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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s not ecofascism, it’s biochemistry. Humanity has exceeded the caloric capacity of the planet and our technology to produce. We’re a cannon ball at the height of it’s trajectory. What happens now will be up to physics more than any choices made by the cannon ball.
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…
I’m always amazed when liberals pretend capitalism is the best solution to anything but there is no solution to this particular problem because capitalism.
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
What happened to circuit board assembly volume after people stopped buying blackberry phones? Cell phone ownership? Smart phone ownership?
The same plants that made rim components are making components for the phones we have now and production has increased. The mines that extracted coltan, copper, gold, oil and many more raw materials used in the manufacture of rim devices are still operating and total global production has increased.
Removing one product of a complex supply chain will not cause that chain to go slack. The market will find a place to sell its output and if there isn’t one it will manufacture it. If there isn’t demand it will manufacture that too.
We cannot stop emission at the point of consumption.
I didn’t say anything about a militant movement at the point of production (although I think it will be required when we tell the people making billions that the factory has to shut down or shift to something less profitable). What I said was that boycotts don’t work unless paired with a militant movement, which is borne out by the few examples of boycotts involved in successful struggles (Montgomery, arguably bds, etc.).
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.
@bob_wiley@UrPartnerInCrime this is all the news talks about. It was British Petroleum that originally coined the phrase ‘carbon footprint’ so people could calculate their individual climate impact. News cycles have eaten it up for decades since:
deleted by creator
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.
“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.
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.
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.
It’s not ecofascism, it’s biochemistry. Humanity has exceeded the caloric capacity of the planet and our technology to produce. We’re a cannon ball at the height of it’s trajectory. What happens now will be up to physics more than any choices made by the cannon ball.
This has not been true ever, nor is it a reason to avoid replacing what can be replaced for cheaper.
deleted by creator
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…
deleted by creator
I’m always amazed when liberals pretend capitalism is the best solution to anything but there is no solution to this particular problem because capitalism.
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.
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).
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,
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
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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:
https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2022/01/31/climate-change-fossil-fuel-industry-individual-responsibility
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/30/capitalism-is-killing-the-planet-its-time-to-stop-buying-into-our-own-destruction
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/10/individuals-climate-crisis-government-planet-priority
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.
deleted by creator
What happened to circuit board assembly volume after people stopped buying blackberry phones? Cell phone ownership? Smart phone ownership?
The same plants that made rim components are making components for the phones we have now and production has increased. The mines that extracted coltan, copper, gold, oil and many more raw materials used in the manufacture of rim devices are still operating and total global production has increased.
Removing one product of a complex supply chain will not cause that chain to go slack. The market will find a place to sell its output and if there isn’t one it will manufacture it. If there isn’t demand it will manufacture that too.
We cannot stop emission at the point of consumption.
I didn’t say anything about a militant movement at the point of production (although I think it will be required when we tell the people making billions that the factory has to shut down or shift to something less profitable). What I said was that boycotts don’t work unless paired with a militant movement, which is borne out by the few examples of boycotts involved in successful struggles (Montgomery, arguably bds, etc.).
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.
@bob_wiley @UrPartnerInCrime this is all the news talks about. It was British Petroleum that originally coined the phrase ‘carbon footprint’ so people could calculate their individual climate impact. News cycles have eaten it up for decades since:
https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2020/07/21/carbon-footprint-big-oil