6 ms·

I think it's pretty obvious that nothing meaningful is going to be done. As a species we're not willing to sacrifice enough to solve this problem and I think w

I think it's pretty obvious that nothing meaningful is going to be done. As a species we're not willing to sacrifice enough to solve this problem and I think we're probably out of time at this point.

mandmandam 2y ago
The issue isn't our species. It's our billionaires; the people who own our media and our politicians. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree we need action. Even with billions spent on propaganda, the majority of citizens believe we need action. A tiny minority of our corporate media and politicians believe we need action, and their bosses/owners are happy to fire them if they speak up too well. Look what happened to Greta once she started talking about capitalism - instant blackout on coverage. So again, this isn't a species problem. It's very much a billionaire problem, and they are not like us. Billionaires realize this, and we need to realize it as well.
- sixothree 2y ago
  What that really implies is that media controls legislation.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    I mean, maybe? Media stations are the first target in most coups... Cutting off alternative voices limits opposition, which is probably why Musk, Ellison, and whatever Saudi princes bought Twitter; and why TikTok was neutered. What I'm really 'implying' (ie, saying explicitly) is that we have a billionaire problem. They're strip-mining our future, and using every tool money can buy to do so. This includes the tools in the media and political class. It's blatant and in our face now, after years of being behind the scenes.
- dageshi 2y ago
  Yeah it is. Tackling climate change would've required people to potentially change their lives, possibly drastically and in doing so likely have a lower standard of living. And they didn't want to. They don't want to drive less, they don't want to fly less, they don't want smaller houses, they may say they want to do something about climate change but only so long as it doesn't actually meaningfully effect them.
  - relaxing 2y ago
    The environmental movement between 1970-1990 made great changes in the way people lived. What stopped it was all out effort by the fossil fuel industry to ensure nothing would affect their profits. I bet you can think of ways to reduce carbon output without changing square footage or miles driven.
    - votepaunchy 2y ago
      Yes, it’s called nuclear energy. We had nuclear power on the grid in 1954.
    - scoofy 2y ago
      The environmental movement was in large part, wealthy people trying to block development in their own neighborhoods. Much of that environmental movement created the sprawl we live with today.
      - relaxing 2y ago
        what the fuck
        scoofy 2y ago
        You look at the history of the sierra club. They went from an organization fighting dams and the army corp, to a group fighting neighborhood development and densification in Marin county.
        relaxing 2y ago
        Try looking beyond your beef with the Sierra club.
        scoofy 2y ago
        Have you every heard of CEQA? You can be an environmentalist (I am) and realize that much of the 'environmentalist movement' is self-serving nonsense; e.g., plastic recycling. It doesn't mean you don't care... it just means the world is less altruistic than you thought.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  It's not a billionaire problem. It's an America problem. The symbolic moment when humanity lost the fight against climate change was July 25, 1997. US Senate passed the Byrd–Hagel Resolution 95–0, effectively saying that it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Because the only superpower did not take the lead in the fight, it was doomed to fail.
- chneu 2y ago
  These are just excuses for why people won't bother. In reality, only mass behavioral change by individuals will make a difference. There is no political change without mass individual behavioral change. There is no pressure on the rich or corporations without the masses giving a crap. Your excuses are exactly the message corporations and the rich love to hear because it means their propaganda is working.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    [flagged]
- fatata123 2y ago
  [dead]
- scoofy 2y ago
  You sound like someone who hasn’t been to dozens of city council meetings where the vast majority of liberal urban dwellers would rather remove all transportation alternatives if it would make it easier for them to park their second car in front of their house.
- npteljes 2y ago
  Yes the issue is the species. Billionaires are a product of our species. What you describe is a similar thinking that murderers, drug addicts or queers are somehow dissimilar to the general population. This is not the case. The issue is a product of how a human mind works, and it presents this way because humanity improved thinking faster than how fast ecosystems could adapt. The result is a dominant species that behaves very similarly to how invasive species work. Yes, what you say is technically true, billionaires have infinite more power than you and I, and they could very well take care of a lot of bad things in the world, if they somehow chose to. And so, this power comes with responsibility as well, or so some think. Maybe we indeed could design a system that takes care that no individual rises to these unnatural heights. But, the incentives are not there. The incentives in the human say that more = better. Not in everyone, and people can certainly grow in character, a LOT - but we are talking a big number of people here, as long as there will be some that are highly functional, and also have a craving for infinite power, there will be such power imbalances in the world. So again, the issue boils down to species. And if we survive ourselves, I expect this trend to continue. Let me also bring up another species problem: Look at how much friction giving up straws caused. Fucking straws, man. I don't think it can get any more petty than that.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
The world spent $2.1 trillion on the clean energy transition last year. It's not enough, but it's certainly meaningful. https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-investment-in-the-energy-transition-exceeded-2-trillion-for-the-first-time-in-2024-according-to-bloombergnef-report/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-investment-in-the-energy-...
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  We can’t transition everyone consumption to "clean energy" and make every consumption "green". What we have today is because coal and oil are cheap and efficient and we’ll need a substancial level of consumption reduction to remove those from our toolbox. Dollars are great to incentive some consumption shift but the hard work is to be done in the consumption quantity.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Solar and wind are far cheaper than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are cheaper in Texas than pretty much any where else in the world, and they don't subsidize green, yet Texas installs far more solar and batteries than new fossil generation.

