13 ms·
I always seen the problem of climate change are being the wrong problem to name. We're destroying our environment through industrial by-products, deforestation
by mihaic 2y ago
I always seen the problem of climate change are being the wrong problem to name.
We're destroying our environment through industrial by-products, deforestation, etc, and when the possibly biggest side-effect of all this planetary abuse starts being obvious, we only talk about that, and make it the only metric.
Getting people to care about the environment is something possible, as other generations have done this better. It only if all your education of the general public and legislation starts from the premise that we need to keep the health of the entire world, in all aspects.
Single metric carbon-tax is easily gamed by corporations and makes the general public apathetic. Maybe that's the goal for some lobbyists, but that's the battle from my point of view.
- McDyver 2y agoPeople protect what they love. And unfortunately we as a society are taught to love money, not the environment. We should be able to do better
- ndsipa_pomu 2y agoIt's even worse than simply not protecting - Capitalism provides an incentive for businesses to plunder natural resources as fast as possible.
- matips 2y agoPeople love things. It is easy to say "consume less", it even easer if you add "and work less". It ease to give up something you recognize as a luxury: we can skip exotic holidays, use public transport, eat less meat, make more durable electronic, buy less clothes, go to restaurants less often, live in smaller houses. I am observing that there is always some 'deal breaker' - even for anti-consumerism people. In Poland it is often real estates - houses and flats are one of the most important expense in households budgets. "Consume less" means that society should build less new houses and people should live longer with their parents or have smaller apartments for their families. For other countries or areas the deal-breaker is to resign from private transport because there is no public transport alterative in countrysides.
- addandsubtract 2y ago"If money grew on trees, everyone would be planting trees."
- askonomm 2y agoPeople care, governments don't: see the whole recycling plastic thing where the responsibility is all put on the consumer with the 100 different bins we have to use now, and yet when it actually ends up somewhere it all goes to the same landfill anyway because governments haven't created any real plastic recycling facilities, thus we do all this busy work for no reason at all, except to lie to ourselves that it somehow helps. And many people believe that it does, so ... yay, I guess?
- jonatron 2y agoIf you want video evidence that real plastic recycling facilities do actually exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih5YDCeotSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih5YDCeotSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUrBBBs7yzQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUrBBBs7yzQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1WTgGyirDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1WTgGyirDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTpRUXS2wmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTpRUXS2wmA
- pvdoom 2y agoWell do remember that a lot of the recycling plastic, personal responsibility, carbon footprint thing was literally made up as a marketing gimmick by fossil fuel ...
- Ferret7446 2y ago> governments don't That's a fancy way of saying people don't care.