this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
72 points (95.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5301 readers
887 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Of course not, because it would affect voters negatively. And voters don't give a shit about the climate, unless it is just something they can contribute to with token gestures.
FTFY.
I think voters do give a shit, but absolutely don't see why they should be the only ones it affects negatively.
Headline as of 29. October 2024 (https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime )
I understand why voters may not be so willing. At the same time, anyone actually imposing actual, effective, enforceable sanctions on carbon pollution either goes bankrupt or brings upon armed conflict. Wars have been waged for much lesser threats to maintaining wealth (see RUS vs. UKR, oil/gas reserve competition). I personally don't think we'll manage it meaningfully until things get really bad, so I'll do my best, but will definitely not go out of my way to not eat a steak a few times a year, when theoretically I could punch a billionaire so they have to stay in bed a day and have balanced my family's CO2 footprint.
Your article is cute, but really talks around the issue, seemingly obfuscating it as "polluting investments". Those billionaires own businesses, the ones that you buy at or buy from in one way or another. It ultimately still falls back to us and our consumerism, as well as just our general way of life and necessities in our developed countries. Sure, you can tax them more, but who do you think is going to pay for those additional costs?
Remember the downturn during covid? That also came with a drop in emissions, one that would have to continue until 2035, just for us to meet our emission targets. People already went on the barricades at that time, losing their businesses and being able to afford less and less due to rising prices. And that was just after about a year of it, causing massive demonstrations around the globe. If your average voter is already fed up by being mildly affected like this, what do you think would happen if this would have continued indefinitely?
The inconvenient truth is that absolutely no one wants actual climate policies, except for a very minor fringe movement of climate "extremists".
Yes you are correct in that it's painful to do the things that are required, and if given the choice, nobody would do it willingly.
My point was, that if everyone has to make sacrifices, there's a tiny chance. If the deal is "you get to suffer through economic downturn" and at the same time large investors see double, triple digit gains (COVID) then that chance goes to zero/negative.