yeah, but…
I can’t even…
I think the biggest objection is we don’t have the technology to replace fossil fuels completely, and for many what we do have is still cost prohibitive.
Guess we’ll just have to deal with things being slightly more inconvenient for awhile then, or we’ll be dealing with an inhospitable planet otherwise.
Guess we’ll just have to deal with things being slightly more inconvenient for awhile then
“we” wouldn’t even have to be inconvenienced, and would likely have our quality of life actually increase if only a small group of people would be willing to part with money they’re hoarding that they couldn’t use even if they lived a thousand lifetimes.
Removed by mod
The people doing the stealing are the capitalists underpaying you for your labour and profiting off of the commodification of essentials (food, water, shelter, utilities, accessibility), redistributing that wealth is the only just thing to do, and the only people it harms is them, while the rest of society could finally thrive.
This just in, taxes are only for the poors. Taxing the rich is now called “stealing” 🙄
Sudden drastic population reduction would solve the problem as well. Historically that’s been how these things are done.
I read about this concept in a book about Ecofascism. The problem with that Malthusian way of thinking is this: Who will we leave behind? How are we gonna implement eugenics? Capitalists are a clear minority, and most of the global south seems to be an excellent target for answering that question.
A better way to look at the problem is to de-escalate and simplify. I mean, if you care about your fellow human beings.
Most of our work is already bullshit, and our industrial capacity (for the most part) can give us nice stuff. At the same time, we get rid of the high-polluting options. The world’s population would self-regulate in horizontal societies just because everything has been that way historically. The phenomenon of hyper-poblation is a centralized-power thing.
Explain
Local climate change has caused famines in various places throughout history and pre-history. Thus decimating the local population.
This time it’s global. And as always the poor will suffer the most. In a couple of decades Europe and the US will close their borders. Because they can’t feed the millions of people coming over.
and for many what we do have is still cost prohibitive.
only because profit is prioritised by a handful of people over the wellbeing of the planet and everyone on it, not because there is an actual lack of money (or even need for it, but I digress) to pay for these things.
Removed by mod
But all of this assumes no cost to continuing using oil. Because we don’t count the damages done to climate or our well-being in terms of money.
If you include the externalities of fossil fuels, it’s very very worth it.
Removed by mod
Yes of course I’m in favour of slavery… What do you think???
We already pay for most things with taxes. Like roads or the military. Somehow all that works out just fine.
Meanwhile your solution is for everyone to go to depression era thinking… as if that is more realistic. And won’t need regulation too.
But yes, global cooperation is indeed needed to solve climate change. There is no other way around it. And I never claimed otherwise?
It’s honestly quite scary that the idea of no money = slavery to these people.
yes,
only because profit is prioritised by a handful of people over the wellbeing of the planet and everyone on it, not because there is an actual lack of money (or even need for it, but I digress) to pay for these things.
This has not been true ever, nor is it a reason to avoid replacing what can be replaced for cheaper.
Why do you think fossil fuels won out over electricity in the first place? Batteries sucked and things couldn’t scale.
I never said we shouldn’t replace things we can, especially if it’s cheaper. I’m no pro-fossil fuels, but I’m not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend there aren’t really challenges that need to be overcome.
If we really want to split hairs over money, how much would it cost to replace Earth?
Like c’mon, we’re really gonna incinerate our own biosphere over some money? Shouldn’t this be a problem to tackle, spare no expense?
They’re also acting as it there is a lack of money in the first place, because they don’t see those who are profiting off of the destruction of earth as also responsible.
Honestly, I’d love a diagram of the mental gymnastics you need to be able to so wholeheartedly yourself of that…
In the 19th century the fossil fuels justnlying around might have been more accessible (but at this point most of the world lived without them), but since the middle of last century it has been concerted effort to externalise the costs and widely documented conspiracy and violence used to destroy alternatives with externalised benefits.
Electrified rail (even if running on coal) uses a few % of the fossil fuels of trucks + roads, but top-down decisions by governments on the take were made to dismantle rail.
Same with trolley busses and trams.
Just building houses slightly taller and closer together reduces oil consumption by about 50%, but that was literally banned because it makes everyone owning a car impossible.
