Another issue to go with my previous comment on this thread: when people (I’m not saying you) claim climate change is primarily a “political problem,” they’re o

Another issue to go with my previous comment on this thread: when people (I’m not saying you) claim climate change is primarily a “political problem,” they’re often assuming a different political /system/ would solve it, including that socialism would solve the problem and (say) nationalizing the oil industry would help. I just don’t see this being the case. We HAVE examples where the oil industry is nationalized by a socialist government. Think Venezuela or the Soviet Union. In Venezuela, for instance, gasoline was/is DEEPLY subsidized for the consumer as a sort of social support. Nationalized industries end up wanting to stick around and in some ways are more prevented from disappearing than they would be with cutthroat capitalism. If abolishing capitalism has any strong effect on climate action, empirically the only way it has helped historically is by impoverishing people. I don’t think this is what people are going for when they say we have to abolish capitalism in order to solve climate change! Or from a more positive perspective: There are good reasons to hold back excesses of capitalism and establish more social support, but to the degree it allows more people to live richer lives, that might actually make climate change WORSE. What we need is the technology to make climate action politically feasible, ie without making people materially poorer. We need climate change to be solved the same way ozone depletion was: ultimately by just swapping out something harmful for something with much less harm, but with the same overall capabilities.