3 ms·
100% this. The climate change debate takes up wayyyyyyy too much political oxygen and leaves little room for tackling a lot more lower hanging fruit. I actually
by canadiantim 4y ago
100% this. The climate change debate takes up wayyyyyyy too much political oxygen and leaves little room for tackling a lot more lower hanging fruit. I actually think society's efforts to fight climate change have been a net negative for the environment, not to mention that many corporations have "green washed" their pollution by feigning being climate change warriors. This narrative needs to end and real progress on environmental pollutants needs to return. Hopefully sanity can prevail.
- exyi 4y agoIf we spend all the oxygen on climate change and yet we are pretty much falling at tackling it, then I think there is way too little "oxygen" dedicated to not destroying the planet.
- anonymous_sorry 4y agoStrange to target society's efforts to fight climate change for consuming the political oxygen, rather than those fighting tooth and nail to keep pumping out CO2. It is the biggest environmental threat facing civilisation, but if only the climate warriors would give up in the face of powerful vested interests and economic intertia, perhaps they'd have time to plant a few wildflowers? /s
- rocqua 4y agoClimate change is no longer about the environment, and that is why we see so much movement now. I would argue PFAS isn't about damaging the environment either. It's about human health. Same goes for CFCs. It is getting problematic that 'being green' these days can either be caring about the environment and biodiversity like green-peace. Or it can mean 'doing whatever is needed to stop climate change and keep harmful (to humans) chemicals out of the environment'. Those are actually two very different thought processes with different people who support them. Sharing the term is not working out very well.