• just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is a by-product of modern society (maybe late stage capitalism). We need to be sold a “solution” to a problem. Reducing consumption is not something that can easily be sold hence these carbon capture, recycling plastic “solutions”.

    Unless someone can make money off of it, reducing emissions is going to be difficult.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s simple, you have a shared resource running out, nobody wants to grab less of it.

      Grab less of it yourself - the others will compensate for you. Produce some of that resource - the others will just profit from it for longer.

      The biggest emitters are too strong to be climate-crusaded, the smaller ones do successful bribing and greenwashing, but I think there will eventually be climate crusades - against those poor bastards who formally fail to do something right, but don’t really contribute meaningfully to emissions.

      Other than finding some wonderful (like in Total Recall) process to turn fossil fuels into matter practically not separable and not usable as fuel, I don’t know what one can do.

      Profitable personal mobile nuclear batteries are still not reality.

      Some new magical principle of producing energy, sufficiently decentralized (here go big NPPs). There’s none, so prepare for dark future.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        As far as energy production goes, we already have the technology: solar, wind, nuclear. We also already have the technology for cars and personAl transportation. Above all we have transit. If we can get our shit together with things we already know, we’d be in better shape. If we would have done it as little as ten years ago, we could have stayed within the Montreal targets for global warming.

        Now it’s no longer enough. We need to fix harder areas as well: aviation, shipping, grid storage, steel and cement, etc, and we need it asap … how is there still not any urgency?

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          You need technology cheaper than fossil fuels. Some of fossil fuels’ downsides are upsides for some people (political control), which necessitates the difference in cost by a big enough margin to counter those invisible benefits. A revolution.

          There’s no urgency, I think, because Earth’s population is going to start shrinking. The emissions are going to slow down for that reason.

          Countries that won’t have some quality, not quantity, approaches to their economies by then are going to fall hard.

          I guess that’s how EU is going to make the world owned by Europeans again.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Instead of UBI, we should give every citizen carbon credits that they can then either use themselves for cars over certain (adjusting) emission limits or more likely sell to companies. Every company has to pay for their CO2 (and downline for imports)

      The interesting thing would be people not necessarily spending their carbon credits like they do money. As there is no real incentive to sell to one company or another, other then tiny rate differences.

      Also… always peg the price to what it costs to clean the carbon out. That creates a greater incentive to not skirt, as it might get cheaper over time.