> Because they know that the vast majority of people advocating for climate change to be a high priority issue is because they want to use that to slow down capitalism

Is this really what you think? That the people concerned about climate change are really just interested in changing economic policy? The real motives of environmentalists is to erode capitalism? Respectfully: that's nuts.

> Let's get rich enough so everyone (even European hotels) can afford AC

This "proposal" does nothing, and in fact makes things worse, if that AC is not clean energy! Your "growth-minded" solution is not only not a solution, it's a problem exacerbator. But yes, many of us do in fact advocate for deregulation of the solar industry (I have canvassed on this very issue), and support fast tracking nuclear power. And is there even a fight against ride-sharing to stop?

I just feel like your comment is coming from a different world than my own.

▲

dmix a day ago | parent | next [-]

> The real motives of environmentalists is to erode capitalism? Respectfully: that's nuts.

Is that really controversial? Reducing consumption and crippling new economic developments like mining/pipelines/logging/large construction projects etc has always been a huge part of environmentalist movement.

Even here in Canada whose economy depends heavily on oil, lumber, and mines...One of the biggest responses to US aggression is to try to reverse that as opposed to years our of GDP growth declining in favour of climate activism and interference by native groups stopping any new projects.

You can't even build a road in BC without activists stopping it.

idk about the US but it's hard to find any industry not impacted by it here.

	▲	HelloMcFly a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Is it really controversial to say that most environmentalists want to protect ecosystems, not destroy capitalism? No, it's not controversial, it's just wrong. Must protecting ecosystems mean a hatred for capitalism? No. You’re taking effects (slower pipelines, fewer logging permits) and making those effects the activists’ "true" goal. In reality, many of the people campaigning for stronger environmental safeguards are business-friendly too, such as 1000s of economists (and many Nobel laureates) have backed a carbon tax because it uses market forces to cut emissions. Calling for long-term accounting of environmental costs isn’t anti-capitalist.
	▲	triceratops a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's not a motive, it's a consequence. There's a difference. Is environmental destruction a motive of capitalism? Of course not, and it would be crazy to say that. So why say the opposite about environmentalists?

▲

BlueTemplar 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Worse, AC in cities is counterproductive because it noticeably raises the surrounding temperature.

(And then it's the poorest people, those that cannot afford AC, and there will always be some (starting with the homeless), that suffer because of it.)

▲

FergusArgyll a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Is this really what you think? That the people concerned about climate change > are really just interested in changing economic policy?

Yes, Here's some examples:

Environmental Justice and Economic Degrowth: An Alliance between Two Movements

https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2011.648839

You can read this wonderful socialist article

https://monthlyreview.org/2023/04/01/marxian-ecology-dialect...

Or from "International socialism"

https://isj.org.uk/degrowth-and-marxism/

Or you can get a degree!

Master's Degree in Political Ecology Degrowth and Environmental Justice

https://www.uab.cat/web/postgraduate/master-in-political-eco...

	▲	HelloMcFly a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is an irritating strawman. I never claimed that no environmentalists have socialist views, or that the movements don’t sometimes overlap in policy preferences even when their motivations for such policies are wholly different. My point is simply that the vast majority of climate advocates are arguing for policies that conserve and preserve what we have into the future, and that demand the long-term costs of many of our current policies and practices are actually accounted for vs. kicking that externality to the future public. There is no hidden agenda to upend society. Many of the desires practices are growth-friendly fixes: carbon pricing, deregulating solar, advanced nuclear[1], electrifying transport, ceasing public subsidies for coal and oil. They aren’t campaigning to upend capitalism itself, but to adapt our economy so we can continue to thrive without cooking the planet, destroying ecosystems, and damaging long-term health of the natural world we rely on for life, not just recreation. Pointing to a handful of degrowth manifestos or niche graduate programs doesn’t prove that mainstream environmentalism is really a Trojan horse for anti-capitalism. If you’re looking to debate climate policy, let’s stick to the proposals most people are actually pushing—and whether they’ll work—not whether some fringe authors happen to share an ideology. [1] Not all environmentalists support this, I'll grant, but I don't know any who don't personally
	▲	17 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]