209
submitted 8 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 months ago

Even if you want to save the planet, there's only so much you can do if you are forced to work within the confines of the current system.

The vast majority of the global economy is controlled by private entities. These private entities are also the ones primarily responsible for climate change. Negative externalities don't really hurt the profit margin, and the big guys on top know damn well that even if the world around them burns none of that will touch them. In fact, it might cause their product's price to skyrocket.

Here's the kicker. If you order the businesses to be cleaner, they can just shut down the factories and move production to some crappy third world country desperate for any industry at all. It is more profitable to pay kids pennies to work in a dirty factory than to put in the effort to make a clean factory staffed by well-paid workers. This makes the climate situation worse and it screws over your country.

But it doesn't end there, oh no! The bourgeoisie basically has free reign over who gets elected in liberal democracies. The bourgeoisie has complete control over television and massive influence over the Internet. They are also the only people who have the capital to fund your campaign. Many of these media companies have ties to huge polluters (the Murdoch empire comes to mind). Those that aren't still need to get advertisers, and those advertisers are often not gonna be keen on environmental regulations. What this means is that if your campaign endangers their profits, they will bury you. You can't become a well-known candidate purely through Twitter posts, you know. You need advertisements. You need good press. That only comes from big media companies.

You can't just lie during your campaign to overcome this and then implement climate reforms. Aside from the aforementioned factory closing, there are other things that tie you to the capitalists. You see, a politician's power depends on them. They keep you popular. They are also the people providing your government with weapons. They have to be contracted to build infrastructure. If they don't like you, they can cripple you by refusing to do business with you, or worse, your whole country.

This doesn't even cover all the dictatorships and oligarchies directly run by the people who profit from this.

The trouble is, of course, that getting rid of capitalism and the form of government that enables its rise is incredibly hard and even if by some miracle we pull it off in one country, I doubt we'll ever be able to pull it off everywhere at once. That means whatever we build atop the ashes of the system will still be obligated to interact with its remnants.

I am sorry for rambling. It is late in my current time zone, and I am tired. To paraphrase the great mathematician and awful philosopher Pascal, "had I had more time I would've written a shorter text."

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 months ago

Really important to say it here. When capitalist leave a country they leave behind most of the capital in the country. We could just see that with Russia. That means they loose all of the money they invested in the country, which is the one thing capitalists really care about. As for media nearly all countries have public broadcasters and not for profit media is around as well. The Guradian for example is part of a media company, which owns itself and is set up so not private individual should profit from it. There are others like it as well.

[-] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Simply abandoning the factory is a rare case. Usually you can sell your crap. You can also slowly shift production elsewhere, which is aided by how slowly reform moves. Offices and whatnot can stay in the old country, thus further minimizing losses.

Governmental broadcasts will just end up supporting the current government.

Independent nonprofits are indeed one of the few things that can buckle the system. I agree with you on that fully. That's why I support them heavily. They do, however, still suffer from the question of how they get funding. The Guardian has been operating at a loss for several years now, and a lot of its funding comes from places like the Ford Foundation or Bill and Melinda Gates.

this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
209 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5083 readers
613 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS