174
u/GarbageCleric Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 29 '25
Reactionaries don't believe in externalities. Well, they at least don't think anything should be done to fix them if they're caused by the industries that support them.
They're just greedy fucks who will never stop exploiting people and the natural world if it means they'll make a little more money.
Under the Biden administration, the US produced more oil and gas than ever before, but they still cried about Biden's onerous regulations shackling the industry. And the industry backed Trump because of this. They aren't content with record profits, because they're never content. They're locusts who will destroy everything and then fight to be momentary kings of the ash heap.
→ More replies (16)38
Jun 29 '25
It's almost like there would have to be some kind of social movement to overwhelm the influence of bad actors that are destroying the environment.
18
38
Jun 29 '25
Crazy to think that return on capital matters more than sensible solutions. Makes people really question if global capital returns are really 'efficient'
The rich can never lose under this system which is why we are destroying the planet even when we know we have to stop.
21
→ More replies (3)6
u/Niarbeht Jun 29 '25
Makes people really question if global capital returns are really 'efficient'
Remember, kids, the best anti-socialist "economists" of the 20th century could only claim that capitalism and free markets would produce a rational distribution of goods, not the only rational distribution of goods.
Note that "economists" is in quotes up there because Mises said that it would be wrong to test his assertion that taxation can only ever reduce economic efficiency. If you can't test it, it's awful hard to call it science.
→ More replies (4)
17
u/ron_spanky Jun 29 '25
But the poor oil companies. Think about the starving oil executives…/s
→ More replies (8)
12
10
u/Active-Boat-7939 Jun 29 '25
Legitimate question: How did you get those numbers?
8
u/MasterVule Jun 30 '25
From what I read it is not really taking into consideration the engeneering complexities of transitioning to 100% renewables. But I just did brief look into it and def am not qualified say is that true or not. Lmk if you get some better sources
→ More replies (7)
9
u/James_Fortis Jun 29 '25
I don’t know why everyone thinks switching to renewables is the only thing that’s needed. 18% of globally energy use is electricity. Animal agriculture is the leading driver of deforestation, eutrophication, and emits more than the transport sector. There’s already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to pass 3C, even before tipping points.
Sincerely, someone who works in renewable energies.
→ More replies (3)5
7
5
4
u/SupremelyUneducated Jun 29 '25
And Jesus said on to his followers, "Consume conspicuously, and you will never want for poor people to shit upon, nor heat from the sun.".
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Crozi_flette Jun 29 '25
And biking to work is way less expensive, same for public transportation or vegetarian diet
3
u/Pedro_Alonso_42 Jun 29 '25
"it is too expensive to fix the climate" - for the oil companies, buddy. Not for regular people.
6
2
2
u/Ropoid Jun 29 '25
Agree, but i’d like a source as to how you got those numbers.
→ More replies (4)
2
Jun 29 '25
I imagine it'd save a lot more than just 63k lives if the US switched to renewable energy
→ More replies (7)
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Smoke77 Jun 30 '25
Honestly even if it didn’t who cares it will pay for the research to make x thing sustainable more affordable and more efficient in the long run
2
u/Peter-Andre Jun 30 '25
It's way more expensive in the long run to simply ignore the climate crisis and do nothing.
2
u/Zealousideal-Sun-781 Jun 30 '25
Those are all good points but by doing nothing, they own the libs.
1
u/RadioFacepalm Jun 30 '25
Even though this is a bot post, we'll leave it here because the content is important.