4 ms·
Yes, there would be big consequences. Reducing emissions would mean a huge number of blue-collar jobs and development of technology. The only reason we don't d
by smt88 4y ago
Yes, there would be big consequences. Reducing emissions would mean a huge number of blue-collar jobs and development of technology.
The only reason we don't do this is because one of the two political parties has been fully captured by the fossil fuel industry.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoThe only reason? Really? Is Biden putting forth climate proposals that would actually change things? No, he isn't. Is OAC? No. Is anybody? No. Why not? Because they all know that nobody will put up with the pain it would cause - not even the blue states.
- euroderf 4y agoIt's time to enlist Oprah. "You get a heat pump! And YOU get a heat pump! EVERYBODY gets a heat pump!"
- smt88 4y agoBiden advocated for a huge climate and economic stimulis bill and couldn't get a single Republican to support it. CBO itself regularly says that climate bills are ways to save money, not spend it. https://www.citizen.org/news/cbo-says-climate-bill-would-cut-deficit-by-19b/ https://www.citizen.org/news/cbo-says-climate-bill-would-cut...
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoOK, that was a climate bill. Back to my question. Would that actually change things? Change them enough to matter? Change them enough to, say, cut in half the per-person emissions of CO2? Change them enough to make the US fall in line with the Paris agreement? Change them enough that, if every nation did them, we would not exceed 1.5 C? I'm pretty sure the answer is "no" to all of those.
- jokoon 4y agoYes, but also because it would be such a big economic recession, it would cause so many riots and civil unrest. It's not only politics, it's also because there are too many americans who think they are entitled to a car, a house and hamburgers. It wouldn't be a problem if citizens could accept change, but it's not just a political problem, it goes much much deeper than that.