We can’t transition everyone consumption to "clean energy" and make every consumption "green". What we have today is because coal and oil are cheap and efficient and we’ll need a substancial level of consumption reduction to remove those from our toolbox.
Dollars are great to incentive some consumption shift but the hard work is to be done in the consumption quantity.
It's our billionaires; the people who own our media and our politicians.
The overwhelming majority of scientists agree we need action.
Even with billions spent on propaganda, the majority of citizens believe we need action.
A tiny minority of our corporate media and politicians believe we need action, and their bosses/owners are happy to fire them if they speak up too well. Look what happened to Greta once she started talking about capitalism - instant blackout on coverage.
So again, this isn't a species problem. It's very much a billionaire problem, and they are not like us. Billionaires realize this, and we need to realize it as well.
You sound like someone who hasn’t been to dozens of city council meetings where the vast majority of liberal urban dwellers would rather remove all transportation alternatives if it would make it easier for them to park their second car in front of their house.
These are just excuses for why people won't bother.
In reality, only mass behavioral change by individuals will make a difference. There is no political change without mass individual behavioral change. There is no pressure on the rich or corporations without the masses giving a crap.
Your excuses are exactly the message corporations and the rich love to hear because it means their propaganda is working.
Yes the issue is the species. Billionaires are a product of our species. What you describe is a similar thinking that murderers, drug addicts or queers are somehow dissimilar to the general population. This is not the case. The issue is a product of how a human mind works, and it presents this way because humanity improved thinking faster than how fast ecosystems could adapt. The result is a dominant species that behaves very similarly to how invasive species work.
Yes, what you say is technically true, billionaires have infinite more power than you and I, and they could very well take care of a lot of bad things in the world, if they somehow chose to. And so, this power comes with responsibility as well, or so some think. Maybe we indeed could design a system that takes care that no individual rises to these unnatural heights. But, the incentives are not there. The incentives in the human say that more = better. Not in everyone, and people can certainly grow in character, a LOT - but we are talking a big number of people here, as long as there will be some that are highly functional, and also have a craving for infinite power, there will be such power imbalances in the world.
So again, the issue boils down to species. And if we survive ourselves, I expect this trend to continue.
Let me also bring up another species problem: Look at how much friction giving up straws caused. Fucking straws, man. I don't think it can get any more petty than that.
Tackling climate change would've required people to potentially change their lives, possibly drastically and in doing so likely have a lower standard of living.
And they didn't want to.
They don't want to drive less, they don't want to fly less, they don't want smaller houses, they may say they want to do something about climate change but only so long as it doesn't actually meaningfully effect them.
It's not a billionaire problem. It's an America problem.
The symbolic moment when humanity lost the fight against climate change was July 25, 1997. US Senate passed the Byrd–Hagel Resolution 95–0, effectively saying that it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Because the only superpower did not take the lead in the fight, it was doomed to fail.
bryanlarsen|1 year ago
It's not enough, but it's certainly meaningful.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-investment-in-the-energy-...
aziaziazi|1 year ago
Dollars are great to incentive some consumption shift but the hard work is to be done in the consumption quantity.
mandmandam|1 year ago
It's our billionaires; the people who own our media and our politicians.
The overwhelming majority of scientists agree we need action.
Even with billions spent on propaganda, the majority of citizens believe we need action.
A tiny minority of our corporate media and politicians believe we need action, and their bosses/owners are happy to fire them if they speak up too well. Look what happened to Greta once she started talking about capitalism - instant blackout on coverage.
So again, this isn't a species problem. It's very much a billionaire problem, and they are not like us. Billionaires realize this, and we need to realize it as well.
scoofy|1 year ago
chneu|1 year ago
In reality, only mass behavioral change by individuals will make a difference. There is no political change without mass individual behavioral change. There is no pressure on the rich or corporations without the masses giving a crap.
Your excuses are exactly the message corporations and the rich love to hear because it means their propaganda is working.
npteljes|1 year ago
Yes, what you say is technically true, billionaires have infinite more power than you and I, and they could very well take care of a lot of bad things in the world, if they somehow chose to. And so, this power comes with responsibility as well, or so some think. Maybe we indeed could design a system that takes care that no individual rises to these unnatural heights. But, the incentives are not there. The incentives in the human say that more = better. Not in everyone, and people can certainly grow in character, a LOT - but we are talking a big number of people here, as long as there will be some that are highly functional, and also have a craving for infinite power, there will be such power imbalances in the world.
So again, the issue boils down to species. And if we survive ourselves, I expect this trend to continue.
Let me also bring up another species problem: Look at how much friction giving up straws caused. Fucking straws, man. I don't think it can get any more petty than that.
dageshi|1 year ago
Tackling climate change would've required people to potentially change their lives, possibly drastically and in doing so likely have a lower standard of living.
And they didn't want to.
They don't want to drive less, they don't want to fly less, they don't want smaller houses, they may say they want to do something about climate change but only so long as it doesn't actually meaningfully effect them.
sixothree|1 year ago
jltsiren|1 year ago
The symbolic moment when humanity lost the fight against climate change was July 25, 1997. US Senate passed the Byrd–Hagel Resolution 95–0, effectively saying that it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Because the only superpower did not take the lead in the fight, it was doomed to fail.
fatata123|1 year ago
[deleted]