There’s a lie in there, but it’s one you’ve been told. We wouldn’t necessarily need to sacrifice anything. Our standard of living could remain roughly the same, as long as a certain small percentage of the population saw their standard of living dramatically decrease to something resembling our own.
This is true for a lot of things, but I don’t think it holds for climate change. The people you’re talking about gain money by selling products and services to the common people, who want them for one reason or another. As long as those products and services exist, who owns them doesn’t contribute much to climate change. For example even if Amazon became a worker co-op tomorrow I don’t see how there’d be a fundamental effect on their contribution to climate change.
Same day delivery is not a significant factor in anyone’s quality of life. We can slow down society to a human pace, and people’s lives will get better. We can ban cars, and people’s lives will get better.
I mean yes but the factor here is same day delivery and cars, not who owns them (setting aside how owners of these services have an incentive to encourage their use).
I mean true enough, but unless those taxes are then used to combat climate change it won’t accomplish much (and even then climate change isn’t the kind of problem that goes away if you throw money at it). What I’m trying to say is: We should be taking rich people’s money, but there’s not much relation between rich people being rich and climate change.
There’s a lie in there, but it’s one you’ve been told. We wouldn’t necessarily need to sacrifice anything. Our standard of living could remain roughly the same, as long as a certain small percentage of the population saw their standard of living dramatically decrease to something resembling our own.
This is true for a lot of things, but I don’t think it holds for climate change. The people you’re talking about gain money by selling products and services to the common people, who want them for one reason or another. As long as those products and services exist, who owns them doesn’t contribute much to climate change. For example even if Amazon became a worker co-op tomorrow I don’t see how there’d be a fundamental effect on their contribution to climate change.
Same day delivery is not a significant factor in anyone’s quality of life. We can slow down society to a human pace, and people’s lives will get better. We can ban cars, and people’s lives will get better.
I mean yes but the factor here is same day delivery and cars, not who owns them (setting aside how owners of these services have an incentive to encourage their use).
I don’t think ownership was the point of the comment you replied to. I think the point was either taxing or eating the rich.
I mean true enough, but unless those taxes are then used to combat climate change it won’t accomplish much (and even then climate change isn’t the kind of problem that goes away if you throw money at it). What I’m trying to say is: We should be taking rich people’s money, but there’s not much relation between rich people being rich and climate change.
There actually is; the wealthiest are responsible for a wildly disproportionate share of emissions.
Oh that’s a good point. I don’t think that’s what they were talking about, but yeah you got me there.