That list in particular , yes they can be covered by renewables
Im am of the belief that we cant maintain our current lavish lives on renewables alone though.
Personally I think scaling back mixed with renewables is the answer. Less priority for the meat industry (of which I am a partaker), more work from home, more low emmision public transport.
There is no one silver bullet in the fight against the climate change. It will take an amalgamation of methods.
I agree with all of these things, but I find it doubtful that the industry, if left to the whims of its industry leaders, will ever take the plunge of their own accord, because they’re making too much money producing fossil fuels. And that income includes massive subsidies, eclipsing any efforts towards renewables, meaning the state is also in collusion.
The quickest path to mitigating the effects of climate catastrophe is to reform out economic and therefore political system. Easier said than done though
Why? Production would be drastically lower, because there’s no need to flood the market. Democracy would dictate what gets produced, so an educated population would object to polluting industries, and thus not support them, leading to their demise.
So demonstrate it. The vast majority of pollution is caused by extremely profitable capitalist industries, supported by neoliberal capitalist states. And democratic will continues to swing towards reduction, yet states, bought off by fossil fuel companies, refuse to take action.
Source? Do people just not go to school or have ambitions to improve the world, simply because their basic needs are met? You think no one dreams of tech in communism? That a social order based on cooperation and mutual aid would not engender exactly that?
I tried to find a scholarly article titled “economic incentives” that proves that socialism doesn’t heavily invest in technology, but found none. I ended up discovering great leaps in technology in the USSR and China, though.
Also, those economic incentives are driving climate change. I googled it and found that capitalist states pay fucking billions into fossil fuels.
In the face of capitalist derived climate catastrophe, I’m not sure if we have any options.
All you need to do here is show that non-capitalist systems won’t consume fossil fuels, which I find to be extremely unlikely.
Communism doesn’t incentive excess production or planned obsolescence. Historically they also had good public transportation.
Im saying there is a lot of energy waste in capitalism that leads to tons of emisions
Its no coincidence that the the US is one of the highest emitters of carbon.
Energy waste like heating homes, powering hospitals, and getting food from point A to point B?
Considering the Holodomor maybe that last point I can concede
What exactly are you arguing?
Are you suggesting communist societies don’t have heat, hospitals and transport?
Are you suggesting there aren’t green methods to achieve those?
That list in particular , yes they can be covered by renewables
Im am of the belief that we cant maintain our current lavish lives on renewables alone though.
Personally I think scaling back mixed with renewables is the answer. Less priority for the meat industry (of which I am a partaker), more work from home, more low emmision public transport.
There is no one silver bullet in the fight against the climate change. It will take an amalgamation of methods.
I agree with all of these things, but I find it doubtful that the industry, if left to the whims of its industry leaders, will ever take the plunge of their own accord, because they’re making too much money producing fossil fuels. And that income includes massive subsidies, eclipsing any efforts towards renewables, meaning the state is also in collusion.
Oh absolutely. No disagreements here.
The quickest path to mitigating the effects of climate catastrophe is to reform out economic and therefore political system. Easier said than done though
No. The exact opposite.
I think you clearly are misinterpreting my argument.
Capitalism produces MORE emissions. That’s all im saying. I never said Communism produces zero emmisions.
Citation needed
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Scroll down to the breakdown by year by country. None of the communist inclusive countries and continents even make the list.
South America, famous for its communist and socialist revolutions is barely a blip on that graph, as a whole continent.
Those aren’t wastages. Also…
https://youtu.be/3kaaYvauNho?si=TVoinmNrI10gq6TU
Lmao I can’t believe you actually linked some shit-ass YouTube video saying the Holodomor was fine, actually.
A thoroughly researched essay on the subject
saying the Soviet famine was a fucking travesty, and Stalin should be shot, but there is no indication it was a deliberate policy
At least watch the first 10 seconds, ya fucking goof
Why? Production would be drastically lower, because there’s no need to flood the market. Democracy would dictate what gets produced, so an educated population would object to polluting industries, and thus not support them, leading to their demise.
Because people love to not die, and suddenly ending our use of fossil fuels would kill a fuckload of people.
Dude think for half a minute
First off, I disagree with that assessment. But secondly, are you implying climate change won’t kill people?
No I’m responding to the idea that communists won’t use fossil fuels, which they did, and would.
How do you think Venezuela affords their socialism?
This is just the dumbest take possible.
Where did I say communists don’t use fossil fuels? I do maintain they use objectively less though. There just less need less production all around.
Hell, your knowledge about. Venezuela is even incorrect. Its categorically a failed socialist state, not a communist one.
Neither of those things are capitalist, so my statement holds.
If people need to consume fossil fuels, socialists or communists will produce fossil fuels. This isnt rocket science.
“People” are not responsible for the majority of our emissions. Businesses are, as well as the military to an inordinate extent.
Again, I never once mentioned a zero fossil fuel society. You are putting words in my mouth.
People don’t need to consume fossil fuels, though, so… 🤷♂️
Defeated by your own argument
No one said communism “doesn’t use fossil fuels”, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to disprove that
The argument is that climate change is a result of capitalism which is demonstrably false.
So demonstrate it. The vast majority of pollution is caused by extremely profitable capitalist industries, supported by neoliberal capitalist states. And democratic will continues to swing towards reduction, yet states, bought off by fossil fuel companies, refuse to take action.
It doesn’t need to end fucking immediately, because of that very reason.
Think for just a second, friendo.
Weird that you’d want economic conditions that don’t contribute to new tech rather than economic conditions that do contribute to new tech, then.
Also I’m not your friend.
Source? Do people just not go to school or have ambitions to improve the world, simply because their basic needs are met? You think no one dreams of tech in communism? That a social order based on cooperation and mutual aid would not engender exactly that?
A source on socialism having less incentive to fund new technologies and more barriers in the way of such progress?
It’s called “economic incentives” and you are more than capable of giving it a Google.
I tried to find a scholarly article titled “economic incentives” that proves that socialism doesn’t heavily invest in technology, but found none. I ended up discovering great leaps in technology in the USSR and China, though.
Also, those economic incentives are driving climate change. I googled it and found that capitalist states pay fucking billions into fossil fuels.