2 ms·
That gets dismissed as “virtue signalling” as “it won’t make a significant difference.” That is basically the Conservative rank and file line for why Canada sh
by MattGaiser 3y ago
That gets dismissed as “virtue signalling” as “it won’t make a significant difference.”
That is basically the Conservative rank and file line for why Canada shouldn’t reduce emissions. They say “we are only 1.5% of emissions, so it won’t matter.”
I am not arguing that your way is bad, but that there will be stiff resistance either way. At least with government, you just need to win once and inertia means that it likely sticks.
- 23B1 3y agoI disagree. If you can see immediate benefits in your neighborhood – for instance, more birds showing up – then 'acting locally, thinking globally' is more effective than the reverse.
- josho 3y agoOh that argument from cons really gets me enraged. As a comparison to show their inconsistent reasons oh conservatives are proud of Canada’s contribution to the world wars, you never hear conservatives say “we only contributed 1.5% to the war effort, so it won’t matter”
- dudeinjapan 3y agoIt’s not clear that Canada’s self-sabotage of it's most profitable industry (oil and gas) will benefit its people or the environment in the long run. On the other hand, when it comes to fighting actual Nazis in WW2, every bullet counts.
- klyrs 3y ago> At least with government, you just need to win once and inertia means that it likely sticks. This isn't remotely true. Regulatory bodies are chronically underfunded and undermined in north America because they're villainized by corporate donors and the politicians they pay for.
- MattGaiser 3y agoThat means they take a long time to write a rule. Same with a legislature. But once written, how often do they go away?
- klyrs 3y agoThe laws get their teeth removed, sometimes gradually, sometimes suddenly. Laws mean nothing if they aren't enforced.