Get ready for countries like the US to "take on the responsibility" of altering the world's climate and fucking it even further.

How anyone can think that our world will not severely fuck "geoengineering" the planet is insane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSu5sXmsur4

  • Corbyn [none/use name]
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    4 years ago

    Taking all the fossil fuel companies and attributing all fuel consumption to them, as if they pump up oil for fun. From now on, I will blame the companies that produced the goods I consume.

    • PaulWall [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      yeah bc it is in thru the process of production that one pollution takes place and two that you are even able to consume it. if they didn’t produce it, there would be no pollution at all from that product. whereas if you didn’t consume it, someone else would.

      you’re solution of lowering consumption globally is literally an imposition of global individual austerity and that would take a totalitarian global government to enforce within the timeframes necessary to defeat climate change. if this is your solution how do you materialistically propose we reach the global state of control needed to ensure consumption is lowered individually?

      it seems it would take a lot more work to make sure everyone isn’t eating more than a certain amount of beef than it would to ensure only a certain amount of beef gets produced.

      • Corbyn [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        whereas if you didn’t consume it, someone else would.

        There is more than one person on the planet. There is more than one person acting responsibly. It adds up. "Someone else would do this bad thing I am about to do, so it is okay" is also a very weak defense.

        you’re solution of lowering consumption globally

        Where did I say that this is the solution? It is an easy and effective immediate action people can take. Or they can spend their time telling themselves that they are alone and nothing matters. You are advocating for the second option.

        it seems it would take a lot more work to make sure everyone isn’t eating more than a certain amount of beef than it would to ensure only a certain amount of beef gets produced.

        What is the argument here? Work != emissions. And I never said that an authority should control individual consumption. I said that individuals living unnecessarily wasteful lives are part of the problem and take some responsibility. But you go so far to even try to legitimise taking as many flights as you want, so this discussion is pointless anyway.

        • PaulWall [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          you argue in such anti-materialistic ways that to have any further argument would necessitate my attacking the very idealistic foundations upon which your thought rests. i simply don’t have the time. read marx’s capital maybe then you’ll get the point we are making