• @chumbalumber
      link
      English
      52 months ago

      It reminds me of the discourse around ‘x companies are the cause of x% of global emissions’.

      Yes, that’s true, but they’re doing so to meet a demand. We can (and should) take action to regulate these companies and force more environmentally friendly methods of production, but that will have ramifications on costs. Ultimately the most efficient way may be to reduce demand for some goods and services.

      I work as a transport planner, for instance, and a huge number of emissions come from cars, but also the built environment (building and maintaining transport infrastructure). If we’re going to be serious about dropping emissions, we need to fundamentally change the way we plan and build transport networks, including potentially cutting demand, one way or another.

      All this against a backdrop of an incredibly unequitable transport infrastructure; if you hike costs then you knacker the ability of disadvantaged groups to get around for work, but also pleasure. Poor people deserve to be able to go on holiday too.

      My general point is that for every smartarse post that says “climate change is easy to stop, all we need to do is cut the head off the snake” neglects to recognise that this isn’t a snake of a problem; it’s a hydra.

      (Blech, melodramatic, but it does wind me up).

    • @Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      Not with that attitude we won’t

      The thing is that we should keep killing those CEOs until nobody wants to work that position, unless they appease the climate fanatics.