4 ms·

> we simply don't because the rich people would lose a bit of money and they control everything. This is at best an oversimplification, and at worse another co

> we simply don't because the rich people would lose a bit of money and they control everything. This is at best an oversimplification, and at worse another convenient lie we tell ourselves because then we ("the never rich enough!") can feel righteous anger about nothing happening, while not being responsible for it. Years ago, the government elites of France decided that global warming was a serious problem and they should cut down on fossil fuel usage. And then what happens? Nationwide violent protests, because the one thing "we the people" hate more than global warming is higher gas prices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
> Years ago, the government elites of France decided that global warming was a serious problem and they should cut down on fossil fuel usage. And then what happens? Nationwide violent protests, because the one thing "we the people" hate more than global warming is higher gas prices. This is at best an oversimplification, and frankly, it feels like a pretty deliberate one. Yes, the Yellow Vest protests began because of a proposed fuel tax by Emanuel Macron, which was set to directly impact lower income/rural voters. Which it would, because wealthier people in metro areas don't drive nearly as much. The movement evolved over time to incorporate many rural vs. city conflicts, things like lack of government services in non-populous areas, low minimum wages, and overall income inequality and all the social ills that follow it. People weren't upset that gas was getting more expensive: they were upset that it was becoming unaffordable in areas in which buying it is not optional. You simply cannot live in the rural areas of any western country without a car. Period. Paragraph. The infrastructure demands a vehicle or you cannot get around. So when people are already struggling and ostensibly green-minded ideas like gas taxes are proposed, with no alternatives for them besides driving: yes, they get pissed off. Measures like these have been protested far and wide because of things exactly like this, because governments keep trying to offset the costs of green policy on working class voters who are already struggling, because their donors are the wealthy elites who don't want to pay for it despite being eminently able to. And worse still these results are then used to say "see, people don't REALLY want to save the planet" when it's quite bluntly obvious, to me anyway, that what people don't want to do is..... starve.
regularization 1y ago
Years ago the French elites supposedly decided to so solve the global warming problem by suddenly putting a big tax on gasoline, which hit rural France hardest, and in a quick manner. I don't even see it as sincere from the beginning, I think they made to seem like they were doing something so they could seem to do it differently. Mélenchon could implemented the needed measures without any backlash - except from the bourgeoisie.
bamboozled 1y ago
Well tax the rich a bit more and use that money to build Nuclear plants, why on Earth Jeff Bezos or whatever need a trillion dollars to squat on is beyond me. Once the planet is fucked, they're fucked too, no matter how much they talk about rockets and mars or whatever. I'm starting to think they just tell those stories to keep the plebs hopeful, away from them.
- renewiltord 1y ago
  This is pretty funny. In fact it’s these environmentalists who get nuclear plants shut down. https://www.riverkeeper.org/news-and-events/news-and-updates/how-to-close-a-nuclear-power-plant-qa-with-phillip-musegaas https://www.riverkeeper.org/news-and-events/news-and-updates... If you asked Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos if we should build nuclear plants, they’d say yes with hardly any hesitation. If you let them build the plants, they would. But if you ask most people who work as environmentalists they’d oppose them. In fact, it’s a bare majority of Americans who would support nuclear and even as recent as 2015 that was a minority. The plebs are usually the problem when it comes to these things. Because they are innumerate, stupid, and unable to see the consequences of their own actions. They combine these traits with equal weight in politics in our system - which is a flaw in it but far better than the flaws in any alternative one.
  - bamboozled 1y ago
    If you asked Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos if we should build nuclear plants, they’d say yes with hardly any hesitation. If you let them build the plants, they would. I don't "want them to build them and charge me money" I want them to pay their fair share to fund the building of public utilities. Before you say these things are better private, go look at what happened to electricity prices in Australia are privatization. The plebs are usually the problem Sure mate.
    - renewiltord 1y ago
      You're never going to get nuclear plants so long as you let the plebs choose. Riverkeeper is what you get from plebs: anti-progress, anti-science, anti-nuclear. It's time to be honest about what stops progress: the common people.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago

> Years ago, the government elites of France decided that global warming was a serious problem and they should cut down on fossil fuel usage. And then what happens? Nationwide violent protests, because the one thing "we the people" hate more than global warming is higher gas prices. This is at best an oversimplification, and frankly, it feels like a pretty deliberate one. Yes, the Yellow Vest protests began because of a proposed fuel tax by Emanuel Macron, which was set to directly impact lower income/rural voters. Which it would, because wealthier people in metro areas don't drive nearly as much. The movement evolved over time to incorporate many rural vs. city conflicts, things like lack of government services in non-populous areas, low minimum wages, and overall income inequality and all the social ills that follow it. People weren't upset that gas was getting more expensive: they were upset that it was becoming unaffordable in areas in which buying it is not optional. You simply cannot live in the rural areas of any western country without a car. Period. Paragraph. The infrastructure demands a vehicle or you cannot get around. So when people are already struggling and ostensibly green-minded ideas like gas taxes are proposed, with no alternatives for them besides driving: yes, they get pissed off. Measures like these have been protested far and wide because of things exactly like this, because governments keep trying to offset the costs of green policy on working class voters who are already struggling, because their donors are the wealthy elites who don't want to pay for it despite being eminently able to. And worse still these results are then used to say "see, people don't REALLY want to save the planet" when it's quite bluntly obvious, to me anyway, that what people don't want to do is..... starve.

regularization 1y ago

Years ago the French elites supposedly decided to so solve the global warming problem by suddenly putting a big tax on gasoline, which hit rural France hardest, and in a quick manner. I don't even see it as sincere from the beginning, I think they made to seem like they were doing something so they could seem to do it differently. Mélenchon could implemented the needed measures without any backlash - except from the bourgeoisie.

bamboozled 1y ago

Well tax the rich a bit more and use that money to build Nuclear plants, why on Earth Jeff Bezos or whatever need a trillion dollars to squat on is beyond me. Once the planet is fucked, they're fucked too, no matter how much they talk about rockets and mars or whatever. I'm starting to think they just tell those stories to keep the plebs hopeful, away from them.

renewiltord 1y ago
This is pretty funny. In fact it’s these environmentalists who get nuclear plants shut down. https://www.riverkeeper.org/news-and-events/news-and-updates/how-to-close-a-nuclear-power-plant-qa-with-phillip-musegaas https://www.riverkeeper.org/news-and-events/news-and-updates... If you asked Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos if we should build nuclear plants, they’d say yes with hardly any hesitation. If you let them build the plants, they would. But if you ask most people who work as environmentalists they’d oppose them. In fact, it’s a bare majority of Americans who would support nuclear and even as recent as 2015 that was a minority. The plebs are usually the problem when it comes to these things. Because they are innumerate, stupid, and unable to see the consequences of their own actions. They combine these traits with equal weight in politics in our system - which is a flaw in it but far better than the flaws in any alternative one.
- bamboozled 1y ago
  If you asked Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos if we should build nuclear plants, they’d say yes with hardly any hesitation. If you let them build the plants, they would. I don't "want them to build them and charge me money" I want them to pay their fair share to fund the building of public utilities. Before you say these things are better private, go look at what happened to electricity prices in Australia are privatization. The plebs are usually the problem Sure mate.
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    You're never going to get nuclear plants so long as you let the plebs choose. Riverkeeper is what you get from plebs: anti-progress, anti-science, anti-nuclear. It's time to be honest about what stops progress: the common people.