this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
29 points (96.8% liked)

News

23267 readers
3206 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (7 children)

I do not agree that you are being fascist, but I do think you are pointing the finger at individual humans when you should be pointing it at the 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions.

[–] rbn@feddit.ch -2 points 8 months ago (6 children)

I do agree that these companies are at fault. But wouldn't even the emissions of the most evil companies in the world go down with a smaller humanity? If you look at the top 5 in the ranking, it's all fossil fuel companies. Do you think if we had 25% less humans, the remaining 75% would still burn 100% of fossils?

And I am not not fingerpointing at anyone. I neither condemn parents nor children. Just saying that less people have less impact than more people.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Why should we use fossil fuels at all? That's not a population issue.

[–] rbn@feddit.ch -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think the majority of people would prefer to use green energy but - as said in my previous - I do not think that the same majority is willing to accept significant cut backs on their lifestyle. As long as they can continue to live as they're used to they're all in on the green deal. But when they are asked to use less individual transportation in favor of public transport, lower their heating by a few degrees and wear a sweater instead or buy regional food over stuff that is imported from overseas, then unfortunately a lot of people react in a rejective or even aggressive way. Green politicians in Germany for instance are confronted with a lot of hate for all attempts to initiate some change.

So to me it seems like phasing out fossils in a democratic manner is only possible over a longer period of time, unfortunately probably several decades.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What if it wasn't up to them because fossil fuels were no longer allowed to be used and those companies were no longer allowed to exploit resources that are destroying the planet?

Also, what if we didn't wait decades for the population to drop so much that it would make a real difference, long after it wouldn't matter?

[–] rbn@feddit.ch -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If we simply just stopped using fossil fuels today without a smooth transition to green energies, all supply chains will shatter immediately, people will freeze to death, you'll have a world-wide famine and neighbors fighting for the last remaining ressources.

Furthermore, the only way to force such an immediate exit from fossils would be to establish a violent dictatorship as there's no democratic majority for it.

As much as I'd like the transition to happen as soon as possible, it's pretty obvious that the solution can't be as simple as 'just forbid using fossils'.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You'd like the transition to happen as soon as possible, but your 'as soon as possible' is apparently generations away since you think the population needs to drop but fossil fuels should still be used even after that.

[–] rbn@feddit.ch -2 points 8 months ago

I never said that I want to just wait. We should leverage all possibilities in parallel to reduce the carbon footprint:

  • Increase green energy: solar power, wind turbines, tidal power etc.
  • Reduce energy consumption
  • Find ways to increase prices of products and services that are bad for the environment (not only CO2, but also methane, PTFE etc.)
  • Fine companies which violate environmental laws or thresholds with significantly higher amounts than today
  • Increase tolls in imported products and ban imports of products that do not meet sustainability criteria [...]

All these measures are important steps to take to reduce the average footprint. But still on top of all these things the total number of humans is a signicifant multipler for the total footprint.

A human can only use less ressources only no human will take no ressources.

Once again: I do not promote state-forced birth control, I do not condemn parents, children etc. I'm simply saying that if people voluntarily decide to reproduce at a lower scale, that that has a positive impact on the planet and in the end helps the future generations.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)