3 ms·
Even if we went 100% renewable today we would still be consuming vastly more resources than the earth can handle. The priority should be reducing needless and
by oatmeal1 3y ago
Even if we went 100% renewable today we would still be consuming vastly more resources than the earth can handle. The priority should be reducing needless and wasteful consumption. That means getting people out of cars and onto bikes or public transit. That means eliminating land use regulations that create inefficient sprawl.
Of course that won't be the priority for the government though, because there aren't any special interests that can benefit from that. Politicians don't really care about the environment. Don't trust them to spend money fixing the environment.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> That means getting people out of cars and onto bikes or public transit. That means eliminating land use regulations that create inefficient sprawl This is a generational project. We don't have time for it. That doesn't mean we can't do both. But we can't only make the long-term massive-upheaval play. While suggested with good intentions, it's the sort of thing a fossil-fuel lobbyist will latch onto as a stalling tactic.
- manzanarama 3y agoWhat resoruces are you talking about? Seems like everything can be solved with enough energy and the earth can surely produce enough energy through nuclear.
- numbers_guy 3y ago> The priority should be reducing needless and wasteful consumption. In an utopian world I would agree with you. I find consumerism ugly as well. However, without consumerism there is no economic growth. Without growth no capitalism. Without capitalism no democracy and peace. It would completely upend our civilization. I mean consider how crazy everything goes when we have a small dip in economic markets.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nonethewiser 3y agoAll sorts of special interests could benefit from that.