• DogMuffins
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    Let’s be honest though, actually solving this problem is pretty much unachievable given the lack of motivation and interest on the part of the populace, so why bother taking any action to mitigate the problem at all?

    I’m really only interested in punchy 3 word concepts like “stop abortion now” or “fix gay people”.

    The whole idea of investing some effort now so that the world is better off to some unknown extent later is pretty much Socialism. We won the cold war.

      • DogMuffins
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Of course it is.

        The populace owns shares in, and buys products from, companies which are producing greenhouse gasses.

        The populace elects representatives to regulate those companies.

        • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          The wealthiest 10% owns 90% of all stocks. And realistically, how many people can actually track the supply chain of every product they buy to try to only buy from ethical companies? How many truly plastic free options even are there for basic things like bread, toothbrushes/toothpaste, or soap?

          • DogMuffins
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            You don’t need to track the entire supply chain of every product.

            • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Then how are you supposed to know which companies produce how much greenhouse gasses?

    • tallwookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      true enough - soundbites have always been a problem in journalism, and social media has hopped onto that bandwagon recently as well. the short attention span of any average person is at fault as well.

      overall, I’d say there’s a fair amount of interest in “solving global warming” or whatever short descriptor you want to use, but I agree that there’s very little motivation. actual movement towards a solution would require generations of political capital, quite a bit of social capital, actual money - probably trillions of $$$ each year - and the realization that there is no way to “cheat” your way to cleaning up the mess. by that, I mean we will need to keep using our coal/gas power plants for some decades yet, and we’ll also need to ramp up the pollution at least one whole order of magnitude in order to create enough energy storage to make it through the night or when the wind isnt blowing or the sun isnt shining (or during the winter, when solar is effectively useless in the northern equator, where most people live). even with all of that in mind, you’d still have to force people to use less, drive less, eat less, have fewer children; basically eliminate international shipping & bring manufacturing back home (really unlikely), eliminate air travel, and basically eliminate domestic shipping (unless we have reliable, cheap electricity). a return to life prior to WW2. possible? yes. achievable in any reasonable timeframe? no.

      I also agree that the truth would need to be massaged in order for the masses to accept it - some parts of the world are rabidly anti-socialist, whereas other parts are happy to be obedient little robots for the good of the State. problem is, those socialist-leaning countries are the ones who have the most to lose when international trade is eliminated.