this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
938 points (98.8% liked)

World News

32289 readers
773 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hh93@lemm.ee 43 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Too many people believe they can just continue living like they were 30 years ago - if big oil would stop producing stuff and plastics, gas and airplane fuels would not be available anymore then people would riot

Even threatening to increase prices to a level that would make sense to limit the use to absolutely necessary levels would piss off too many people to be a viable option because everyone just wants to believe that it's just for "the others" to change but not for themselves.

Everyone has to act and change their Livestyle...

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Lol that's the world's largest prisoner dilemma, never going to happen. People are big children, and you need to treat them as such. You don't let the child decide whether it's going to eat candy or real food, you take away the option of candy because they cannot be trusted to make decisions that are good for them in the long run. This is no different, it's why we have things like regulations and the FDA.

[–] hh93@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah exactly but in our situation we also have the children voting and one party is promising them to not take away the candy

I really don't see how this can ever work out... :/

[–] Matt_Shatt@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Not to mention the “adults” in this comparison don’t actually care about the child or the candy, they just care about retaining the ability to control your candy and will do anything and everything to keep stockpiling that sweet, sweet money.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

You do realize that they are children ruled by other children who shouldn't get that kind of authority? Do you know what children with power over other children do?

[–] Zeeroover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Absolutely correct. I myself don't have children, don't have a car, and I don't eat meat. Just pick any of those 3 and try to deal with the reactions to it. People are big children.

[–] Uli@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Cool metaphor and all, but just want to be super clear. We're talking about regulating oil, right? And plastics, coal, other fossil fuel derivatives. And no one's going to come take away my candy. Stay away from my candy. Don't take it, it's mine.

[–] DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

This is the truth right there. Gas prices went up two measly dollars compared to normal in 2022, and everyone flipped the fuck out. People were prepared to elect Republicans-- fucking Republicans- to office, they were so furious about it.

And don't @ me about "100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions". Who's buying those corporations' goods? Who's refusing to vote for politicians that'll meaningfully regulate these corporations? Who's spending all day fantasizing about Da Revolushun^TM that'll never fucking come (and would kill tens of millions of civilians and likely result in fascists winning and seizing control of your country, if not the whole thing splintering into a bunch of warring fiefdoms controlled by ruthless oligarchs) instead of getting to actual work trying to effect real change in the real world? And I don't mean "direct action" (read: looking edgy and getting photos for the 'gram), I mean actually fucking getting policy passed that'll have a real impact on people's real lives.

[–] Ooops@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Gas prices went up two measly dollars compared to normal in 2022, and everyone flipped the fuck out.

Yeah, sure. They flipped out because the love their cars so much and don't want to change anything. Oh, wait. No, they flipped out because companies and corrupt politicians made them completely dependent on cars so they will starve without them and kept them so poor that even increasing the cost of using the cars they dependent on just a bit again ends with starving.

And here you are babbling none-sense again about how it's the stupid people buying products -as if they had a choice- and not the companies and politicians that are to blame.

[–] Balex@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Not to mention that the gas companies were reporting record profits after increasing the price.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Emissions can’t be stopped at the point of consumption.

[–] bear@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They didn't say we can stop it at our individual points of consumption. They explicitly mentioned policy. People need to be willing to support policy that will drastically change their own lives, likely in ways they don't even realize, and be ready to live with that. Otherwise pretty soon we won't be living with much at all.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

don’t @ me about “100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions”. Who’s buying those corporations’ goods?

Suggesting that the consumer is responsible for emissions at the point of production betrays a deep misunderstanding of climate change.

Suggesting that “people’s” willingness to support policy that would change their lives is holding back cuts to emissions at the point of production betrays a similarly deep misunderstanding of political power.

[–] reverendz@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

This is it exactly. We have to turn off the f*cking spigot at the source!

There is no amount of science or innovation that's going to save us. It's going to take "holy shit we're all going to die horribly" panic from world leaders to forcefully cut off the source, which is oil and its byproducts.

Short of that, no amount of responsible consumerism can stem this tide.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Policy like regulating those 100 corporations?

[–] DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. I said so explicitly in my previous comment.

[–] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Seems odd to say

And don't @ me about "100 corporations are responsible for like 90% of emissions". Who's buying those corporations' goods?

People bringing up the 100 corporations are usually calling for regulations on them, and the "you're the ones buying the goods" people are usually calling for Personal Responsibility and Voting With Your Wallet.

[–] 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (11 children)

It’s possible to both think those companies should be regulated and that people are doing almost nothing personally to help, including electing people to enact those policies. For most people I talk to the “but 100 corps” is a total deflection of personal responsibility. This crisis will not be solved without a good heaping helping of both personal responsibility and aggressive government regulation. If nothing else because that aggressive regulation will never pass into law unless people acknowledge their personal responsibility and are willing to accept the sacrifices that will come with it.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In the US, unless you are willing to vote third party, you don't get the choice to vote for Anti-Capitalist politicians. And there are millions of liberals waiting in line to scold you for not voting for the parties of Capital.

