> I'm not sure why "business" is always the big bad wolf, I guess it’s an easy target. Because in this case, business--specifically the fossil fuel "energy" in

> I'm not sure why "business" is always the big bad wolf, I guess it’s an easy target. Because in this case, business--specifically the fossil fuel "energy" industry--has corrupted democratic governments for their own profit, at the expense of literally every human alive now and for the foreseeable future. > Businesses are a vehicle for people, like a commune with unified set of goals. Businesses are not a vehicle for people. They are not democracies. They are the opposite of a commune. If they were democracies, we'd have a direct way to hold them accountable and control their behavior. We obviously don't have that. > I think any plans moving forward to address global warming have to include business and economic interests. Pick any counterargument you like here: 1. Only kooks are talking about things like degrowth. It's a strawman to suggest otherwise. Of course plans will include business and economic interests. The question is what is prioritized, and that's why I said: > It's super obvious that this is structured as a compromise with business interests. Infuriating. 2. The only way this works is by forcing markets to factor in externalities like atmospheric carbon production (or waste, etc.) into their pricing, which we've clearly failed to do.