• krashmo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    That’s quite literally the least we could do.

    • darq@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Doing literally nothing to reduce fossil fuels would be better than the thing we are currently doing, which is subsidising them. Really puts into perspective all the climate “promises”.

      • CascadeDismayed
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        2 years ago

        Mass starvation is a price we’re willing to pay. End the subsidies… /s

        • darq@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Gee whiz, you pretended to be me and said something I didn’t say! I’m so owned right now!

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Mass starvation is indeed better than the extinction of mankind.

          What is the point of an economy if there is no one left to use it?

        • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Expensiver oil would lead to faster availlability of oecological alternative products to stuff made out of oil.