• Mateoto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    We are over the edge of no return.

    We should stop begging for change and act now. Politics must hurt them with reforms, taxes, and the rule of law.

    We cannot stop climate change now, but we can try to de-accelerate by fighting against big oil, corrupt politics, and billionaire newspapers supporting them.

    • masquenox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Politics must hurt them with reforms, taxes, and the rule of law.

      Yeah… that’s how we ended up in this situation. How do you think these giant corporations became so powerful? They “reformed” laws until they could do whatever the hell they please - that’s what “reform” gets you.

    • Licherally@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Politicians love their bribes more than they love the planet, so that’s probably not going to happen. Dems and cons both

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Ya right. When has prices went over 5 dollars a gallon in the US, people there list their minds. God forbid we should drive a bit less or consume less.

      This is a consumer problem not big oil. The second biggest company in the world by revenue and by far the largest by profit is Saudi Aramco. And why are they so big and countries like Russia are energy giants? Because we are tax and regulated our oil companies significantly more while increasing our consumption. Instead of buying locally, we are now buying from countries like Russia and Saudia Arabia. Look how that is working out.

      • Steeve@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        What a vague and silly comment, half the world’s top contributors to greenhouse gasses aren’t even capitalist countries. I get the fediverse isn’t a fan of capitalism, but you can’t just blanketly blame everything on it.

        • masquenox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 years ago

          The US military is the single largest polluter organisation on the planet - do tell me how we can’t blame capitalism again?

          And just for your information - that other gigantic capitalist country you falsely believe isn’t capitalist? Guess what? It’s capitalist.

          • Steeve@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            25
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            China is the number one greenhouse gas contributor, Russia is near the top of the list as well. Fuck off tankies.

            • FluffyPotato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 years ago

              Those 2 are literally capitalist countries. Also tankies are the ones who commonly say China is not capitalist.

            • masquenox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 years ago

              China is the number one

              Sooo… a capitalist state?

              Russia is near the top

              Sooo… another capitalist state?

              Fuck off tankies.

              You don’t know what a tankie is, do you?

              I knew it was a bad day when we allowed liberals access to that word.

                • masquenox@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  You walked blindly into this argument with absolutely zero understanding of the subject matter at hand, didn’t you?

                • ghost_laptop@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Do you think a tankie would say China is a capitalist nation? Liberalism really is worse than brain cancer. They are either an anarchist or some other shit, you just see the names of the enemies of the empire and scream, you poor ignorant Gringo.

    • u_tamtam@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      You can have industrialized production and consumerism without capitalism. Not that I’m defending capitalism, I just think our problem is deeper than what you make it, and human nature combined with unchecked technological ability to remodel out planet would yield the same outcome, no matter the dominant flavor of our economical structure.

      • albigu@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I’d recommend looking into how indigenous people have historically dealt and wish to deal with climate change before claiming much about “human nature”. A lot of so-called “human nature” is just the universalisation of European capitalist values. I suggest starting by reading about the Red Deal, specially if you’re from the USA.

        • u_tamtam@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Although interesting, I don’t think your link is the gotcha counterexample you think it is. Previous civilizations caused environmental collapses without having capitalism to blame for it. We could switch overnight to soviet style communism and that would not solve anything if our expectation is to provide everyone on earth with their today’s living standards. We could blame greed, selfishness and that would take us closer to the truth, but even that would be very shortsighted. We would need all humans on earth to be united around a same goal and same path forward, and share the same willingness to sacrifice. No sect or religion has ever achieved that and never will (we are just so many, and spread that wide).

          Looking at the world from the lens of an economic ideology alone only gets you so far. Wrong tool for the job.

  • masquenox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    2 years ago

    Oh, the capitalists didn’t do what their public relations exercises pretended they were going to do? Golly gee… no one could have seen that coming at all.

  • DragonAce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    These companies will not change unless they are forced to do so and our government isn’t going to do shit since most of congress is in the pocket of big oil. So what are our other options?

    Everyone likes to blame individuals for not using renewables or buying an electric car, when it reality their options were limited in the first place by big oil. Most people can barely afford to put food on the table and green or renewable products are usually significantly more expensive and not really an option. Besides that, IIRC ordinary citizens only account for roughly 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions. So the onus lies on big oil to make changes and offer affordable renewable options instead of the same gas guzzling/polluting bullshit we’ve been offered up to this point. But like I said, they won’t do something like that unless they are forced to do so, they will always pursue profit over people, unless those people get in their faces and force them to pursue other options.

    • reverendz@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s time for radical action and violent resistance.

      We’re staring into the face of human extinction and people are still quibbling about consumer choice.

      it’s going to take much, much more direct and violent action to force change.