Wind + pumped hydro has been an option since the 40s (much cheaper than coal + lung disease), and would have come down the cost curve with even a tiny fraction of the subsidies fossil fuels get. The first large scale wind farm was abandoned because it cost 60% more than unfiltered, acid-rain-spewing coal as if that was a failure rather than an overwhelming success.
Trillions were spent securing oil. This isn’t paid back at the pump though.
Solar thermal has always been a viable option for low grade heat everywhere and was proven viable for mechanical work in 50% of the planet in the 1910s. Coal soot makes it a lot worse.
The ones holding the deeds to the coal mines and oil wells don’t murder, send armies, fund coups, buy the entire media, own most major political parties in the global north, purchase and dismantle transit systems, and strongarm universities because their product is better on technical merit.
Do you have an idea of how many billions were invested for fossile fuels to be what they are today? The roads didn’t built themselves alone.
The problem is that capitalism is completely unable to invest for society’s future, because the reward is too far in the future and spread across the whole society. Capitalism want cash now for themselves alone, the world can burn otherwise.
but I’m not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend there aren’t really challenges that need to be overcome.
except that’s literally all you’re doing in this thread - ignoring everything everyone else is telling you because you’re not comfortable with reality and would rather just continue to protect your ego and cognitive dissonance (because you’re wrong, but not the type capable of admitting it).
My idea is to put up as many renewable energy gatherers devices as safely possible. Sure it’ll look bad for a while, bit once we have unlimited amount of energy we will come back with better looking, more efficient devices. Line every sunny sidewalk with solar panels and open fields with wind turbines. Sorry about your view for right now. But it’ll look better in 50 years, especially if we can start to start to slow down climate change
What I don’t hear anyone really talking about is cutting down consumption. We all have so much shit and every solution presented to help is to build and buy more shit. Things started to improve a bit during all the pandemic lockdowns when people just stayed home and stopped consuming a bunch of shit they didn’t need.
What you’re doing there is the bidding of those in power by shifting responsibility away from them and on to individuals just trying to survive (and yes, give in to the literal constant propaganda).
We wouldn’t be consuming all that shit if there wasn’t someone making shitloads of money from selling it to us.
Blame them.I’m not saying corporations don’t have work to do to clean up their act, but just because someone makes something doesn’t mean you have to buy it. Stop buying their bull shit and they will go out of business. Win-win-win. We win because we save money, the environment wins because less stuff is produced, and society wins because there is one less no-value bull shit business in the world.
Stop buying their bull shit and they will go out of business
lmfao tell me you don’t know shit about how capitalism works without saying you don’t know shit about how capitalism works.
The problem with your brand of bullshit is that it isn’t just ignorant, but as I said before - you’re actively playing for the rich and powerful by joining in with their bullshit distraction and shifting of responsibility so that they can keep hoarding and spending more money that you could possibly even fathom.
You’re not just being a part of the problem for the rest of us, which you clearly don’t care about, but you’re also shooting yourself in the foot, which you probably can’t feel because you’re too busy licking boot.
Try educating yourself instead:
There is no need for personnal attacks when someone is wrong.
just to maybe say what that other person said in a different way:
carbon isn’t emitted at the point of consumption, it’s emitted at the point of production. if you don’t buy a new phone or a plastic toy the carbon from its production doesn’t go away it’s already been released.
and before i say this next part i want to stress that boycotts don’t work except when paired with other more militant movements.
if you and everyone else stops buying a new phone or a plastic toy then the factory doesn’t close down and get rehabilitated, it changes hands and the new owners make something with less environmental exposure, like plastic pipes or mine detonator circuit boards.
the way to stop our emissions is at the point of production globally, not at the point of consumption individually.
Fossil fuels needed to be the embarrassing, temporary stopgap to renewables and nuclear… instead we shut our eyes and ears and told ourselves it would meet all our needs. We should have started connecting the planet with railways fifty years ago in preparation for cleaner energy. Cars ought to be as unnecessary and shameful as private jets, and freight shouldn’t exist if it can’t be done very cleanly… I suppose hindsight is 20/20 but we’re not at a point where we can make any of those transitions without huge amounts of pain now.
Might be a hot take, but I for one think we should be far more extremist in our climate fight against corporations.