[–] 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago
  1. Primaries
  2. Politicians don’t care because the general population doesn’t care. Guarantee if it was on the top of the list of peoples concerns even the corporate shills of the main parties would give it more than just lip service. but climate change didn’t even crack the top 10 voter issue concerns in 2022 midterms (it was 14th)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)

Sorry, I'm so used to hanging out in left-of-center places I make the mistake of assuming everyone understands how BS the whole "personal responsibilty" shtick is and is onboard with strict regulations to fight climate change. So I tend not to explicitly call it out in my posts, assuming it goes unsaid. Which might be a bad assumption to make in more centrist / non-explicitly-liberal spaces.

Will try to be clearer in the future :)

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s almost like our society is car centered, and raising gas prices directly results in worse outcomes for the majority of people. You can’t expect people to just stop using cars, but you can use the state to create massive infrastructure policies paid for wholly by the polluting industries who most heavily profit from our current situation. Use the next decade to build high speed rail, electrified busses and lightrails, subway systems, and other mass transit, and then when gas prices go up, people will have an option other than cutting back on their food to ensure they make it to work every day.

I replied to the wrong comment in this thread, but if I delete it’ll only delete from my instance, so I’m just gonna leave it.

[–] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Our society is 100% car centered. My kids' schools are miles away from my house, my job is miles away, and you cannot convince me to ride a bike or walk when it's over 100°F outside. Fuck that shit. I'm happy to take public transit, but any public transit available to me isn't feasible because it would take literally 1.5-2 hours to get to work and back each way, which cuts down severely on my family time. And I can't work from home either due to the nature of my job, which is maintaining the machines that build microchips.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

If i could buy none polluting alternatives to anything i currently buy, you can bet your life that i would.

But i dont have alot of choice.

I do what i can.

Maybe ill give it all up and go live in the woods somewhere. Become self sufficient. Maybe the capitalists will notice im gone..... or not... probably not.

[–] CountryBreakfast@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Supply creates it's own demand. Capital knows this. That's why they push your narrative.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago

It's a regular liberal trick, to insist on looking at the consumer while the producer laughs at us on their yacht. In the meantime, their managers, agents, lawyers, and accountants work tirelessly to make sure that what they offer, in the form they offer it, are the only options.

They'll buy a stake in public transport and run it to the ground so that people are forced to buy and use cars. They'll drop the prices in their supermarket so the local grocer with local suppliers can't afford to stay open. They'll build obsolescence into every product so you have to keep buying new ones, and the old one is thrown into landfill. They'll campaign against nuclear energy under the guise of green activism, then complain that wind and solar must be backed by fossil fuels. They'll buy all the newspapers and news channels, ensuring the only narrative is theirs—dog eat dog and the activist down the road is coming for your way of life. They'll buy the recording studios and reinforce these messages in film, TV, music: that petite bourgeois living is peak aspiration and that 'there is no alternative' as if we lack imagination.

Then the public will continue that good work for them. Condescending all who disagree. Arguing that capitalism isn't the problem because humans are greedy or any of the other unassailable, facile, and trite logics that we're forced to hear constantly but which have no grounding in reality.

[–] mars296@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I agree with you.. It passes people off because their entire life is dependent on fossil fuels. When its been encouraged by society/government for decades and now people have to drive miles to get to the nearest grocery store/point of interest they don't have an alternative that isn't uprooting their whole lives.

If you are going tax gas what it should be taxed, you also need to simultaneously make changes that will help people transition to sustainable alternatives. An amount of people will resist no matter what but you need a carrot to go along with the stick.

[–] SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Where I live we get one or more times a week 40°C and over days.

Going from home to work is a 30 minutes drive for me. I drive a 2004 petrol Opel Agila.

The train requires you to be on-point, otherwise is a 50 minutes wait for the next run. Also, from the main train station to work is a 20 minutes added walk. This is not too bad, but the worst part is doing the walk under the heat we have here during the summer. Good thing it ends up actually being cheaper than driving my Agila, counting a subscription is €30 while I fuel €15 each week.

The bus is never on-point, always late, always destroyed, always trashy, always overwhelmingly full, skips runs and its not uncommon for it to stop working while you are on it. And you still need the 20 minutes walk. By the way, its too a paid service.

When I will be able to financially, I want to at least move to a newer electric vehicle or use the train during fall and winter. But at least right now during summer, I just can't without arriving at work like a bucket of salt water had been thrown at me (as there is little good shade on the way) and we don't have showers at work.

Other people might not even have the chance to made this decision, as public services can be even harder to use in some other areas.

load more comments (2 replies)