• @zepheriths
    link
    221 year ago

    The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. It’s just that capital would grow slower. You can have a green capitalism. It just that no one invested in that

    • @Not_Alec_Baldwin
      link
      201 year ago

      The problem is externalities. Companies have to be held responsible for their damage.

      If governments held companies liable for the full cost of fixing their damage to humanity and earth I honestly don’t know how many would be left.

      • @Screwthehole
        link
        English
        51 year ago

        I’m sorry but you missed the memo that polluting is free

        • diprount_tomato
          link
          11 year ago

          It’s cheaper than taking measures against it, but it for sure ain’t free

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      “Green capitalism” only exists if green energy is more profitable than climate-harming alternatives

      Given the multiple decades of oil and gas infrastructure, that’s not realistic.

      In theory, consumer demand for green energy could make this a reality, but it would have to be a massive swing. And in practice, most consumers will go for the cheapest option - in many cases, given their resources, they have to.

      The other way that green energy could become more profitable is through heavy government regulation. So… yeah you could have a green ‘capitalism’ if the State manages the market, and withstands the corporate pressure to withdraw. But that has literally happened nowhere

      I suppose hypothetically you could argue that IF a company invested heavily in green technology and IF that investment resulted in a cheaper form of energy, AND that technology also applied to the supply chain, then we could have green capitalism. But i mean that’s highly speculative and it also would be entirely a coincidence