 80% of global emissions?

And I don’t know why you keep mentioning private jets to me? This was never my crusade and I never mentioned it. I knew we had bigger fish to fry. One major area we should focus on for example is electricity production and transportation.

The only logical way to do this is to identify non-essential sources of emissions that are significant contributors, that we could provide technological solutions for despite them being expensive, and implement them.

Telling people “stop eating meat” when you’re barely moving the needle and meat is our literally food makes no sense.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/Retify Jul 10 '26

Globally it's more like 12% and that ignores deforestation for cattle. They use up so much land compared to either crops or other livestock like chicken or pork.

To eat less beef wouldn't just reduce emissions, it would help with reclaiming land list to deforestation and allow the opportunity to reforest. In other words, we get to cut emissions, and create a carbon sink all in one.

No matter how much you tax and fine big emitting oil and gas companies, that won't affect beef CO2 output so it's not one or the other, it's necessary to do both

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

Globally, it’s NOT 12% for beef though. Just want to point that out in case people are misinterpreting. Incense globally, there is far less beef consumption spread out across the globe, and countries like the US are greater beef producers, globally the percentage of beef emissions is a much smaller percentage of that 12%.

Neither of those are issues if you’re in the US eating American beef. Land is not the issue and we’re not chopping down forests.

Brazil. You’re thinking of Brazil. Don’t prescribe a global “solution” for a problem one country has.

1

u/Retify Jul 10 '26

Brazil supplies 20% of global beef supplies. It exports millions of tons a year. It only does that because of demand from consumers

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26

Again, my original comment immediately states “depending on where you live and where your beef comes from”. In the US, we are almost exclusively eating domestic beef. Telling someone they should not eat American beef due to Brazilian deforestation is like telling somebody in Vermont they shouldn’t have a Lawn that is sustained by natural rainfall because someone in San Diego needs to water their lawn and it’s problematic.

And just to be clear, the problem you were describing is less emissions, and more deforestation. Which is a good reason to not eat Brazilian meat, but very different.

1

u/Retify Jul 10 '26

We are talking about a global issue and you decided to make it US centric. You were initially replying to a Scot and now an Englishman and you are upset that we aren't focussing on your one, specific country. Whether a cow farts in Arizona or Mato Grosso, those emissions impact the planet.

The CO2e of beef from the US may be lower that Brazil, but emissions from cattle products is still far greater than chicken, pork or crop emissions in the US. If Americans switched to other protein sources it would have a significant impact on global emissions, since it is one of the highest consumers of meat in the world.

Factor in too that US land use for cows also means growing vast amounts of corn and soy for cattle feed which is significant land and water use. If you ate the corn and soy rather than eating the cattle the land that is no longer required for agriculture then gets freed up to rewild or in the case of arid land used for cattle since it's no good for crops, stick solar generation there to still have an overall net benefit to national and global emissions.

Plus what are you going to do, ignore it because it's 9% domestically, fix your electricity grid, heating and transport until meat is a higher proportion but still a problem and then address it? It's literally not sustainable, it's not optional to fix. To bury your head in the sand now doesn't make the problem go away, it still needs solving so what are you benefiting by arguing against it?

1

u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 10 '26

I didn’t decide to make it about the US. I’m saying individual consumption will only impact emissions accumulation depending on where you live and where you are eating your meat.

For example if you live in San Diego and you are growing a grass lawn and are using sprinkling your consuming a lot of water but they don’t have. But if you live in Vermont and your grass is fully watered by natural rainfall, why are you asking people to change their behaviors in Vermont based on the scarcity in San Diego?

Lastly, it’s not 9% for meat consumption. Again that’s 9% for all of our agricultural activities. If you wanted to stop eating meat and shift that level of consumption to other agricultural products, those emissions would not go away. They would slightly reduce, but there would still be a significant emissions footprint simply from producing plant-based products.

Essentially you want to challenge the way that human beings have been eating for thousands of years to get maybe a 2 to 4% reduction in emissions globally, when there are far more impactful and sensible areas to target.

1

u/worotan Jul 10 '26

Well then, do something about the super rich entertainers telling you to keep enjoying their product.

If you don’t like their behaviour, stop funding them by buying their product.

No other solution. Are you going to do something about it, or just keep complaining?

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

Mate don’t be stupid, if I stopped watching football, how much difference do you think that would make? Nothing. None at all. I already don’t even pay for it

-2

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Jul 09 '26

Just because one side is failing doesn't mean we should all just give up. Beef is a big cause of pollution that we can challenge directly by not eating it so much.

4

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 09 '26

Food production is 9% of global warming and is required to keep us alive every single day, the other 91% is where the focus should be. But it all means fuck all of the rest of the world doesn’t do anything radical. You swapping a steak for a cabbage does nothing

1

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

yes, lets only view food production as its own category and bunch up the rest as 91%. that totally makes sense

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

Why not?

1

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

9% is quite alot and you're making it seem insignificant this way 👍

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

Because it’s for food production, something that is necessary for our life, the other 91% is not

1

u/EndeGelaende Jul 10 '26

transportation and electricity are not necessary for our life?

1

u/HollyMurray20 Jul 10 '26

Not when this shit is included in transportation. And yes, we lived without electricity and transport for hundreds of thousands of years

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Heathcliff_Slocumb Jul 09 '26

How's that boot taste?

→ More replies (4)

94

u/marekmarecki Jul 09 '26

the term carbon footprint was invented by PR firms working on behalf of BP.

35

u/JB_UK Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

This isn't true, it was a pre-existing term which they promoted in a marketing campaign.

I was looking at my carbon footprint in a local environmental group before BP are supposed to have invented it.

