4 ms·

Sure, but people's rent and bills are due now and if they can't pay up, you can't gaslighting them with "your sacrifice is necessary for the future of the envir

Sure, but people's rent and bills are due now and if they can't pay up, you can't gaslighting them with "your sacrifice is necessary for the future of the environment" which is a luxury belief. Why haven't shareholders of energy companies also made sacrifices to save the environment? How come only the consumers have to? Do you understand why people are pissed off with the switch?

myrmidon 1y ago
> Sure, but people's rent and bills are due now and if they can't pay up, you can't gaslighting them with "your sacrifice is necessary for the future of the environment" which is a luxury belief. My point of view is that "we have to curb emissions now before consequences grow too dire" is not a "luxury belief": the actual luxury is/was consuming fuel and fossil products without ever paying for the externalities. It was a luxury we could not actually afford at any point, basically just got it on credit in the past, and all that credit is coming due within the century. > Why haven't shareholders of energy companies also made sacrifices to save the environment? How come only the consumers have to? Because overall most of the benefit did go to consumers. People basically got a gallon of gas for 30 cents in 1960 when it probably needed to be a dollar or more, but companies like Shell only ever saw a small fraction of that retail price, and there is absolutely no way you could claw back that difference (or anything close, really) from them. > Do you understand why people are pissed off with the switch? I do understand the feeling of getting things denied that you took for granted, but I have little sympathy for selfishness.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  >the actual luxury is/was consuming fuel and fossil products without ever paying for the externalities. Then why do current generations have to pay for the profits that the previous generations have banked? >but companies like Shell only ever saw a small fraction of that retail price, and there is absolutely no way you could claw back that difference YES, nothing we can do about the corporate overlords who screwed us, let's instead claw it back from the current generation of people instead of from Shell shareholders, that's will go down well politically for sure and not cause extremist rise to power. How is this not a luxury belief? >I do understand the feeling of getting things denied that you took for granted, but I have little sympathy for selfishness. It's not selfishness to afford necessities for a decent life especially when more and more of your paycheck goes towards taxes and necessities.
  - 542354234235 1y ago
    >Then why do current generations have to pay for the profits that the previous generations have banked? Life isn't fair and time travel doesn't exist. We are stuck with the world we have now and have to deal with the realities, including suffering the consequences for things not your fault. It isn't fair that a son gets cancer because his mother smoked around him all his life, but he is still the one that has to go through chemo.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >Life isn't fair This argument can be used to justify whatever actions you want. You know that, right? For example, I'm gonna take your house and when you ask why, it's because "life isn't fair". However, various forms of fairness to balance out past wrong doings can always be achieved if desired, but it usually requires force or democratically if over 50% of people can unite on it.
      - 542354234235 1y ago
        >This argument can be used to justify whatever actions you want Yes, which is why I wrote more than 3 words. It is why I used the cancer analogy. This generation is left holding the bag, and it has to be dealt with. Stomping your foot and saying it's not fair does nothing to cancer, nor does it do anything to climate change. I’m not saying a specific policy decision is right or wrong. I’m saying this generation has to deal with it, regardless of fairness.
  - myrmidon 1y ago
    > Then why do current generations have to pay for the profits that the previous generations have banked? Because the vast majority of "profits" (externalities that were not paid for) were not banked, they were simply not paid. Even if every person that enjoyed cheap fossil products in the past had the price difference on some separate bank account, taking that to fund environmental policies would be very difficult in western countries because of democracy and demographics (very difficult to get majorities when working against the interests of elderly voters). > YES, nothing we can do about the corporate overlords who screwed us, let's instead claw it back from the current generation of people instead of from Shell shareholders, that's will go down well politically for sure and not cause extremist rise to power. How is this not a luxury belief? Again, the Shell corporate overlords only siphoned off a very small fraction of the gains, even taking the whole corporation would be completely insufficient. The main beneficiaries in the past were not Shell and BP, but the end consumers instead. Just heaping blame on corporations or past generations is not helping anything. You could certainly nationalize the whole petroleum industry and confiscate pension funds, but approaches like that have very detrimental side effects. > It's not selfishness to afford necessities for a decent life especially when more and more of your paycheck goes towards taxes and necessities. I would argue that if you discover that a past lifestyle was financed by unsustainably pushing the hidden costs of energy elsewhere (and into the future), then still refusing to pay those hidden costs after the discovery is the very definition of selfish.
goodpoint 1y ago
> "your sacrifice is necessary for the future of the environment" which is a luxury belief. The cost of food, water, energy and other things are going up *because* of climate change. What kinda "luxury belief" is that?
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  Source? Because EU pollutes less now than before, but my groceries are even more expensive so your point is moot. So why should I accept to be spit-roasted like this with no return on my sacrifices? Maybe greedy corporate profiteering is the real culprit here squeezing people and not people using the AC or driving to work?
  - goodpoint 1y ago
    There is absolutely overwhelming evidence that climate change is impacting agriculture.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      You're dodging my question. I asked why hasn't our economic sacrifice to save the environment resulted in a reduction in grocery prices, if environmental damage is what's causing them to go up? We reduced the economic damage but prices are still going up. So what gives? Is it environmentalism or corporate greed?
      - cycomanic 1y ago
        Because there are lags in the system? Because we are not doing enough? Do you always expect immediate feedback on everything you do? If that's the case I guess you never invest in anything because that's by definition a bet that it will make things better (or less worse) in the future. So your proposal is to further delay making anyone pay for changes, because previous generations profited? So at the end of the chain (which will likely not be very long anymore) some generation will be completely screwed.
      - 1y ago
542354234235 1y ago
> future of the environment The environment consists of natural resources. Those resources have value and are "owned" by the people. You can save money by not changing the oil in your car, right up until the engine seizes up. Preserving the value of valuable assets through proper care and maintenance isn't exactly a high concept abstract concept.

myrmidon 1y ago

> Sure, but people's rent and bills are due now and if they can't pay up, you can't gaslighting them with "your sacrifice is necessary for the future of the environment" which is a luxury belief. My point of view is that "we have to curb emissions now before consequences grow too dire" is not a "luxury belief": the actual luxury is/was consuming fuel and fossil products without ever paying for the externalities. It was a luxury we could not actually afford at any point, basically just got it on credit in the past, and all that credit is coming due within the century. > Why haven't shareholders of energy companies also made sacrifices to save the environment? How come only the consumers have to? Because overall most of the benefit did go to consumers. People basically got a gallon of gas for 30 cents in 1960 when it probably needed to be a dollar or more, but companies like Shell only ever saw a small fraction of that retail price, and there is absolutely no way you could claw back that difference (or anything close, really) from them. > Do you understand why people are pissed off with the switch? I do understand the feeling of getting things denied that you took for granted, but I have little sympathy for selfishness.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
>the actual luxury is/was consuming fuel and fossil products without ever paying for the externalities. Then why do current generations have to pay for the profits that the previous generations have banked? >but companies like Shell only ever saw a small fraction of that retail price, and there is absolutely no way you could claw back that difference YES, nothing we can do about the corporate overlords who screwed us, let's instead claw it back from the current generation of people instead of from Shell shareholders, that's will go down well politically for sure and not cause extremist rise to power. How is this not a luxury belief? >I do understand the feeling of getting things denied that you took for granted, but I have little sympathy for selfishness. It's not selfishness to afford necessities for a decent life especially when more and more of your paycheck goes towards taxes and necessities.
- 542354234235 1y ago
  >Then why do current generations have to pay for the profits that the previous generations have banked? Life isn't fair and time travel doesn't exist. We are stuck with the world we have now and have to deal with the realities, including suffering the consequences for things not your fault. It isn't fair that a son gets cancer because his mother smoked around him all his life, but he is still the one that has to go through chemo.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >Life isn't fair This argument can be used to justify whatever actions you want. You know that, right? For example, I'm gonna take your house and when you ask why, it's because "life isn't fair". However, various forms of fairness to balance out past wrong doings can always be achieved if desired, but it usually requires force or democratically if over 50% of people can unite on it.
    - 542354234235 1y ago
      >This argument can be used to justify whatever actions you want Yes, which is why I wrote more than 3 words. It is why I used the cancer analogy. This generation is left holding the bag, and it has to be dealt with. Stomping your foot and saying it's not fair does nothing to cancer, nor does it do anything to climate change. I’m not saying a specific policy decision is right or wrong. I’m saying this generation has to deal with it, regardless of fairness.
- myrmidon 1y ago
  > Then why do current generations have to pay for the profits that the previous generations have banked? Because the vast majority of "profits" (externalities that were not paid for) were not banked, they were simply not paid. Even if every person that enjoyed cheap fossil products in the past had the price difference on some separate bank account, taking that to fund environmental policies would be very difficult in western countries because of democracy and demographics (very difficult to get majorities when working against the interests of elderly voters). > YES, nothing we can do about the corporate overlords who screwed us, let's instead claw it back from the current generation of people instead of from Shell shareholders, that's will go down well politically for sure and not cause extremist rise to power. How is this not a luxury belief? Again, the Shell corporate overlords only siphoned off a very small fraction of the gains, even taking the whole corporation would be completely insufficient. The main beneficiaries in the past were not Shell and BP, but the end consumers instead. Just heaping blame on corporations or past generations is not helping anything. You could certainly nationalize the whole petroleum industry and confiscate pension funds, but approaches like that have very detrimental side effects. > It's not selfishness to afford necessities for a decent life especially when more and more of your paycheck goes towards taxes and necessities. I would argue that if you discover that a past lifestyle was financed by unsustainably pushing the hidden costs of energy elsewhere (and into the future), then still refusing to pay those hidden costs after the discovery is the very definition of selfish.

goodpoint 1y ago

> "your sacrifice is necessary for the future of the environment" which is a luxury belief. The cost of food, water, energy and other things are going up *because* of climate change. What kinda "luxury belief" is that?

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
Source? Because EU pollutes less now than before, but my groceries are even more expensive so your point is moot. So why should I accept to be spit-roasted like this with no return on my sacrifices? Maybe greedy corporate profiteering is the real culprit here squeezing people and not people using the AC or driving to work?
- goodpoint 1y ago
  There is absolutely overwhelming evidence that climate change is impacting agriculture.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    You're dodging my question. I asked why hasn't our economic sacrifice to save the environment resulted in a reduction in grocery prices, if environmental damage is what's causing them to go up? We reduced the economic damage but prices are still going up. So what gives? Is it environmentalism or corporate greed?
    - cycomanic 1y ago
      Because there are lags in the system? Because we are not doing enough? Do you always expect immediate feedback on everything you do? If that's the case I guess you never invest in anything because that's by definition a bet that it will make things better (or less worse) in the future. So your proposal is to further delay making anyone pay for changes, because previous generations profited? So at the end of the chain (which will likely not be very long anymore) some generation will be completely screwed.
    - 1y ago

542354234235 1y ago

> future of the environment The environment consists of natural resources. Those resources have value and are "owned" by the people. You can save money by not changing the oil in your car, right up until the engine seizes up. Preserving the value of valuable assets through proper care and maintenance isn't exactly a high concept abstract concept.