• iiGxC@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s equivalent to “for no reason” not to “for no cost”

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You think preventing climate change is more expensive than not preventing climate change? That’s an interesting point of view. I’m not sure the facts agree with you.

      Wildfires that burn down houses and gigantic forests every summer, massive storms that take out coastal cities, that kind of stuff tends to have an expensive price tag attached to it.

      It’s easy to forget, but the most effective first step for individuals who want to prevent climate change is: Reduce. And that costs nothing at all. It actually saves money. Of course there are many other things that ought to be done as well, but let’s keep in mind the starting point.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          You think consuming less would stop the economy dead in it’s tracks. And … Is that a bad thing? As we know, “economy” means “rich people’s yachts”.

          And just as obviously, reducing consumption is not binary. There’s no way to go to zero, nor would anyone seriously propose it. But anyway, with an increasing population and limited global resources, it’s inevitable that people will have to reduce at some point, so the disaster you hypothesize would strike us anyway. And in that case, gradual change now is better than catastrophic change later.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      More expensive for the rich, yes. The rest of us want to stop having to pay for things we don’t want through degrading our surrounding environment.