kryptonianCodeMonkey

That's gotta smell... musty

They told you that they recalled all the hair sprays that contained CFCs to protect the Ozone Layer. But really, AJ just bought the entire stock.

Also may help to have improved blower (fan replacement/more focused outlet)

"She thinks we have no impact on the climate but somehow control the weather," scoffed another House Republican.

Who is this House Republican? I legit want to give them a cookie.

The real answer is that the people who are in control of these companies, the people who generally succeed in business enough to take control of these businesses, are not the kind of people who understand, believe in, or care about climate change. On the whole, they are more selfish, deluded, and short-sighted than the average person because those are the kind of people that are good at making a quick buck for the shareholders, getting a big bonus, and then bailing out when when things get hard. They're also the kind of people who will virtue signal their intent to do something popular to see if it helps their bottom line and then quietly back off when it doesn't.

Partly because half of the people don't believe it's an existential that needs addressed and most of the other half are either morally opposed to such political action or feel like it can be managed without resorting to it just yet.

But really, ultimately, it's not the fossil fuels companies creating the demand, it's the lack of alternatives. So burning those companies to the ground doesn't do anything to the demand for their product except skyrocket it. Viable alternatives need to be created, which is slower, more boring, and vitally important work, as are the majority of the most important functions of society. Monetarily incentivizing their creation is our primary need, if it is to be done by a private enterprise.

Yes, i meant to include s line about just ending all the current subsidies and infrastructure support already given for fossil fuels

We should not expect companies to choose a less immediately profitable route that ensures long term sustainability. That's just not what they are incentivized to do on their own. Consumers can sometimes influence those incentives, but there is not always enough market choice to put that kind of pressure on corporate behavior. Instead, if there is a significant public interest in such a change, such as with climate change from burning fossil fuels, it is up to governments to change those incentives.

If green energy is less profitable than fossil fuels, the government can cap production, increase taxes, rework trade deals, add regulations, etc. to limit the profitability of fossil fuels. They can also increase the profitability of green energies by providing grants into research, tax breaks to producers, tax incentives to adopters, subsidize installation and maintenance for green energy production, fast track infrastructure, etc.

If fossil fuels companies can make an easy buck by switching to green energy, they will or someone else will outcompete them. But while they can still profit off more off of the thing that is worse for the world, they'll still do it becuase the profit is the goal. Always. Duh. Welcome to the horrific consequences of unfettered capitalism.

So slippery.

Counterpoint, when you have a real informed opinion, take a stance. When you have no informed opinion, take an absurd stance.

"I believe that the Kim and Kanye drama proves that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll."

He doesn't salt his pasta water either

I wish I had ever used Twitter so I could leave it. Kinda awkward when you want to boycott something, but you weren't consuming it in the first place. Same thing happened with Chick-Fil-A.