collapse of the old society

962 readers

2 users here now

to discuss news and stuff of the old world dying

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

ex_06@slrpnk.net

Midnight@slrpnk.net

‘What if there just is no solution?’ How we are all in denial about the climate crisis (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 4 months ago by poVoq@slrpnk.net to c/collapse@slrpnk.net

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/10713443

For denial doesn’t only amount to rejecting the evidence, he argues – it also consists of denying our role in the climate crisis; absolving ourselves through “carbon offsets, hybrid cars, local purchases, recycling”. And in this, far more of us are implicated.

In some ways, this argument might not seem all that new. Multiple authors have pointed out that green capitalism, not rightwing deniers of the crisis, is our greatest obstacle to properly confronting the problem. DeLay agrees. The difference is the lens he brings to it – using psychoanalysis to explain the mechanisms behind denial.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are solutions

Such as?

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I just laid them out; regulating the most destructive industries and forcing them to stop releasing greenhouse gasses, same way we force them to stop dumping mercury in estuaries or how we stop them from destroying national parks etc.

Climate change is not going to get solved by people buying local and making their clothes out of hemp. The responsibility for sweeping change lies with the government ultimately to get industries in line.

It's like blaming someone who uses AC during a record heat wave when our grid itself isn't using green sources. You fix the power source that the AC draws from and you fix the AC. It's the same across many industries, dumping the decision-making onto average people at the end of the line is super inefficient.

[–] rah@feddit.uk -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

regulating the most destructive industries and forcing them to stop releasing greenhouse gasses

And what is that going to solve exactly?

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What is it going to solve if the companies responsible for more than 70% of the world's emissions are stopped from producing those emissions via regulation? That's your question?

[–] rah@feddit.uk -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

...if we cut emissions it stops climate change from getting even worse, killing even more people, destroying even more property and causing more mass migration, causing even further ecological collapse.

You're literally just asking "Why mitigate climate change?"

[–] rah@feddit.uk -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

stops climate change from getting even worse, killing even more people, destroying even more property and causing more mass migration, causing even further ecological collapse

And what is that going to solve exactly? What is it that this is a "solution" to?

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)