Just yesterday I was thinking about how I can’t open my window for the weekend because of the smoke in the air. This thought process is fucking insane when you step back and think about it, but yet it’s becoming our daily lives. No window day today -> no outside day -> oh we only go out at night now etc. Progression is slow so we get used to the hindrances we have to live with.
My main point: if you’re going to go after ‘climate extremists’, make sure it’s the ones who don’t care about your children’s future, not the ones trying to do something about it.
Agreed. It’s an important thing to remember.
Yes but think of the profits
I’m fine with eco-terrorists when they target fossile stuff. I’m very much not fine when they target nuclear, public electricity companies, or even GMO research.
I get it, but … all anyone accomplishes by barricading a road to protest oil is pissing off people trying to get to work so they have a roof over their heads and don’t starve. They’re not going to think, Oh! Well! I’d better change my ways! I’ll just spend this tens of thousands of dollars I don’t have lying around on an EV (which won’t solve climate change anyway), take the fuck-all existent public transit (in North America), or walk 20 miles to work every day!
They’re as much victims to the system you are.
people trying to get to work
yes! The point of protest is to inconvenience the owning class, which this achieves, well recognised!
I mean you could take the bike just those few days, plenty of people do it all year round for 20 miles.
In all seriousness, I can’t see how that’s realistic in anything but ideal climate if you need to maintain a professional appearance. Either you get to work as a blob of sweat and stank because it’s hot outside, or you get to work as a blob of sweat and stank because it’s cold as fucking balls and you need to have twenty layers of clothes so the outside doesn’t literally kill you in 30 seconds.
A lot of offices have showers for that reason. Personally I’d have an extra set of clothing and wash up at the sink and there were others doing it too. And it’s just for a few days, it’s not the end of the world.
Could also fix our infrastructure and invest in public transport. I’m not entirely fuck cars, but I’d definitely like to see a role reversal between public transport and personal vehicles in the US. Real investment in trains in America would be a game changer.
As far as I understand it the issue in the US regarding trains is because of the history. The rails are owned by freight companies and freight trains are prioritized. Whereas in say Germany the passenger trains are prioritized. In the Netherlands subsidies are cut if trains are late more than 5% of the time IIRC.
So ya how can you possibly make it reliable in the US this way?
Further I also understand that in the US there is very clear zoning, such as residential, commercial and so on, whereas here residential and commercial can be mixed, so on the ground floor you typically have shops and the like.
Fair enough, I guess that would work.
I understand your frustration though. In Berlin an ambulance got stuck and the patient died. Nobody wanted that and it remains a complex issue.
For a lot of people in the US, the only way to work is by freeway/highway. Biking that is not an option.
In the same places, public transit is often terrible/nonexistent/actually dangerous as well.
It’s really an infrastructure problem, but getting people to invest more in public infrastructure is extremely difficult, and that’s ignoring the extremely inefficient spending at the government level.
It’s also a chicken and egg problem. If nobody uses it there will also be no money or interest for improving it. It seems like a complex issue in the US.
However I feel that I must add that I’m from the country side in the Netherlands, and while there is public transport here, it is almost exclusively used by students, guest workers, and asylum seekers. So even though it is available, people still prefer the convenience of their own car. I also know people who are too lazy to cycle even just 10km, and they prefer to park right in front of the store. My point is just that even when it’s there, and it’s high quality and affordable, people still tend to avoid it purely for convenience or out of laziness.
In fact there used to be a train here over a hundred years ago, but it was removed. It seems a new one will be built soon as there is political will again from the greens.
Having visited the Netherlands, I have to say it’s an incredibly beautiful country with amazing public transportation and some of the friendliest people I’ve met. I wish we could be more like that. Instead, I often find myself avoid public transportation because of how much slower it is (easily an extra hour of transportation), the fact it just doesn’t usually go to where I need to go, and the risks associated with it (stabbings, stealing, etc) :(
It never ceases to amaze me how different the US is from western Europe. Especially how dangerous some places seem to be. Why would someone stab you on a bus for example?
I have to say you guys have amazing nature and I’d love to go hiking there some time.
if they got out of the car and sat on the road too it would be over in one day
deleted by creator
