2 ms·

> Still a ridiculous idea. Which idea are you referring to and why is it ridiculous?

• raxxorrax 5y ago
  The idea that we should live in cities and people should leave living on the land behind. Because it is not in any facility relevant for the fight against climate change and yet, I see fervent defenders of this idea as if it would be the holy grail of sustainability. A cost-/benefit analysis makes clear, that this would give up freedom for marginal success (if there is a benefit, I have my doubts). It would be even more efficient if we all live in tents for that matter. I believe such discussion to be extremely contraproductive to get people to take climate change seriously. Because for sensible action all your capital is exausted. Also your financial capital as it would drive property prices to new heights.
  • aliasEli 5y ago
    The article does not contain the word climate. It focuses on the economic development of the heartland. If am not mistaken this contains some of the poorest places in the US.
    • raxxorrax 5y ago
      This one does not, they spread their arguments far and wide. Reasons aren't important, the meassure is.