- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/11479731
You must log in or # to comment.
That man is paid by the oil industry.
Many people would rather everyone suffer pollution and climate catastrophe than those people have a nice life.
Nah, they choose to believe it’s a hoax because they’re kinda rich and don’t want to lower their standard of living. And the others believe the lies about the environment because they’re bundled with the lies about brown people.
I expect that’s some people, yeah. Accepting that climate change is real means accepting uncomfortable ideas. Like that they’re responsible, at least a little.
Some people can’t accept that they’re everything less than a saint. You tell them that walking to the store is better for them and the environment than driving and they go berserk. Can’t handle the implication that they’re not perfectly faultless.
The thing I don’t get is how is reliance on foreign oil not a national security thing. Like surely that angle should tickle someone in the American chain of command.
The U.S. is now the world’s largest oil producer. On top of that, its government really couldn’t be any more corrupt.
Of course, the same question arises in other countries, but I think the answer is always the same: corrupt politicians.
Why should they care when they get paid regardless?
You can’t apply normal person logic to the rich and politicians. They genuinely cannot bring themselves to care about anyone else, or anything but money and power. They don’t think a full scale war could ever show up on their doorstep, and even if it does they have enough money to live anywhere on the planet, far away from conflicts that might interfere with their disgusting personal lives.
Yes but there is a fat stack of money tickling the trump family.
That is conservatism at play.
In the conservative worldview, this is already the best world.
Nah, 50 years ago was the best world for them.
I think the 70s were still far too progressive for them.
Most of the last 150 years was far too progressive for them, but they were at least alive 50 years ago and able to say “back in my day” even if they were still under their parents wings and had to make no real decisions of their own.
I literally said this to my climate change denying MAGA relative just to see how they would react and they unironically agreed with me. I have no hope for these people anymore.
Yeah, I said something similar to co-worker. I was like, oh no, that sounds awful. We’re creating more jobs and more industry for people to work in and he just stared at his shoes.
I don’t get it, that does seem hopeful?
Admittedly it’s a bit hard to explain but they were going off on a global-warming-is-an-Al-Gore-Conspiracy rant. They have a zero sum mentality. Improving the earth “for nothing” is unacceptable because there’s no tangible reward right now, only improvement that would happen generations down the road, long after they are dead.
That’s at least how i think their mental gymnastics goes, enabling the true meaning of what I said to sail right over their head.
The problem is people against this are in entirely different realities.
I have had family campaign against the “15 minute city” which is about having walkable cities woth stores and stuff within a 15 minute walk and claim its actually about you not being able to leave your 15 minute compartment.
15 minute cities is commie hippies trying to enslave you into… not forcing you into car ownership expenses.
Yeah we need more
etc. etc.you aren’t thinking abouth tge new industrys that would be formed by total ecological collapse, the polution filtering masks, the cooling vests
I already have a cooling vest that I no longer need because I work in a small office that has air conditioning and another human that also gets warm during warm weather.
I’m actually home now trying to warm my feet up in the sun I used to work in a tin roofed warehouse with no climate control and 3 women who complained it was too cold in 32 degree Celsius heat.
It’s not real science, because the fire is not as harmful as the pollution or gasses, but you have to remember that most conservatives are so self involved they forget about other people and the scale of the problem
How many teenie tiny fires would it take to make the world a bit warmer?
A million? A billion? Maybe a trillion little fires.
There are 1.699B cars on the road. By conservative estimates, average time of the road per day is ~30 minutes. If we pretend that they’re all 4 cylinder engines, and average 1500RPM, both low estimates, that engine fires 3000 times per minute. For 30 minutes a day. For 1.669B cars.
Over the course of a year that’s 55,810,000,000,000 fires. 55.81 quadrillion. In one year.
And that’s just cars. Not planes. Not trains. Not boats. Not power plants. Not even cow farts.
They know that there is some number that’s too much. They know we’ve passed it.
Most people don’t really understand numbers with more that 5 or 6 0s
I’m a big fan of protecting our environment but this fails because it’s a straw man.
Everyone knows that the things we get far more than “nothing” from our rampant pollution. We get fast transportation, abundant food, and vast material wealth.
If we were really giving up “nothing” it would be an easy choice. Very few people would be willing to pollute just for the sake of polluting. Even if we only got a little bit of benefit from pollution there would still be incentive to pollute.
Instead we get a ton of benefit out of pollution and we’d have to give them up if we wanted to stop polluting.
The more honest take is that polluting activities have a tradeoff. If we keep polluting at our current rate, we’ll eventually push the ecosystem to a state where it can’t sustain us. We need to be willing to make some hard sacrifices to prevent that and we need to identify those sacrifices, rather than pretending they don’t exist.
Thank you for saying this, same kind of strawman thinking along the lines of governmental privacy violations not mattering if you have nothing to hide.
I think you should look up definitions of for nothing.
The phrase in this context means “for no reason”.
And, yes, the author of the comic could have been a bit clearer and could have written “for no reason”. I personally find that “for nothing” sounds more provocative and fits in the exclamation better.
Quite a lotta opinions people have on this comment chain, lemme throw mine in too while the gettin’ is good! Also Tl;Dr: We can fix it, but think of the shareholders!
I’ve come to interpret a lot of these modern problems and solutions as questions of capital. To sound like a broken record, having as highly capitalist of an economic system as we do creates a lot of these incentives, so much so that I feel the question itself isn’t necessarily a question of climate policy, but rather a question of our relationship between company and government. Partially because we have a cyclical system of: company lobbies for good law -> good law nets company more money -> repeat, but in the direction of environmental policy.
The EPA exists for a reason, the FDA exists for a reason, basically all three letter burecracies exist for a reason, It’s to preserve something that is found to be important. Increasingly though, companies are exerting larger and larger power on government, and that’s serving to pursue their interests, which in many cases means reductions or cuts to these agencies that can get in their way of profits.
I’m curious why you see my comment as a defense of shareholders?
The beneficiaries of faster transportation, abundant food, and vast material wealth are the consumers. The shareholders only benefit indirectly in that they can take their money and consume goods and services that others have produced.
That’s a tradeoff that happens no matter what economic system we choose. I’m also not even suggesting that we pull back on addressing climate change; I’m saying that this is an ineffective way to advocate for it.
Youre presupposing that were losing something by cleaning up the environment. As if we cant invest in a cleaner environment the same way we spent money of the other things that made the pollution. Its absolutely possible to have all these things.
The point is that we are ALREADY paying more for living in a polluted world than a clean one. Pollution causes so many widespread health problems that we’d make that money back on healthcare costs alone.
Thats what makes this environment discussion so nonsensical. We dont even have to address climate change to get a return on our investment in cleaning up the world.
I didn’t, I just wanted to throw my thoughts out lol. Seemed like everyone was piling on with some opinion or thought, so I chimed in.