I think it's pretty obvious that nothing meaningful is going to be done. As a species we're not willing to sacrifice enough to solve this problem and I think we're probably out of time at this point.

mandmandam 2y ago

The issue isn't our species. It's our billionaires; the people who own our media and our politicians. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree we need action. Even with billions spent on propaganda, the majority of citizens believe we need action. A tiny minority of our corporate media and politicians believe we need action, and their bosses/owners are happy to fire them if they speak up too well. Look what happened to Greta once she started talking about capitalism - instant blackout on coverage. So again, this isn't a species problem. It's very much a billionaire problem, and they are not like us. Billionaires realize this, and we need to realize it as well.

sixothree 2y ago
What that really implies is that media controls legislation.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  I mean, maybe? Media stations are the first target in most coups... Cutting off alternative voices limits opposition, which is probably why Musk, Ellison, and whatever Saudi princes bought Twitter; and why TikTok was neutered. What I'm really 'implying' (ie, saying explicitly) is that we have a billionaire problem. They're strip-mining our future, and using every tool money can buy to do so. This includes the tools in the media and political class. It's blatant and in our face now, after years of being behind the scenes.
dageshi 2y ago
Yeah it is. Tackling climate change would've required people to potentially change their lives, possibly drastically and in doing so likely have a lower standard of living. And they didn't want to. They don't want to drive less, they don't want to fly less, they don't want smaller houses, they may say they want to do something about climate change but only so long as it doesn't actually meaningfully effect them.
- relaxing 2y ago
  The environmental movement between 1970-1990 made great changes in the way people lived. What stopped it was all out effort by the fossil fuel industry to ensure nothing would affect their profits. I bet you can think of ways to reduce carbon output without changing square footage or miles driven.
  - votepaunchy 2y ago
    Yes, it’s called nuclear energy. We had nuclear power on the grid in 1954.
  - scoofy 2y ago
    The environmental movement was in large part, wealthy people trying to block development in their own neighborhoods. Much of that environmental movement created the sprawl we live with today.
    - relaxing 2y ago
      what the fuck
      - scoofy 2y ago
        You look at the history of the sierra club. They went from an organization fighting dams and the army corp, to a group fighting neighborhood development and densification in Marin county.
        relaxing 2y ago
        Try looking beyond your beef with the Sierra club.
        scoofy 2y ago
        Have you every heard of CEQA? You can be an environmentalist (I am) and realize that much of the 'environmentalist movement' is self-serving nonsense; e.g., plastic recycling. It doesn't mean you don't care... it just means the world is less altruistic than you thought.
jltsiren 2y ago
It's not a billionaire problem. It's an America problem. The symbolic moment when humanity lost the fight against climate change was July 25, 1997. US Senate passed the Byrd–Hagel Resolution 95–0, effectively saying that it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Because the only superpower did not take the lead in the fight, it was doomed to fail.
chneu 2y ago
These are just excuses for why people won't bother. In reality, only mass behavioral change by individuals will make a difference. There is no political change without mass individual behavioral change. There is no pressure on the rich or corporations without the masses giving a crap. Your excuses are exactly the message corporations and the rich love to hear because it means their propaganda is working.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  [flagged]
fatata123 2y ago
[dead]
scoofy 2y ago
You sound like someone who hasn’t been to dozens of city council meetings where the vast majority of liberal urban dwellers would rather remove all transportation alternatives if it would make it easier for them to park their second car in front of their house.
npteljes 2y ago
Yes the issue is the species. Billionaires are a product of our species. What you describe is a similar thinking that murderers, drug addicts or queers are somehow dissimilar to the general population. This is not the case. The issue is a product of how a human mind works, and it presents this way because humanity improved thinking faster than how fast ecosystems could adapt. The result is a dominant species that behaves very similarly to how invasive species work. Yes, what you say is technically true, billionaires have infinite more power than you and I, and they could very well take care of a lot of bad things in the world, if they somehow chose to. And so, this power comes with responsibility as well, or so some think. Maybe we indeed could design a system that takes care that no individual rises to these unnatural heights. But, the incentives are not there. The incentives in the human say that more = better. Not in everyone, and people can certainly grow in character, a LOT - but we are talking a big number of people here, as long as there will be some that are highly functional, and also have a craving for infinite power, there will be such power imbalances in the world. So again, the issue boils down to species. And if we survive ourselves, I expect this trend to continue. Let me also bring up another species problem: Look at how much friction giving up straws caused. Fucking straws, man. I don't think it can get any more petty than that.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

The world spent $2.1 trillion on the clean energy transition last year. It's not enough, but it's certainly meaningful. https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-investment-in-the-energy-transition-exceeded-2-trillion-for-the-first-time-in-2024-according-to-bloombergnef-report/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-investment-in-the-energy-...

aziaziazi 2y ago
We can’t transition everyone consumption to "clean energy" and make every consumption "green". What we have today is because coal and oil are cheap and efficient and we’ll need a substancial level of consumption reduction to remove those from our toolbox. Dollars are great to incentive some consumption shift but the hard work is to be done in the consumption quantity.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Solar and wind are far cheaper than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are cheaper in Texas than pretty much any where else in the world, and they don't subsidize green, yet Texas installs far more solar and batteries than new fossil generation.