You must log in or register to comment.
The public underestimates everything about how they feel collectively because they are constantly being marketed to by people who own the media … who are also the ones who want to hide / obfuscate / confuse the conversation about climate change.
The same people who own the media are the same people who constantly, consistently and continually control all of the information and communications that everyone needs in order to understand the world.
The problem is always the same … the ones with the all the money and power are the ones causing the majority of the world’s problems … they are also the ones who keep tight control of making as many of us as unaware of that fact as much and as often as possible.
No lies here. 100%.
The main problem I see with all this is that change will move at the speed of the economy and finances … companies and businesses will wait to see if someone or something will come along that will make a ton of money quickly and easily while also doing something for the environment and that people like. None of the investors will actively go out to encourage anyone to develop this magical unicorn business. They will all just wait around to see it appear on a stock ticker and give them promise of profit.
The only solution like that would be something like carbon capture and investors put a lot of money into that. To not emit as much, we need to deploy a lot of different solutions. Those however replace old ones, which means old industry is fighting hard to stop it.
Because the assholes who run the news don’t care, partly because they love money but mostly because they are just incredibly weird and out of touch people
There is a difference between not caring about it and still wanting to hold your living standard… We would need to sacrifice a significant amount of living standard to stop it right now, most people support doing something, but not that.
With how its going we will at best soften the impact a little.
There’s a lie in there, but it’s one you’ve been told. We wouldn’t necessarily need to sacrifice anything. Our standard of living could remain roughly the same, as long as a certain small percentage of the population saw their standard of living dramatically decrease to something resembling our own.
This is true for a lot of things, but I don’t think it holds for climate change. The people you’re talking about gain money by selling products and services to the common people, who want them for one reason or another. As long as those products and services exist, who owns them doesn’t contribute much to climate change. For example even if Amazon became a worker co-op tomorrow I don’t see how there’d be a fundamental effect on their contribution to climate change.
Same day delivery is not a significant factor in anyone’s quality of life. We can slow down society to a human pace, and people’s lives will get better. We can ban cars, and people’s lives will get better.
I mean yes but the factor here is same day delivery and cars, not who owns them (setting aside how owners of these services have an incentive to encourage their use).
I don’t think ownership was the point of the comment you replied to. I think the point was either taxing or eating the rich.
I mean true enough, but unless those taxes are then used to combat climate change it won’t accomplish much (and even then climate change isn’t the kind of problem that goes away if you throw money at it). What I’m trying to say is: We should be taking rich people’s money, but there’s not much relation between rich people being rich and climate change.
I don’t think many people have good understanding of what living standard even actually means, which in turn causes fear and anxiety when they are told it would drop. And I think it is much overexaggerated how much this drop would actually affect daily life for majorty of the people around the world.
We would need to sacrifice a significant amount of living standard to stop it right now,
No we wouldn’t. Tax the rich and use the money to pay for green energy infrastructure, public transit, and denser housing. Boom, instant increase in jobs, transport options, and quality of life once the new walkable housing is done.
Tackling climate change is easy and it will make our lives better.
Yeaaahh, see, our living standard is going to drop because of climate change anyway. If we act sooner we get more choices about how and who suffers.
I prefer a handful of billionaires “suffer” now instead of literally billions of poor people in a couple of decades… That’s a choice we could make.
Not a vote winner, obvs. So we’ll just continue to sleepwalk into the unknown.
And what does care mean? There are so many degrees of caring. End of the day it doesn’t matter. It’s their voting behavior and their lifestyle choices that tell us how much they really care.
Could be mass apathy due to the capitalist oligarchies we live in…
I know I sure as hell would be doing a whole lot more in my day to day life if I actually believed it would make a difference and the rest of society were pulling their weight, and I’m probably in the top 1% of people who actually give a shit — but I see the way my family and friends act. None of these people are malicious and uncaring. They’re just ignorant and caught up in the busy daily grind of their lives.
What’s the point in slowing the freight train by 0.00000001%, when you know it’s going off the cliff no matter what?
Please tell me how capitalism is the cause for people not giving a shit…
I make a dollar boss makes a dime, I recycle and compost boss flys on a private jet every time. (rhyming is hard)
Again, how is that an issue with capitalism, all forms of economics have winners and losers. This isn’t about capitalism, consumerism sure, but not how our shit is made/traded.
Powerlessness
