4 ms·
The whole point is complaining hasn't done anything. Direct action is ugly but historically gets things done.
by flangola7 3y ago
The whole point is complaining hasn't done anything. Direct action is ugly but historically gets things done.
- robertlagrant 3y agoDirect action is the same as complaining in this case. This isn't a social issue; it's a technological one, and reality doesn't respond to complaining or violence. Only people-created things do. Ironically, less Greenpeace complaining in the 1980s would've meant more countries went the France route for power generation, which would've reduced a lot of CO2 over the last 40 years.
- rickdeckard 3y agoThe richest 10% account for 52% of the emissions added to the atmosphere. It is not a technological issue, it is a societal one. Governments need to take action and regulate, but they don't because it is against the (financial) interest of a political party.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoCan you link to the source?
- blooalien 3y agoHere is a source of a similar statistic. [0] Ten seconds on your favorite search engine will turn up many more saying pretty much the same thing. The "ultra-rich" tend to contribute to the issue far more than everyone else combined. Them and their corporations really are the "lion's share" of the problem. Obviously they're not the entire problem, but taking care of that (somehow; "eat the rich" perhaps?) would take a massive "bite" out of it. [0]: https://www.statista.com/chart/26904/estimated-global-co2-emission-share-by-income-groups/ https://www.statista.com/chart/26904/estimated-global-co2-em...
- MichaelZuo 3y agoThat statista pages cites this paper in 'nature sustainability': https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00842-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00842-z Which does not seem credible, it has way too many guesstimates.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> The "ultra-rich" tend to contribute to the issue far more than everyone else combined The link does not appear to show this at all.
- rickdeckard 3y agoSorry, didn't read the replies until now. There are several studies coming to similar conclusions. Here's the study from Stockholm Environment Institute: https://www.sei.org/publications/the-carbon-inequality-era/ https://www.sei.org/publications/the-carbon-inequality-era/ Here's one about the impact of private jets vs. average carbon emissions of other travellers: https://ips-dc.org/report-high-flyers-2023/ https://ips-dc.org/report-high-flyers-2023/ Carbon inequality report from Oxfam: https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/confronting-carbon-inequality https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/confronting-carbon-inequal...
- flangola7 3y agoIt's not a technological issue, it's entirely societal. Trying to find technical solutions to social problems is a common but mega mistake.
- robertlagrant 3y agoNot always. Social problem: I live far from my parents. Solution: WhatsApp/Zoom. Social problem: I don't want to be a farmer. Solution: mechanisation; fertiliser. Social problem: too many kids have polio. Solution: vaccine. Social problem: some people can't see. Solution: glasses.
- flangola7 3y agoNone of those have anything to do with the climate change disaster at hand. Do you have something more substantial than dismissive handwaving to contribute?
- robertlagrant 3y agoI was replying to your claim, as follows: > Trying to find technical solutions to social problems is a common but mega mistake.