6 ms·
That is ignoring the trillions of dollar this industry has spend on think tanks for the downplay of climate change, funding of paid for scientific articles to s
by j-pb 5y ago
That is ignoring the trillions of dollar this industry has spend on think tanks for the downplay of climate change, funding of paid for scientific articles to spread fud, funding conservative anti-science parties, lobbying for laws that actively hinder progress in renewable energies, hoarding patents on renewable energies, buying sustainable competitors and killing them.
This is beyond "people don't want to pay more", this is "we could get the same energy but cheaper, but that wouldn't allow the very powerfull to exhauste an available resource to depletion before they move on and leave us all with the externalised costs".
- Proven 5y ago> That is ignoring the trillions of dollar this industry has spend on think tanks for the downplay of climate change Trillions? That's a lot!
- qeternity 5y ago> That is ignoring the trillions of dollar this industry has spend on think tanks for the downplay of climate change Hahaha oh my. Hyperbolize much? It's difficult to take the rest of your comment seriously after this. > This is beyond "people don't want to pay more", this is "we could get the same energy but cheaper, but that wouldn't allow the very powerfull to exhauste an available resource to depletion before they move on and leave us all with the externalised costs". You don't understand economics. If you make a bad thing cheaper, people will consume more of that bad thing, depleting it and screwing over the environment even faster. Fossil fuels need to be much much more expensive so people stop burning them. You can't have it both ways. Oil companies may be bad and evil, but you don't even have a tenuous grasp on the topic.
- ryan93 5y agoThey haven’t spent any where close to trillions on think tanks. People want cheap energy don’t need think tanks to keep demand for oil high.