There’s a lie in there, but it’s one you’ve been told. We wouldn’t necessarily need to sacrifice anything. Our standard of living could remain roughly the same, as long as a certain small percentage of the population saw their standard of living dramatically decrease to something resembling our own.
This is true for a lot of things, but I don’t think it holds for climate change. The people you’re talking about gain money by selling products and services to the common people, who want them for one reason or another. As long as those products and services exist, who owns them doesn’t contribute much to climate change. For example even if Amazon became a worker co-op tomorrow I don’t see how there’d be a fundamental effect on their contribution to climate change.
I mean yes but the factor here is same day delivery and cars, not who owns them (setting aside how owners of these services have an incentive to encourage their use).
I mean true enough, but unless those taxes are then used to combat climate change it won’t accomplish much (and even then climate change isn’t the kind of problem that goes away if you throw money at it). What I’m trying to say is: We should be taking rich people’s money, but there’s not much relation between rich people being rich and climate change.
I don’t think many people have good understanding of what living standard even actually means, which in turn causes fear and anxiety when they are told it would drop. And I think it is much overexaggerated how much this drop would actually affect daily life for majorty of the people around the world.
deleted by creator
There’s a lie in there, but it’s one you’ve been told. We wouldn’t necessarily need to sacrifice anything. Our standard of living could remain roughly the same, as long as a certain small percentage of the population saw their standard of living dramatically decrease to something resembling our own.
This is true for a lot of things, but I don’t think it holds for climate change. The people you’re talking about gain money by selling products and services to the common people, who want them for one reason or another. As long as those products and services exist, who owns them doesn’t contribute much to climate change. For example even if Amazon became a worker co-op tomorrow I don’t see how there’d be a fundamental effect on their contribution to climate change.
Removed by mod
I mean yes but the factor here is same day delivery and cars, not who owns them (setting aside how owners of these services have an incentive to encourage their use).
Removed by mod
I mean true enough, but unless those taxes are then used to combat climate change it won’t accomplish much (and even then climate change isn’t the kind of problem that goes away if you throw money at it). What I’m trying to say is: We should be taking rich people’s money, but there’s not much relation between rich people being rich and climate change.
There actually is; the wealthiest are responsible for a wildly disproportionate share of emissions.
Oh that’s a good point. I don’t think that’s what they were talking about, but yeah you got me there.
I don’t think many people have good understanding of what living standard even actually means, which in turn causes fear and anxiety when they are told it would drop. And I think it is much overexaggerated how much this drop would actually affect daily life for majorty of the people around the world.
Removed by mod
Yeaaahh, see, our living standard is going to drop because of climate change anyway. If we act sooner we get more choices about how and who suffers.
I prefer a handful of billionaires “suffer” now instead of literally billions of poor people in a couple of decades… That’s a choice we could make.
Not a vote winner, obvs. So we’ll just continue to sleepwalk into the unknown.