No, the producers of fossil fuels get a ton of benefits in the form of money. You get health issues, climate change and desinformation (paid by a fraction of those big amounts of money) telling you how the clean and more efficient alternative isn’t working and so you will have to suffer if you chose the alternative.
Also the polution’s drawbacks from global climate change to your personal health problems aren’t real… or they are real but not as severe as people claim… well actually they are severe but we can totally fix those easier than transitioning away from burning the planet… okay maybe we can’t fix it but totally demolishing our economy by not killing the planet would be much more expensive… and so on, ad infinitum ad nauseam.
When you look around your room do you not see a plethora of goods made by polluting industries?
Do you travel exclusively by foot?
Do you eat only foods that can be brought to your area without refrigerated trucks?
Other’s have certainly reaped the lions share of the profits from pollution but we reaped huge benefits from it. None of us are willing to give up the computers or network infrastructure we’re using to have this conversation so it’s safe to say that those computers and the network infrastructure are benefits that we value.
When you look around your room do you not see a plethora of goods made by polluting industries?
No, but yeah some trees died for furniture. 🙄
Do you travel exclusively by foot?
No, also by bike and public transport. Which partly is still running on fossil fuels (although still vastly more efficient per person) because brain rot (or money) tells people in the relevant positions that greener alternatives don’t work or are inefficient.
Even for people actually dependent on cars it’s not real facts that keeps them chained to rediculously oversized cars running on inefficient combustion engines. That exclusively based on propaganda, paid by the people that want to keep selling fossil fuels.
Do you eat only foods that can be brought to your area without refrigerated trucks?
Mostly actual… but that isn’t even the point. I talked specifically about the big chunk of pollution that is burning fossil fuels. Are you trying to tell me that you can’t transport those electric (on the last mile), by (also electrified) train and that you can’t run the refrigerators on green electricity somehow?
None of us are willing to give up the computers or network infrastructure
Which was very much not my point. What I was talking about is people’s unwillingness to use greener and also more efficient alternatives for a lot of things. Not based on facts. Not based on the unwillingless to go without them completely. But 100% based on loud, constant, paid screaming that those alternatives don’t work and are more expensive and really, really don’t solve any real problems other that stopping the massive burning of fossils (but shhh… don’t talk about that small detail).
I really don’t understand your focus on computers and networks that actually have a lot of pros, too, when people not willing to give up their city-tanks or three dozen throw away plastic bags a week (although there are alternatives in no way worse) and often also voting for idiots clinging to fossil fuel power plants and car infrastructure above anything else are also a big problem. Ones we could actually easily solve yet don’t because paid narratives are running the show.
How about food then? About 50% of the food on earth relies on the Haber Bosch process.
Are we willing to give up half our food?
You’re absolutely correct that there are many environmentally beneficial choices we can make with minimal impact on our welfare. It’s a lie to pretend that any significant amount of it can be done at no cost. We just need to be willing to pay that cost.
No, the producers of fossil fuels get a ton of benefits in the form of money. You get health issues, climate change and desinformation (paid by a fraction of those big amounts of money) telling you how the clean and more efficient alternative isn’t working and so you will have to suffer if you chose the alternative.
Also the polution’s drawbacks from global climate change to your personal health problems aren’t real… or they are real but not as severe as people claim… well actually they are severe but we can totally fix those easier than transitioning away from burning the planet… okay maybe we can’t fix it but totally demolishing our economy by not killing the planet would be much more expensive… and so on, ad infinitum ad nauseam.
When you look around your room do you not see a plethora of goods made by polluting industries?
Do you travel exclusively by foot?
Do you eat only foods that can be brought to your area without refrigerated trucks?
Other’s have certainly reaped the lions share of the profits from pollution but we reaped huge benefits from it. None of us are willing to give up the computers or network infrastructure we’re using to have this conversation so it’s safe to say that those computers and the network infrastructure are benefits that we value.
No, but yeah some trees died for furniture. 🙄
No, also by bike and public transport. Which partly is still running on fossil fuels (although still vastly more efficient per person) because brain rot (or money) tells people in the relevant positions that greener alternatives don’t work or are inefficient.
Even for people actually dependent on cars it’s not real facts that keeps them chained to rediculously oversized cars running on inefficient combustion engines. That exclusively based on propaganda, paid by the people that want to keep selling fossil fuels.
Mostly actual… but that isn’t even the point. I talked specifically about the big chunk of pollution that is burning fossil fuels. Are you trying to tell me that you can’t transport those electric (on the last mile), by (also electrified) train and that you can’t run the refrigerators on green electricity somehow?
Which was very much not my point. What I was talking about is people’s unwillingness to use greener and also more efficient alternatives for a lot of things. Not based on facts. Not based on the unwillingless to go without them completely. But 100% based on loud, constant, paid screaming that those alternatives don’t work and are more expensive and really, really don’t solve any real problems other that stopping the massive burning of fossils (but shhh… don’t talk about that small detail).
I really don’t understand your focus on computers and networks that actually have a lot of pros, too, when people not willing to give up their city-tanks or three dozen throw away plastic bags a week (although there are alternatives in no way worse) and often also voting for idiots clinging to fossil fuel power plants and car infrastructure above anything else are also a big problem. Ones we could actually easily solve yet don’t because paid narratives are running the show.
How about food then? About 50% of the food on earth relies on the Haber Bosch process.
Are we willing to give up half our food?
You’re absolutely correct that there are many environmentally beneficial choices we can make with minimal impact on our welfare. It’s a lie to pretend that any significant amount of it can be done at no cost. We just need to be willing to pay that cost.
You are ignoring so much just to make a myopic point.
Such as…