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      If current green companies can’t make affordable options, why in God’s earth would you think it would be cheaper if conventional energy companies join the mix?

      Your entire statement is conflicting. Angry about high costs being unaffordable then suggesting oil companies to not produce low cost energy that keeps prices down while acknowledging the high cost of green energy.

    • explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      most of congress is in the pocket of big oil. So what are our other options?

      Vote only for candidates against FPTP. When that’s gone, we can just vote for candidates who are against big oil.

        • explodicle@local106.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Their unwillingness to act on climate change is a major (if not the biggest) reason we need representation. The Democrats hand power back to Republicans who undo this session’s climate action.

          Destroying the world more slowly by slightly impacting one election at a time brought us here.

          • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            I understand and support the sentiment: something needs to change. I just don’t think that re-framing electoral politics will work unless it’s backed by a mass movement of organised workers. If that happens, the question becomes, why bother with the middlemen? They can legislate for themselves without having to beg the ruling class for mild compromises.

            Destroying the world more slowly by slightly impacting one election at a time brought us here.

            That’s kinda what I was driving it. How many elections would it take to abolish FPTP? We’d have to wait for that and only then could we think about voting in politicians who might do something and the system would still be dominated by capital. That makes a three-step process out of a two-step process.

            Seems like a request to wait for an indefinite number of election cycles—the same request of those who say to vote for this or that faction of the capitalist party and one day, just maybe, conditions will be just right for one of those parties to effect any change. Too many African, Latin American, and Asian homes and lives would be destroyed while they wait patiently for the US to get its act together.

            It would take too long to work unless you know of a massive campaign across the western world to implement FPTP. If it doesn’t exist already, it must be built within the next year or so or the west will be locked into another four-ish years of no progress. And that’s just for a shot at electing politicians who might vote to abolish FPTP. Before they even come within hearing distance of, never mind face-to-face with, the contradictions of imperialism.

            Currently, almost all I see in the west is how to do business as usual but in green. That means denying progress to the subjugated masses so that USians can maintain their standard of living. Oppressed people shouldn’t have to wait for the US to figure out how to tactically solve the world’s ills through an electoral technicality. Round and round we’d go with electoralism.

            At this point, there is one, single option: revolution. Anything else will take too long. Luckily for humanity, whatever the US thinks or wants is largely irrelevant. The world is revolving anyway. The only question for the world is what form the revolution takes. And the additional question for USians is whether they want to be part of the change or to ruin everything out of spite and self-interest.

            The Red Deal may be of interest (click drop-down menu under ‘articles’): https://therednation.org/environmental-justice/

            • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              At this point, there is one, single option: revolution

              You’re the world’s biggest sucker if you think that’s even a possibility.

              Or more likely, a russian/right wing shill

              “Voting is useless” is right wing propaganda.

              • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 years ago

                I have to admit, I did not expect this response. I’m struggling to see how an anti-capitalist argument in favour of socialist revolution is right wing.

                A possibility? It’s happening as we speak. Time will tell.

                • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  It’s a spoiler, a red herring. “Don’t bother doing the thing that could actually threaten our power. Instead, focus on this other thing that has no shot of happening.”

  • pepperonisalami@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I have low expectation but damn…didn’t think that they’d be that low.

    We all are trying to do our parts you know, I used to like cars when I was in HS, now I don’t even consider having one. I’ll stick to public transport and will get an electric last mile transport.

    These people sucks ass. They have the monetary power to make real change but decided to double down. Nowadays investments in renewables have good returns and will be viable for the next couple decades, but they care too much for their previously invested monies and want to milk the people to the last drop.

    • sinkingship@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Man, you are so right. The weirdest part is, that your behavior isn’t even socially very accepted.

      I, too, love engines. I admire the technology and how genius they are put together. My dream is to own a cruiser motorbike and go drive through the countryside. I don’t think this will happen, as I would hate myself to burn fuel for pleasure.

      I own a very old, tiny scooter, that I only use to carry heavy stuff. I used to carry on my shoulders, but mom in law felt sorry for me and gave me her oldest, broken, rusty scooter, that nobody used for months, because she bought a new one again. I repaired it. My wife gets upset, when I don’t drive her around. For example to the market 500 meters down the road to buy a can of soda or so. I only use it for hard work.

      People surrounding me think I don’t like progress. No, man, I would love to have a more convenient life! Driving to me is fun, I enjoy it! I just can’t stand myself to do something bad to environment for my pleasure, so I try not to. And people think I’m weird.

      I know people like you and me don’t even make a difference. Whatever amount we save and not emit in our whole lifetime - some ignorant wealthy will blow out within 5 minutes.