this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
220 points (99.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5257 readers
735 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
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.
There actually is; the wealthiest are responsible for a wildly disproportionate share of emissions.
Oh that's a good point. I don't think that's what they were talking about, but yeah you got me there.