this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
1868 points (98.7% liked)
Comic Strips
12716 readers
2976 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
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
Its a trade off at best. You would need to make everyone poorer and accumulate more power in the government to make it happen. And the biggest issue is if its even doable.
But we shouldn't aim for "doable" we should aim for perfection
But what if perfection destroys the vehicle to make it doable?
You mean aiming for perfection ist worse than fucking the Planet a little less?
The more that you do with repect to climate change, the more it will harm the economies and the people in them. If you make it harder to get gas, poor people wont have access to it, and all the various costs will go up and crush them.
People are dying because of the climate Change, and increasingly so, but please Somebody think about the economy... Really?
Gas will be accessible to them in need, If those who don't need to use it step back.
No sane Person needs a 3t heavy pick up truck wit 600hp for their groceries...
You are thinking of this a western problem. What happens to the more than a billion people around the world the are food insecure, and it gets harder to get food?
"Poorer".
"Everyone".
You mean the wealthy wouldn't be as wealthy and everyone else would be subject to strict controls on energy, transportation, and meat consumption. Which describes the lives of our recent ancestors. Air conditioning and heating would be for survival, not comfort. Most people will depend on mass transit and not own cars. And meat becomes a treat you get every now and then. But dairy products and eggs will still be plentiful.
It's not like we're going to be eating peanut butter sandwiches and starving while working 3 part time jobs. Unless that's already your reality. Then it will likely still be your reality because capitalism.
The vast majority of humans could live a perfectly fine, alternative, lifestyle and the planet would be okay.
Yeah fair enough analysis other than blaming capitalism for everything. A thing that you missed was that when people in poor countries get poorer, they can die of starvation or other things. Why do you believe that is worth it?
You missed the point entirely. We don't need to cut calories produced. The new arable land from not raising cattle and the turn of farm land from live stock feed to human feed will provide more than enough food.
This isn't a situation where we have to live in some dystopia, as long as we act now.
Sure, in the developed richer countries, but not in the poor countries. Millions to hundrends of millions of people in poor countries would die.
Why? Why would going green mean they can't grow food suddenly? What about coal power and cow farts means you can't grow corn?
It doesnt mean you cant, it means that everything is more expensive, and means people in foreign countries cant afford things they need even more. If something like a billion people in the world are food insecure, a mild drought could make them starve.
Meat would get more expensive yes. But energy production is perfectly capable of switching over without a bump. And non meat farm products would actually become cheaper as supply increases. We're not magically causing a drought with such a changeover, at least not any extra ones.
Think of the people in the world that are just getting by with just enough food to surive. If there were artificially made more expensive by world requirements on emissions and energy usage, this would make the things the poorest need too expensive for them to get and a simple drought would push them into starvation.
You have yet to describe a mechanism by which their food prices would rise.
Do you understand how the plan to save the environment would make everything more expensive?
I've explained how food should remain available and well priced. All you've done is make general assertions. Hand waiving isn't going to to do it when we need to be acting.
So then that is a "no" you dont understand. Sorry dude, there are too many gaps in your knowledge for me to explain this over the internet.
Rght, because we're 5 years old and you know but you just need me to prove I know by saying it first right? It's just too big brain for someone conversant in international economics and politics. I understand, I'd need 10 Phds just to start getting your concepts.
Its not a hard concept that if you eliminate things you are able to use, then things will get more expensive. But if you dont understand that, then I am not going to teach you how it all works over the internet.
Yes you're talking about a supply problem. The thing is I explained why there is not and will not be a supply problem in food. There are causes and effects, and while the price of something heavily restricted, (like meat), would rise, the cost of something produced more as a result will fall.
See? Economics 101 is easy to explain.
You are just using the view of the western world that has an abundance of everything. In the less developed world its not a matter of "not getting to eat as much meat", it will be them starving to death because they cant get supplies.
If you think the developing world is African tribes living in the hinterlands then sure. But no, they've got their food supply figured out. There's less than a million people on the planet at risk of starvation. And most of them are in Gaza right now. Figuring out food for the global masses is one of the achievements of our lifetime.
A google search says something like 9-11 million people die a year from starvation and poor diets... with over a billion that are food insecure. Dude, you dont understand the problem in anyway.
Stop looking at PR headlines from NGOs. Start looking at the IPC world map and the UN. There's literally 3 places on the planet where people are seriously dying from hunger, that's IPC level 5. Aid programs have a bad habit of including the entire population of anywhere IPC drops a note.
Places like the Sahel are having droughts or like in Bangladesh are having crops destroyed by historic floods while they soak in refugees from Myanmar. They receive food and support from the WFP. They make up 99 percent of the places IPC is tracking.
Those pressures aren't going away if we don't handle climate change. In fact they're going to get worse. Stopping the increase in climate change related events is a net positive in the food supply. Increasing arable land available is a net positive on food supply.
Finally, according to UNFAO, humanity produces enough food. We just need to get it to places when local production falters. Which again is generally related to climate change anyway.
This fake concern combined with a kid's attempt to appear smart is really grating. If we do nothing about climate change, including leaving ridiculous meat production levels in place, things get worse, not better.
I see a lot of words from someone that thinks that people are not starving or at risk of starving around the world, so I am going to guess its a direct "nu-uh" comment. Sorry, not interested.
Lmao. No. But you'd have to read more than a tweet's length to understand that.
Right we all didn't think of that, in that case let's just keep on overexploiting our finite resources and generate as much short term shareholder value as possible, because we don't know whether a sustainable approach would even fix some things that are possibly already beyond fixing due to overexploitation and generating short term value in the past.
The sustainable approach at this point would be eco-dictatorship, not sure if it's so easily achievable
I also want a clean world where everything is renewable and such, the problem is that I dont think it is achievable with our current technology. Take for instance the "Green New Deal" that came out a few years back, it was literally impossible. So personally I dont want to damage people that are doing the work that will get us to the tech we need in order to pretend we are solving the problem.