|
| ▲ | JuniperMesos 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yeah but there's a lot of individual members of society, and nearly all of them benefit from supply chains that emit CO2 and would have to stop doing so in order to not emit the CO2. If gasoline in the US cost $20/gallon this would reduce the amount of CO2 emissions because suddenly driving a gasoline-powered car is much more expensive for everyone. This would make a lot of ordinary Americans very upset. |
| |
| ▲ | Nevermark 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | All everyone needs to know is gas prices will slowly increase to $20, and change starts happening immediately. Nobody actually needs to be stuck with a $20/gallon charge. As you note, sudden discontinuous changes just create their own pushback, which works against the change. |
|
|
| ▲ | kibwen 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No, that's insufficient. Yes, corporations that cause the most warming will need to be curtailed if we're to survive. But those corporations are in the act externalizing costs. Once you force them to internalize those costs, the visible costs to consumers will increase, meaning less consumption overall. If you can't convince those consumers that less consumption is a good thing if it's in the service of saving the biosphere, then they're going to rebel against your efforts to properly force companies to account for the environmental costs of their products. There's no either/or here, it's the responsibility of both corporations and individuals. |
| |
| ▲ | harimau777 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think the problem may be that consumerism is the only thing most people have left. Capitalism has already comodified culture, ground workers down to replacable cogs, and put home ownership out of reach. I think its reasonable for people to demand that some of those things be given back in exchange for abandoning consumerism. |
|
|
| ▲ | Aerroon 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Oil companies sell you gasoline that you burn. |
