wetmarketsloppysteak t1_je6mciu wrote
We are all going to die but if we have to die we might as well do it for something worth the sacrifice! FOR THE ECONOMY! LET OIR DEATHS NOT BE IN VAIN! LONG LIVE THE ECONOMY!
scoofy t1_je6nv8h wrote
You do realize that if the economy stopped billions of people would die, right?
I'm all for lowering emissions, I've been supporting serious climate change legislation for my entire adult life, but pretending the global economy isn't a serious and important thing misses the point.
shaneswa t1_je6ool9 wrote
The climate is an important thing independent of our made up system of trade.
scoofy t1_je6p7rp wrote
The climate is incredibly important. Our "made up" system of trade is also incredibly important. A collapse of either of them would leave most of us dead or impoverished.
silentbargain t1_je7bs9d wrote
Why are you putting made up in quotation marks? Its effects are real, but it was designed by humans. It is certainly made up.
scoofy t1_je7d582 wrote
Each of is going to work every day is the economy. It’s not the stock market.
If we stopped the economy, food wouldn’t be on shelves, electricity would stop coming out of outlets in your house, people would die of starvation, heat stroke, and frigid temperatures. The economy is a living thing, not some ivory tower fiction, and it’s how we survive as a society right now.
We need to change the way we do things, but blaming a nebulous economy is naive. We are the economy. Everything productive we do is the economy.
botle t1_je7tsr3 wrote
Nobody's talking about stopping the economy.
People are complaining that huge damage is done to the environment for the sake of squeezing out every little last percentage point of economic growth.
Climate change will probably have a far bigger negative effect on the economy than the changes that we need to do to limit climate change.
The issue is the tragedy of the commons.
Agreeing to certain restrictions on emissions we will all benefit long term, but short term anyone that ignores the restrictions will benefit personally.
scoofy t1_je7uzpd wrote
> huge damage is done to the environment for the sake of squeezing out every little last percentage point of economic growth.
I mean. I look around. Where I live, the main source of GHGs are from personal vehicles, gas stoves, and animal agriculture. All of which there are already very reasonable alternatives to, that people just don't want. There are some "big economy" things there, but they aren't nearly as big as just people driving gasoline fueled cars.
Obviously that's not the same everywhere, but when i sit and look very hard at the problem, blaming some ephemeral "economy" or marginal economic growth isn't whats causing the problem. It's every day human decisions. It's shit I've given public comment for. Nothings changing because even most people in these threads don't realized the impact if things they consider essential to their lives.
botle t1_je84exq wrote
All those trucks and personal vehicles you're seeing around you already follow environmental and safety standards that make them more expensive and emmit less.
If vehicles that were cheaper but worse for the environment could be made and sold legally they would be, but a communal democratic decision has been made to limit the legal limits on emissions for new vehicles.
The responsibility is too often put on the individual to do the right thing, and it distracts from the actually significant decisions that need to be made on a political level.
The significant change can only happen as a communal democratic decision. By us choosing a government that's willing to set stricter limits on emissions, introduce carbon emissions trading and requirements on blended fuels. Many parts of the western world don't even have a useful public transportation system that people can use to reliability get to work and everywhere else they need.
This problem cant be solved by righteous individuals going out and buying an expensive electric car, recycling or going vegan.
It's a communal problem that requires a communal decision, and as you can see in the article you posted, the emissions.have been going down successfully, just not fast enough.
There are companies and think tanks out there that want to put the responsibility on you, the individual, to discourage you from voting in a way that would potentially decrease their profit, but increase the profit of other upcoming industries and be better for all of us.
scoofy t1_je8631t wrote
If we can get a carbon cap and trade system in place, I'd be ecstatic. I just think it's naive that people think it's big corp lobbying congress to keep that from happening. People would freak out.
When I'm making these statements, I'm not saying that "this is the result of individual decisions" it's just that all these individual decisions affect policy.
I was celebrating when gas prices exploded in CA this last year, assuming more people would switch to renewables. Literally the opposite happened. The gov't started mailing out checks to people to help them afford gasoline. It's ridiculous. Everyone wants it both ways. They want carbon tax/trade, but they also want low gas prices. You can't have both.
botle t1_je86v3m wrote
>If we can get a carbon cap and trade system in place, I'd be ecstatic.
Most western countries do have one in place so it can happen in California too.
>I just think it's naive that people think it's big corp lobbying congress to keep that from happening. People would freak out.
I am not too familiar with your local situation. What I was trying to say is that every time this is presented as an individual decision and sacrifice instead of as a communal one, it discourages change.
>I was celebrating when gas prices exploded in CA this last year, assuming more people would switch to renewables. Literally the opposite happened. The gov't started mailing out checks to people to help them afford gasoline.
The last year has been a bit of an exception because of the war and inflation. The EU has felt it even more I think despite being less dependent on private vehicles.
Vv4nd t1_je6u3ig wrote
The economy would greatly benefit from doing something about climate change.
