It's terrifying how this type of denialism supports a fascist response when in actuality we need collective action. Collective action is in the individual self interest.
Just shows you the power of money and corruption...the ones that stifle intelligence, ban books and learning, force religion in schools are literally trying to harm the planet for profit. Words and petitions won't save anyone this time around. They took it too far.
There are solutions, they just threaten the profits of the 100 or so top polluter companies and the majority of politicians are bought out by those companies. The author kind of continues the old trope that this is somehow the responsibility of every day people to solve through their individual actions. While individual action and less consumption does help, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to the effect of the industries themselves. If we want to mitigate the effects of climate change that has always been the most efficient way to go about it; forcing industries to change, even if it costs them.
The biggest issue though is, if the world solved that political issue, China is still dumping a third of the world's greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and are still building more coal plants at a record pace. They are fixated on their geopolitical and imperial goals, scaling back to focus on domestic necessity just isn't a possibility for Xi.
There are solutions
Such as?
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.
regulating the most destructive industries and forcing them to stop releasing greenhouse gasses
And what is that going to solve exactly?
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?
Yes.
...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?"
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?
We'll solve it with space capitalism, now with mirror satellites to block 11% of the sunshine (and also use like a giant magnifying glass on the ants of society) we just need more companies able and willing to spin a satellite launcher at 5000mph to help it achieve low earth orbit without using rocket fuel.
That'll show em how capitalism is always the right answer.
As the effects of the crisis worsen, DeLay argues, inequality will rise, food prices will increase and police and border budgets will balloon. It will probably be people of colour, migrants, homeless people who will suffer the most, especially because when people see the hurricanes and the fires, they may believe in the climate crisis less, not more; politicians will turn up the barbarism and there will be something – or someone – else to blame.
He's right.
Make money money make money moneyy
we are all in denial about the climate crisis
LOL speak for yourself!
to discuss news and stuff of the old world dying