this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
730 points (95.7% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Moderate change is insufficient. We need to reduce CO2 by 10% per year if we want to keep the 1.5Β° goal. We need a wide spectrum of civil protest.
Look at the history of womens' voting rights. Or the anti vietnam war movement, or the no nukes movement.
Edit: The workers' movements for 48 and 40 hour weeks were also militant, violent protests. Obedience is not everything in a democracy.
Moderate change might be insufficient, but you are confusing the size of the change with the extremity of the process. The evidence seems to show that some forms of more extreme protest _reduce _ the prospects of change
That's why I said we need a wide spectrum of movements.
A wide, moderate base for people to use their passive democratic rights is the base for more radical people actively demanding change. As I said: look at the historical examples. Without the radical parts of the larger movements nothing would have changed.
Big movements on developed countries won't change how developing countries will treat the climate going forward. Do you really believe on the numbers reported by China for example? Do you think that poor countries where millions of people starve care about not burning hydrocarbons? CO2 production is a game of scales and the little we can contribute is just that, little, very little in fact if compared to what big industries do around the world.
If we invest to develop the technology for e.g. clean energy then we can easily export it. If solar becomes dirt cheap and easy to install and maintain then it would be perfect for Africa where it's mostly sunny. Solar would be cheaper and easier than burning hydrocarbons.
People don't seem to get that
there is no absolute, global decoupling happening. it is a lie used to propagate dreams of green growth.
If the rich countries who can easily afford being green won't do it, why should the poor countries who cannot?
So it's best to be a bad example? Why wouldn't people then say "If very rich nations can't even do it, then poorer nation surely can't", and suddenly nobody is doing anything?
Also: If you're a developing country, why would you try to buy technology from 50 or 100 years ago? Why wouldn't you buy low-cost technology of 2023, e. g. solar power? I don't see the rock-solid connection that you are assuming.
Also: are you saying "developing countries might, in the future, emit lots of CO2" is an excuse for the current worst polluters to just continue? Would you accept it if I'm a serial robber and used the excuse "I expect a large number of poor people will commit a lot more robberies very soon"?
wow, chill bruh! I didn't say I thought is wrong for those that can do it, do it. I criticised the apparent need for "revolution" over governments on developed countries. if you/me live in a developed country we are already doing better and will continue to do better, no doubt. Just don't flatter yourself thinking that we must do this at any cost because other, poorer countries aren't and won't be for a very long time...
So I guess we just die? What is your solution? All people of the world have to change what they CAN change. For me that is myself, my region and my country.