Well of cause certain impactful people do benefit short term from not doing much about it...
scoofy t1_je6v3bo wrote
"Doing something" is a vague and nebulous term. People will have to give up tangible things they don't want to. Fighting climate change isn't all puppy dogs and rainbows. It's living in a walkup apartment instead of a house, it's trading a cheeseburger for a veggieburger, and it's riding an ebike in the rain instead of driving.
I already do most of those things. Most people I meet that promote "doing something" about climate change, suddenly say, "well not that!" when I start talking about the high GHG emissions from common everyday "necessities" they feel they can't or shouldn't have to part with.
alertthenorris t1_je6pw51 wrote
And if this planet can't support life anymore, all the billions of people will die.
scoofy t1_je6tkg5 wrote
I know. It's hard problem, primarily a coordination problem, but also a problem of energy. It's solvable, but when push comes to shove, people don't want to change.
I live in liberal SF and people won't even increase density, much less give up their precious automobiles to cut their carbon footprint. It's a much more difficult problem to solve. Most of the people who say they care about climate change won't even give up beef, much less ride an ebike.
wetmarketsloppysteak t1_je6og1h wrote
How do you measure the economy? Economic growth as measured now is failing and causing people to die and will be the cause of everyone to perish. All for the sake and momentary needs of the few on top. Economists of the past century have failed us and were wrong completely at the most basic levels. If you want a healthy economy you need a healthy society and currently those things are not syncing up. We need to change how we measure the economy and what what we choose to emphasize when it comes to overall well being.
I am not exactly arguing or disagreeing with you, just elaborting on my point.
scoofy t1_je6op5f wrote
> How do you measure the economy?
My ability to get food for some form of labor at the grocery store is a pretty good starting point.
I don't have a farm, so I'm wholly dependent on other people halfway across my country to grow my food for me. I trade my labor indirectly for that food. That's the economy.
Feynnehrun t1_je6vnyn wrote
Not trying to say you need to change your behaviors or that you're even in a position to. But this way of thinking is exactly why corporations will continue to destroy the environment for profit. Many people have the ability to become partially or completely self sufficient with produce. Livestock is a bit different.
Anyone with a lawn is choosing to use that space to grow an ornamental plant that requires constant care and maintenance instead of a beneficial food bearing plant that also requires care and maintenance.
If more people worked harder to become more self sufficient, instead of relying on the "trade labor for food" model....more of society would be insulated from damaging effects of a failed economy and would not become part of the "billions" that may die in an economic breakdown.
Obviously this is an overly simplistic argument and I understand there are many nuances to this that aren't being accounted for like those living in apartment complexes in densely packed urban areas....there are solutions there too....but simply being apathetic to "I'm completely dependent on the economic situation that's killing us and I have no capability or motivation to change that" is certainly not setting yourself up for success in a world where we can clearly see, decades in advance, what the consequences of that will be.
scoofy t1_je6xcdd wrote
Right, so I'm having trouble in my neighborhood meeting trying to get safe bicycle infrastructure put in, which is constantly being blocked people preserving street parking, or switching from gas stoves and heating equipment to electric (even though the electric is in large part still GHG based), but you're only asking people to turn their front yard into fucking farmland, and convert the worlds largest economy into one built on subsistence farming.
I honestly feel like your arguments are so naively idealistic that you'd have a hard time convincing your neighbor that it's feasible, much less an entire city.
This argument are in the same vein of the cultural revolution, and that didn't end well.
Feynnehrun t1_je6zr7b wrote
First, my argument was not one about the possibility of getting everyone to collectively engage in these practices. It was simply an observation on a single way in which a person could insulate themselves from food insecurity in a failed economy.
Second, nobody said "turn your front yard into a farmland" a family of 4 could be sustained for an entire year on a series of raised beds in less than 800 square feet. As I said, this isn't feasible for everyone, but it is feasible for a lot of people, regardless of whether they're willing to or not. Those who are not willing to, will suffer from food insecurity when the economy collapses. Whether you or I can convince them of not isn't our problem, it's theirs.
One thing I can say for certain, is that if we destroy the climate through our continued practices, nobody will be growing anything in their yard, whether they want to or not.
I live in a redneck, MAGA county, and I fully understand exactly how unwilling people are to accept any new ideas or that climate change is even real. My argument was in no way an argument to convince people collectively to make this change, it was a suggestion that if anyone does not want to die of starvation in an economic collapse because they're dependent on the grocery store, then they probably want to make this change (or some other similar change that reduces their reliance on grocery stores to survive). Their willingness to accept that is none of my concern. My food security situation is handled 100%.
I could make arguments about how individuals could change their behaviors to save our climate....but again, I know all too well that will fall on deaf ears.
TXTCLA55 t1_je7aldx wrote
I'm sure we'll find new ways to make money. Hell, some idiots started selling jpegs this past year for millions.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments