- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m getting sick of being blamed for this while billionaires jet around the world and knowingly pollute away all our efforts
At the end of the day, the lack of violence against billionaires falls on us
deleted by creator
Horse shit. No one gets that wealthy without making some anti climate decisions. That class of people have the power to make significant sacrifice for the better while normal folks have the power to make very tiny sacrifices.
Not saying we shouldn’t all be doing our best but at this point in time the ones with power are steering the ship.
deleted by creator
For a lot of people it does have to be that way though. I just saw an article claiming 7 million Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. They can’t really decide to take the more expensive climate friendly way. A billionaire could absolutely decide to do that though.
deleted by creator
Conveniently omitting a lot of factors here. Was going to mention the cost of labour, but that’s barely even scratching the surface of how ignorant this is.
deleted by creator
They say it takes around 1.5 acres to sustain a person. Farmland rents for around $300 per acre here, so $450 for the year to access the land you need for food. The food itself just kind of grows from that ground and sinks carbon to boot, so that’s cool. A human emits carbon, so that’s not exactly great for the climate, but you’re probably going to do that regardless so we’ll consider that a wash.
I don’t know when you last tried growing a balanced diet, but I can tell you that growing anything as a crop is quite a way off “just kind of growing itself.”
Where did you get your $300/acre/yr figure?
Maybe if you rented 1000 acres.
Unless you’re suggesting we collectivise agriculture, then sure.
deleted by creator
how do you not send them money
I don’t understand the title of the article. It has so little to do with the matter being discussed… The core issue the interviewees are raising is that the policies and government initiatives haven’t been enough - not a problem of consumer behavior.
So once again, the answer to the question headline is “no”.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
While optimists insist everything will turn out right in the end, there are signs that in the short term, governments, lobbied by the enormously profitable fossil fuel industry, may be unwilling to pay that price.
The IEA report — an update to its Net Zero Roadmap — flies in the face of statements just a week ago in Calgary where Saudi Arabia’s Energy Minister Abdulaziz bin Salman Al Saud insisted increases in oil prices must be modest.
The trouble is, repeated evidence shows spending on the kind of technology the world needs to keep fuel prices affordable is failing to keep pace with IEA targets.
“The underlying problem is that most mainstream politicians have embraced a convenient half-truth about climate change,” writes Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times, warning that growing populist backlash could block the green transition.
Essentially, writes Rachman, green-friendly politicians have been ignoring the true costs of making the transition both in budgetary spending and in rising consumer anger, notably over gasoline prices.
Despite signs of backsliding, Rachel Doran, director of policy and strategy at Clean Energy Canada, a think-tank based at Simon Fraser University, remains optimistic that people will look past the short-term costs of stopping climate change.
The original article contains 957 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
