• CableMonster@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Its a trade off at best. You would need to make everyone poorer and accumulate more power in the government to make it happen. And the biggest issue is if its even doable.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            The more that you do with repect to climate change, the more it will harm the economies and the people in them. If you make it harder to get gas, poor people wont have access to it, and all the various costs will go up and crush them.

            • ceiphas@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              People are dying because of the climate Change, and increasingly so, but please Somebody think about the economy… Really?

              Gas will be accessible to them in need, If those who don’t need to use it step back.

              No sane Person needs a 3t heavy pick up truck wit 600hp for their groceries…

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                You are thinking of this a western problem. What happens to the more than a billion people around the world the are food insecure, and it gets harder to get food?

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      “Poorer”.

      “Everyone”.

      You mean the wealthy wouldn’t be as wealthy and everyone else would be subject to strict controls on energy, transportation, and meat consumption. Which describes the lives of our recent ancestors. Air conditioning and heating would be for survival, not comfort. Most people will depend on mass transit and not own cars. And meat becomes a treat you get every now and then. But dairy products and eggs will still be plentiful.

      It’s not like we’re going to be eating peanut butter sandwiches and starving while working 3 part time jobs. Unless that’s already your reality. Then it will likely still be your reality because capitalism.

      The vast majority of humans could live a perfectly fine, alternative, lifestyle and the planet would be okay.

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah fair enough analysis other than blaming capitalism for everything. A thing that you missed was that when people in poor countries get poorer, they can die of starvation or other things. Why do you believe that is worth it?

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          You missed the point entirely. We don’t need to cut calories produced. The new arable land from not raising cattle and the turn of farm land from live stock feed to human feed will provide more than enough food.

          This isn’t a situation where we have to live in some dystopia, as long as we act now.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Sure, in the developed richer countries, but not in the poor countries. Millions to hundrends of millions of people in poor countries would die.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Why? Why would going green mean they can’t grow food suddenly? What about coal power and cow farts means you can’t grow corn?

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                It doesnt mean you cant, it means that everything is more expensive, and means people in foreign countries cant afford things they need even more. If something like a billion people in the world are food insecure, a mild drought could make them starve.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Meat would get more expensive yes. But energy production is perfectly capable of switching over without a bump. And non meat farm products would actually become cheaper as supply increases. We’re not magically causing a drought with such a changeover, at least not any extra ones.

    • schnokobaer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      And the biggest issue is if its even doable.

      Right we all didn’t think of that, in that case let’s just keep on overexploiting our finite resources and generate as much short term shareholder value as possible, because we don’t know whether a sustainable approach would even fix some things that are possibly already beyond fixing due to overexploitation and generating short term value in the past.

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I also want a clean world where everything is renewable and such, the problem is that I dont think it is achievable with our current technology. Take for instance the “Green New Deal” that came out a few years back, it was literally impossible. So personally I dont want to damage people that are doing the work that will get us to the tech we need in order to pretend we are solving the problem.

  • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    This comic is from 2009, over 14 years ago. Good thing we took action and have made great strides towards combating climate change during that time. Could you imagine how screwed we’d be if our world leaders had sat on their asses and did fuck all instead? /S

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Okay. We still need to do a lot more. The science is clear that this is the make or break decade. Either we severely curtail emissions now or we break the 1.5C/3F limit for the bad scenarios to happen.

        And everything has happened faster than predicted so any millennials thinking this isn’t going to really effect their life is deluding themselves. It’s just going to hit while we have silver hair. We’ll all be hungry, thirsty, and trying to figure out several billion refugees.

        • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’ve been hearing “it’s make or break right now” for 20 years. I’m pretty sure we were absolutely screwed a long time ago.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yes well at first we wanted to stop any increase. So there was a deadline for that. Then we wanted to cap it and the earlier we act the better it is. Now we’ve realized that at 1.5C some nasty chain reactions kick in and we’d really like to avoid that. However if you want to be reductionist about it then yes the time to act was when we learned the basics of this problem in the 1800’s.

            But the next best time is now. It just gets worse the longer we wait until at some point the planet hands us an eviction notice.

    • navi@lemmy.tespia.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      We aren’t doing enough but we are doing something.

      Renewables are up YoY and solar and wind are quickly becoming the predominant deployed energy generators (in the US anyway).

    • UnfortunateDoorHinge@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      In Australia we are moving in the right direction towards more energy efficient houses, solar and now batteries. By no means are we close to the low emission society, but 500Pj of renewable electricity generation in a year is not bad, and increasing day by day

      • Sacha@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        You mean you finally have a (president? Prime Minister? Whatever it is) hat doesn’t do everything they can to kill the great barrier reef ?