- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
It won’t even hurt the economy though, it will just hurt some specific industries that spend hundreds of billions of dollars to lobby against reforms, rather than simply changing their business strategy to one that doesn’t kill the planet
Yeah totally agree, it’s more of a shitty excuse politicians use. The reality is that it will impact the profits of the oil, gas and coal industries, but the economy as a whole will be much better in the long run once we are less dependent on fossil fuels. It’s such a short sighted outlook.
It’s like that old political cartoon, “But what if we make a better world for nothing??”
Well, we also need a lot less cars on the roads and much higher prices for flight tickets, no private jets and cruise ships. It’ll hurt a lot of weird industries, but the alternative is so much worse. Adapt or die
But rich people’s wealth extraction would suffer in the short term and we can’t have that. Think of the shareholders.
Indeed. I don’t like this popular rhetoric with environmental concerns on one end and business on the other. It’s not a zero-sum game to be smarter about the way we do business.
Renewables can and have been job creation industries for example, and public transit mobilizes and enables more people to participate in the economy.
The imaginary numbers demand sacrifice
My favorite version of this type of comic is this one
*the capitalist ran “economy”
Any time you see “the economy” replace it with “rich people’s money” and you’ll see exactly why we’re making the policy choices we’re making.
If anyone in charge truly cared about the economy it wouldn’t be ran by a few adult children (and yk owned by the workers)
as if becoming a world leader in clean energy infrastructure wouldn’t be great for the economy.
Why do they even need a fire? Just point the food at the sun
