Seems pretty obvious, no? Private jets, multiple huge residences all over the world (full of air conditioners, furniture, manicured lawns etc).
I won't make the Amazon argument, but I'd be surprised if their personal emissions aren't many many times more than the average American.
Gates also invests heavily in environmental technologies.
On the other hand, if you were genuinely curious, you could have figured out who Vandana Shiva was.
[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128176740/inequality-...
> you could have
If someone is indulging in Appeal to Authority, it is incumbent upon them to provide a reference, not the reader.
According to who? This is not a debate class. If you are motivated to understand another you may well want to look up what they are saying. What are you adding when you reply with “never heard of her” instead of doing a quick search?
I regularly put sources in my comments but this time I was in the middle of other things.
To have claims to be taken seriously, back it up. That's expected of anyone making a claim.
In a debate, sure, the other party isn’t going to do any work to understand you unless they can use it to make you look bad.
But if two curious people are talking, either party will do work to fill in the blanks. And I’m afraid you’re treating this as a debate.
Why? Does money produce CO2?
> which Shiva says
Never heard of Shiva.
> chemical intensive agriculture
About half the planet will die without chemical fertilizers.
> I believe
I need better than that.
> Besos has
Amazon (not Bezos' wealth) has displaced a number of other companies that provided goods to consumers. I haven't seen any evidence that Amazon produces, on the net, more CO2 than them. It arguably produces less, because it replaces innumerable car trips to the mall with one truck that drives far fewer miles per delivery.
> by virtue of the power they have
Doesn't remotely compare to the power government wields and accretes daily. Bill Gates has zero power over my life.