It reminds me of the discourse around 'x companies are the cause of x% of global emissions'.
Yes, that's true, but they're doing so to meet a demand. We can (and should) take action to regulate these companies and force more environmentally friendly methods of production, but that will have ramifications on costs. Ultimately the most efficient way may be to reduce demand for some goods and services.
I work as a transport planner, for instance, and a huge number of emissions come from cars, but also the built environment (building and maintaining transport infrastructure). If we're going to be serious about dropping emissions, we need to fundamentally change the way we plan and build transport networks, including potentially cutting demand, one way or another.
All this against a backdrop of an incredibly unequitable transport infrastructure; if you hike costs then you knacker the ability of disadvantaged groups to get around for work, but also pleasure. Poor people deserve to be able to go on holiday too.
My general point is that for every smartarse post that says "climate change is easy to stop, all we need to do is cut the head off the snake" neglects to recognise that this isn't a snake of a problem; it's a hydra.
I love the corporations vs. individuals climate debate. On the one hand, you've got those who count on the public's willpower to make massive lifestyle changes. On the other, you've got those who think the government can weather lobbying and public outrage and force big corpos to cut emissions (which will also mean massive lifestyle changes)
Or we can just wait until the climate catastrophe destroys our way of living.
The main issue is that people have been brainwashed into thinking peaceful protest is a viable method of achieving change against governments that are more than happy to butcher/enslave/maim you to preserve the status quo.
Exact scenario playing out in my life right now. The blade I feel I run is between my sanity from acknowledgment of the elephants and basic human interaction.
Look, if your friends don't think the bourgeoise deserve to choke on the money they've stolen from the proletariats' pockets, they're not your friends.
If you kill an oil executive, a new one will take their place. You've gotta go after the company instead, that'll have a more direct impact and be harder to replace, especially if paired with regulation.
That's why you keep doing it. Eventually a chilling/deterrent effect will take hold. It's not like anyone's actually passionate about oil. They can go be apple orchard execs or something idk
CEOs may be sociopaths but they have a more developed sense of self preservation than your run of the mill murderer so it might be more effective IMO. I say try it and add the death penalty for severe financial crimes like they're doing in Vietnam.
This is definitely not a hill I want to die on, but there are three axes to deterrence:
Certainty of punishment
Severity of punishment
Celerity (speed) of punishment
Basically you can't just raise one axis and expect anyone to be deterred. So if you just put to death one random exec it's probably not even as effective as, like, slightly maiming a handful. Or cream pie to the face of a hundred. Or a gentle yet stern tap of the wrist of a thousand.
When push comes to shove you'd be surprised. Just read up on the French Revolution and see what happens when you make a baker or a florist snap.
I'm a vegetarian but I think we should literally eat at least one billionaire to make a point. I'll take a bite to show my support.
If it's public, graphic, and serves as an example of what these monkeys will do to one who hordes all the bananas, and deters subsequent occurrence of banana-hording; yes.
The alternative is that we can all passively agree that all us monkeys must go extinct.