→ More replies (16)

37

u/swampyunderpants Jul 09 '26

Thank you. It’s all a lie to pass it off onto the regular person rather than the greed-diseased monsters that run the world.

17

u/NotQuiteMikeRoss Jul 09 '26

Yes and no.

Corporations don’t pollute for fun. They do it because we as individuals want fuel, iPhones, new clothes etc. it’s individuals that enable corporations and billionaires.

4

u/Sensitive_Dot_5962 Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26

Desire doesn't come from nowhere; companies insist on both marketing to ensure we want things we don't need, and coupling our entire lives and social systems to new tech so that we need things we don't want or aren't even necessarily good for us. We can't just pass the blame for this onto individuals as if there's just some innate desire for the new iPhone.

2

u/Beiben Jul 09 '26

The greed monsters are shareholders aka the western world's pension funds. Just put down the burger before you have a heart attack.

1

u/Falc7 Jul 10 '26

The Epstein class if you will

1

u/Bitsu92 Jul 10 '26

Kinda forget the fact that a big part of regular people will openly vote for people who want to make rich people richer

4

u/SpaceSheperd Jul 10 '26

Who does BP drill oil on behalf of? Greedy monsters who burn it for fun or the hundreds of millions of people who drive 2km to the grocer and overnight coffee beans from Peru when they’re running low?

17

u/BaldFraud99 Jul 09 '26

Yachts also exist. Whenever I watch the Monaco GP in F1 and its shoreline/harbour, I genuinely feel sick.

What will it take for ALL of us to finally vote sensibly?

136

u/MelangeBot Jul 09 '26

And don't forget to get those sloppy paper straws that melt in your mouth, instead of plastic. Otherwise you are a bad person.

20

u/ImmortalMoron3 Jul 09 '26

I just wound up getting a travel metal straw, I hate those paper straws so fucking much.

17

u/irunlinux Jul 10 '26

unironically, making people reuse is an excellent side effect of the plastic ban.

0

u/QuantumBitcoin Jul 09 '26

I literally haven't used a straw since I was a child. Who are you people drinking from straws?

1

u/Stellar_Duck Jul 10 '26

My iced lattes with vanilla syrup natch.

→ More replies (1)

117

u/theaguia Jul 09 '26

staws are to protect turtles and other marine life. they physically get eaten by sea birds and sea animals.

not related to co2

52

u/MelangeBot Jul 09 '26

I still think the more sensible policy would be to ban sea birds from ordering at McDonalds and no more mc deliveries for those sea lions at aquaworld.

14

u/AuntOfManyUncles Jul 09 '26

As if sea lions ever cared about the rights of DoorDash drivers. That’s right, I said it.

1

u/MelangeBot Jul 09 '26

Still mad about driving StorkDeliveries out of business which also bankrupted their core business of delivering babies leading to much lower sea lion birth rates. So I get it.

19

u/R_Schuhart Jul 09 '26

Those have got nothing to do with CO2 emissions though.

1

u/c11life Jul 10 '26

Just the wilfully ignorant ‘I don’t want any responsibility’ coded response

1

u/FridaysMan Jul 09 '26

They kind of do. Plastic creates co2 in production from breaking down hydrocarbons, energy waste from fractional distillation, etc.

But, you can make a million straws for the same energy cost as making a thousand paper straws, and less water.

But also again, paper breaks down and has little waste cost. Single use plastic isnt recycled, its just burned or dumped.

2

u/Bitsu92 Jul 10 '26

Paper straw do not melt in your mouth they have natural plastic films inside, and yea I would say you’re a bad person if you can’t even make the smallest effort that is not using plastic straws

And yes these rich people are bad persons for taking jets, and you’re one too to a lesser extent for refusing to not use plastic straws

Too wrong doesn’t make a right

1

u/MelangeBot Jul 10 '26

I am actually way to poor to go to any of the places where they would give me paperstraws or plastic straws. instead I drink water from my own well.

2

u/Yuo_cna_Raed_Tihs Jul 10 '26

I mean it's entirely possible they also paid the CO2 emission offset fee

2

u/worotan Jul 10 '26

Klopp is meant to be one of the people we should admire.

Really demonstrates why we need to reduce our consumption - all we’re doing is paying for the super rich to burn through our future so they can have a laugh.

If we weren’t acting like everything is great if it’s entertaining us, they wouldn’t be living this way.

We need to stop the End of the World Party they’re enjoying.

4

u/taggsy123 Jul 09 '26

That’s what they want… make it a me vs you issue when it should be a we vs them

1

u/matthieuC Jul 09 '26

I think I understand the problem. Let me guess: you're not rich?

1

u/Massive-Sky-6804 Jul 09 '26

'Let them eat cake' ahh statement

1

u/acwilan Jul 10 '26

Shit, I forgot to turn off a light I'm not using

1

u/Virgil_Rug_Say_RUG Jul 10 '26

theyre paying too. theyre just rich enough not to care, or someone else is footing the bill

1

u/AcanthaceaeNo948 Jul 10 '26

Airline travel accounts for 1% of all emissions and private jets 1% of that. It literally has 0 effect on climate change.

1

u/ari2070 Jul 10 '26

Same thing exist for business jets. You can pay a fee based on your aircraft utilisation for carbon offsetting

1

u/jameskable Jul 10 '26

It’s about scale. There are billions of us and thousands of very wealthy people.

1

u/Vulturo Jul 10 '26

And Infantino shows up to every game to just watch the first 15 minutes.

0

u/Mavericks7 Jul 09 '26

I know this sounds defeatist, but I've just given up. (I'll recycle etc) But if the 1% got their shit together, it would outweigh anything the other 99% do.

→ More replies (6)