• OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Really couldn’t disagree more with this article but here’s the big one that stands out:

    Second, what must be done runs directly counter to the way the economy currently works.

    It does not run counter to our existing system at all. We don’t live in capitalist anarchy, we have a government that can act pretty broadly here, actually. The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.

    If your complaint is that solutions to your prioritized issue are coming too slow, join the club, that’s definitely true. But that is a different complaint.

    • sadreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Government is the only player who can provide a solution short of a revolution.

      The issue is that we have criters and their boomer enables who think this is the their turn to loot younger generations. So reforms are not ton the table.

      Selection of critters up for vote does not install any confidance, at this rate something might happen in 2030s.

    • xapr@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.

      I presume you’re either joking or you’re trusting IPCC numbers to judge the severity of the problem. The examples you give are nowhere near what’s needed. We need massive reductions in construction, commercial air travel, cars, and manufacturing of most junk that you can buy at a store today. How are you going to accomplish any of this in the capitalist economic system?

      Edit: what I mean regarding IPCC is that I understand that their numbers are completely unrealistic because they are assuming carbon capture technology and scales that don’t and won’t exist.

      Edit 2: add meat consumption as another item that needs to be massively reduced.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m not saying my examples are the thing that solves climate change, just that there are paths other than “let corporations do whatever they want.” Government acted to reduce acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Government can act to reduce climate change. That means there is a path in our current system.

        Total US greenhouse gas emissions are lower than they were in 1990 and they have been going down for years. The question is if we can get low enough, fast enough, globally, to prevent as many negative impacts as possible. That sort of balancing of priorities and costs and benefits is why we have government.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I gave examples of government solutions working. Your bumper sticker response does not refute that.