this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
225 points (97.5% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5240 readers
708 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You could have a non-capitalist society burning fossil fuels in the same way, and it would have the same consequences.
Probably, but probably there wouldn't be a push for keeping things as they are. No wait! Let's burn even more carbon
Maybe, maybe not. You get what you measure. Bad incentives are a major contributor to the corruption that ultimately led to the downfall of the USSR.
Good policy and incentives make the difference. Capitalism and communism aren't all that different. In practice, they are still largely hierarchical with a few controlling things.
No it would not. Capitalism enables destruction because you just need to pay enough money to stop the right people. Laws now have a subtle bidding to break. Your problem in this logic is not understanding the enabling format of our socioeconomics. Your correct but this is not how the world works the economy enables them so much worse than you can ever comprehend from what you're saying and a lot of people will never understand how enabling Capitalism is.
Communism is not different from capitalism they're both the same exact thing just the % of the population practicing. I literally just call it communism for the rich because it's the exact same thing.
The Soviet Union sure wasn’t capitalist by any reasonable definition of the word but still jumped from one major environmental catastrophe to another, to the point where there are still plenty of large areas to deadly to inhabit unprotected.
Even climate change wise it was effectively a petro state which relied heavily on useing and selling cheap oil at every opportunity.
I mean I may be a democratic socialist but even I admit that not everything can be blamed solely on capitalism. Even a fully democratic state operating in the best interest of its poorest people could well decide that it’s in their best interest to make thier lives better by focusing on material growth if it thought that that the consequences for its own people were minor enough.