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
Guess how billionaires become billionaires: By us voting for them to become billionaires with our wallets.
If you don’t like their practices, stop sending them money. Billions quickly turn to nothings if there is no consumer appeal.
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.
No one gets that wealthy without making some anti climate decisions.
I agree that consumers generally prefer to buy from people who make anti-climate decisions.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. You can buy from those who make climate-friendly decisions instead. It will no doubt cost a lot more in the typical case as destroying the climate is a lot easier than not, but you can’t have it both ways.
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.
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.
So, there you go, $450 for your yearly food supply – $37 per month – and the only harm to the climate is you! Much, much, friendlier for the climate than having a farmer’s 600HP tractor getting drunk off diesel fuel like it is going out of style, and much more affordable for someone whose time is worthless. And at the same time you have killed agribusiness, bankrupting many once-billionaire executives from John Deere, to Cargill, to Loblaw, and everything in between – preventing them from continuing with their climate destroying activities.
There are always options. The reality is nobody cares about the climate. They may pay lip service to it, but words mean nothing without action. It’s easier to pretend it is someone else’s fault. And when that someone continues to be “at fault”, we can sit back and say “We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!” while congratulating ourselves for a job well done. If the situation weren’t so sad, it would be hilarious.
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.
Was going to mention the cost of labour
No need. I already did. A large part of the comment talks about cost of labour. It is central to the whole discussion. Weird that you didn’t read anything before replying.
Why even bother if you are not going to take in what is going on around you? Especially when all you could muster was a logic failure. Did even that go unnoticed?
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.
Where did you get your $300/acre/yr figure?
The lease contracts sitting on my desk…? Did you have a better source in mind?
Unless you’re suggesting we collectivise agriculture, then sure.
Sure, if you want. I don’t care how you work out the details of your life. All this thread is about is recognizing that if you change nothing, nothing will change. Do you actually want change, or do you only want to talk about change?
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!
