Really couldn’t disagree more with this article but here’s the big one that stands out:
Second, what must be done runs directly counter to the way the economy currently works.
It does not run counter to our existing system at all. We don’t live in capitalist anarchy, we have a government that can act pretty broadly here, actually. The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.
If your complaint is that solutions to your prioritized issue are coming too slow, join the club, that’s definitely true. But that is a different complaint.
Government is the only player who can provide a solution short of a revolution.
The issue is that we have criters and their boomer enables who think this is the their turn to loot younger generations. So reforms are not ton the table.
Selection of critters up for vote does not install any confidance, at this rate something might happen in 2030s.
The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.
I presume you’re either joking or you’re trusting IPCC numbers to judge the severity of the problem. The examples you give are nowhere near what’s needed. We need massive reductions in construction, commercial air travel, cars, and manufacturing of most junk that you can buy at a store today. How are you going to accomplish any of this in the capitalist economic system?
Edit: what I mean regarding IPCC is that I understand that their numbers are completely unrealistic because they are assuming carbon capture technology and scales that don’t and won’t exist.
Edit 2: add meat consumption as another item that needs to be massively reduced.
I’m not saying my examples are the thing that solves climate change, just that there are paths other than “let corporations do whatever they want.” Government acted to reduce acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Government can act to reduce climate change. That means there is a path in our current system.
Total US greenhouse gas emissions are lower than they were in 1990 and they have been going down for years. The question is if we can get low enough, fast enough, globally, to prevent as many negative impacts as possible. That sort of balancing of priorities and costs and benefits is why we have government.
Ok, but again, the impending climate disaster is an exponentially bigger problem than acid rain or the ozone hole were. The fact that it was possible to address those previous environmental problems despite capitalism is only weak evidence that the same can be done with the climate issue.
Total US greenhouse gas emissions are lower than they were in 1990
That was as of 2020, three years ago, when emissions were the lowest they had been in a long time, due to the pandemic. As of 2021, there was already a big rebound in emissions, per the same source that your link cited: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks - by now, we may very well be above 1990. That’s still better than I had thought though.
The pandemic emissions dip is a really good example of what we’re discussing, by the way. Essentially, it clearly demonstrates that greenhouse gas emissions are directly proportional to economic activity. When economic activity was suddenly and drastically reduced by the pandemic, GHG emissions were also reduced. How will this ever happen in the very compressed time frame that’s needed with business as usual with regard to capitalism?
I was thinking a lot about this last week and reached the conclusion that the only chance we will have will be to do away with capitalism as the primary economic system around the world. Unfortunately, I also reached the conclusion that democracy itself may also need to be sacrificed to make all this happen within the short time frame that’s needed, as problematic as I think that idea is.
Really couldn’t disagree more with this article but here’s the big one that stands out:
It does not run counter to our existing system at all. We don’t live in capitalist anarchy, we have a government that can act pretty broadly here, actually. The government can and has done cap and trade on NOx and SO2. The government can and has provided tax credits to make alternative energy more cost effective sooner.
If your complaint is that solutions to your prioritized issue are coming too slow, join the club, that’s definitely true. But that is a different complaint.
Government is the only player who can provide a solution short of a revolution.
The issue is that we have criters and their boomer enables who think this is the their turn to loot younger generations. So reforms are not ton the table.
Selection of critters up for vote does not install any confidance, at this rate something might happen in 2030s.
Not all boomers are down with this sickness. And with climate change on its way, I think you answered your own question about what is needed.
You gonna fight in that revolution?
Depends. You gonna wear the buttress chaps I bought you?
So no, then.
I’d absolutely wear the chaps, btw.
Imagine still believing that governments work for the people and not for the capitalists… 🤯
I gave examples of government solutions working. Your bumper sticker response does not refute that.
I presume you’re either joking or you’re trusting IPCC numbers to judge the severity of the problem. The examples you give are nowhere near what’s needed. We need massive reductions in construction, commercial air travel, cars, and manufacturing of most junk that you can buy at a store today. How are you going to accomplish any of this in the capitalist economic system?
Edit: what I mean regarding IPCC is that I understand that their numbers are completely unrealistic because they are assuming carbon capture technology and scales that don’t and won’t exist.
Edit 2: add meat consumption as another item that needs to be massively reduced.
I’m not saying my examples are the thing that solves climate change, just that there are paths other than “let corporations do whatever they want.” Government acted to reduce acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Government can act to reduce climate change. That means there is a path in our current system.
Total US greenhouse gas emissions are lower than they were in 1990 and they have been going down for years. The question is if we can get low enough, fast enough, globally, to prevent as many negative impacts as possible. That sort of balancing of priorities and costs and benefits is why we have government.
Ok, but again, the impending climate disaster is an exponentially bigger problem than acid rain or the ozone hole were. The fact that it was possible to address those previous environmental problems despite capitalism is only weak evidence that the same can be done with the climate issue.
That was as of 2020, three years ago, when emissions were the lowest they had been in a long time, due to the pandemic. As of 2021, there was already a big rebound in emissions, per the same source that your link cited: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks - by now, we may very well be above 1990. That’s still better than I had thought though.
The pandemic emissions dip is a really good example of what we’re discussing, by the way. Essentially, it clearly demonstrates that greenhouse gas emissions are directly proportional to economic activity. When economic activity was suddenly and drastically reduced by the pandemic, GHG emissions were also reduced. How will this ever happen in the very compressed time frame that’s needed with business as usual with regard to capitalism?
I was thinking a lot about this last week and reached the conclusion that the only chance we will have will be to do away with capitalism as the primary economic system around the world. Unfortunately, I also reached the conclusion that democracy itself may also need to be sacrificed to make all this happen within the short time frame that’s needed, as problematic as I think that idea is.