cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/10713443
For denial doesn’t only amount to rejecting the evidence, he argues – it also consists of denying our role in the climate crisis; absolving ourselves through “carbon offsets, hybrid cars, local purchases, recycling”. And in this, far more of us are implicated.
In some ways, this argument might not seem all that new. Multiple authors have pointed out that green capitalism, not rightwing deniers of the crisis, is our greatest obstacle to properly confronting the problem. DeLay agrees. The difference is the lens he brings to it – using psychoanalysis to explain the mechanisms behind denial.
I don’t know anyone personally who thinks that the stuff he’s calling green capitalism will fix the problem. For them, and me as well for that matter, it’s akin to saying “recycling obviously isn’t enough but my conscience won’t allow me to do nothing so I guess I’ll do that”
deleted by creator
It’s worse that we thought because the ones that know how truly fucked we are don’t want to reveal how bad it is because it’ll turn into the goddamn Road Warrior out there due to panic and hysteria
But the panic and hysteria are warranted
No man. They just want the money to keep flowing. If they announce a global ecological threat, stock markets are going to crash and economies are going to crumble. Well for rich people anyway. The rest of us will figure it out as we always do.
Markets don’t wait for official announcements. They tend to react to facts, unlike politicians, since their money’s at risk.
No. Markets react to speculation. It’s ALL speculation.
The severity of the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico may paint a clearer picture for everyone. I’m being extra cautious for my home and family this year.
Oh fuck right the hell off with this despairist shit.
The fossil fuel companies want this kind of sentiment to be the mainstream because the logical conclusion is “so then why bother doing anything?”
They want your despair, they want your hopelessness, they want your burnout, you owe it to the world to not let them have it.
No, they want you to keep voting for milquetoast centrist liberal policies that don’t hurt their bottom line. Car companies and oil companies love that the “left” party in the US only supports pro-car policies that maintain our reliance on them. Every polluting company absolutely loves the tax credit non-solution because it will cost them much less than an actual emissions-reducing solution. Plastic companies love that there is no widespread plastic ban or mandatory reduction in plastic use by manufacturers, and instead only consumer-aimed recycling programs.
Fossil fuel companies absolutely love your defeatist “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” attitude. They love these policies that make you feel like you are doing something but don’t actually change anything. They love when you tell people who want actual solutions that they need to vote for the compromise. They still get to keep their profits going strong, and the Earth will only burn after the people pushing these policies are long dead.
< gonna be real quiet when the even worse option does even worse stuff because they didn’t vote because “mIlQuEtOaSt!” and “rEaL sOlUtIoNs!”
Almost none of what you said is a counterargument or even separate from what I said, you just phrased it like a takedown because the idea that this movement not give in to fatalism and cynicism pisses you off for some reason so you need to make it about letting the Right win and institute mandatory coal rolling quotas is uber l337 based praxis or some shit because “bUt DeMs BaD tOo!”
“Man I know how I’ll address the climate crisis in 2000, vote for Ralph Nader! Surely letting Bush win won’t have disastrous consequences for the entire world!”, that’s what you just tried to shoehorn in here, “surely project 2025 won’t be that bad!”
That is a bet only someone who has no right to be deciding could consider making.
this movement
Neoliberalism is not a “movement”, it’s the global hegemon. You’re pretending to be a part of this small, bespoke, counter-cultural collective that needs to remain principled, and meanwhile obstinately upholding the status quo. And at the same time holding this globe-spanning conspiracy theory that international conglomerates care about your personal feelings.
The data is out there, and you can just freely listen to scientists. But you will not read or listen, because they are saying things that you don’t like. Combatting climate change will require a great upheaval. It requires policies that liberal parties in major governments are not putting forward. People in the most vulnerable countries will die. But, again, you are more interested in protecting the status quo, most likely because you are comfortable and those more vulnerable don’t matter enough to you.
You are trying to frame this as if the people further to your left, who want to do more to combat climate change than you, are closer to the right. But that’s impossible. If it was up the right, all the countries with brown people in them will burn, and the wealthy countries will deny the immigrants. If it’s up to the centrists, all the countries with brown people in them will burn 20 years later, and the wealthy countries will deny the immigrants. I would very much not like to punish those most vulnerable in the long term for a feeling of moral superiority in the short term.
Yead, I agree. I’d rather take a half-step forward than two steps back. A full step would be nicer yet, but we can’t let the best be the enemy of the almost good enough.
al gore won that election, but votes didn’t decide the winner. don’t blame greens, blame the people who have had power for 100 years and shepherded us into this situation.
I’m an engineer, so I don’t agree with the despair, but also believe that what we’ll have is a number of partial and not entirely satisfactory solutions that mitigate the problem but don’t fully solve it. And we’ll adapt because we have to. But it’s foolish to underestimate the intertia of the present way of doing things. It’s going to be a long slog, and the legacy indstries are going to fight and foot-drag until they’re driven out of business.
There is a solution, just not a capitalist one. Climate action won’t generate profit and clean energy doesn’t provide the same level of authority and power over labor that fossil fuels do.
So we have to take action ourselves, right? On the one hand through protest and education, and on the other hand through private action. Greening facades, photovoltaics on the roof, green power, no more meat, no more vacation flights, public transport instead of cars, building communities, all that solar punk stuff. There is no way politics will solve this in the next decade.
Individual action’s nice. It won’t be nearly enough. We need to organize and to overcome massive resistance.
“There’s no solution” - says the motherfucking fucks responsible for FUCKING UP the shit and ensuring govts DON’T treat them like the criminals they are. “B-b-b-but think of
my profitsthe economy!” - I love how profits for the next quarter are more important than long term survival for them.Nobody is going after the big oil companies and ordering them to slow the fuck down. Nobody is telling the saudis to fuck off. Thanks to thinking of “the economy”, we’ll be on a very, VERY nasty future. But hey, that diamond studded yacht was worth it!
US Environmental Protection Agency tried. US Supreme Court made up some bullshit to say they couldn’t.
I read somewhere on lemmy that all the actions the government are taking are just to keep everyone calm.
We passed the tipping point. Where on our way to ruin there’s no brakes on this train and the tracks fucked.
The government’s are keeping a lid on it while the rich and powerful get their ducks in a row and bunker up.
We passed a tipping point for relatively minor stuff. Now we’re being warned of the catastrophic tipping point we’re approaching that will make the equator uninhabitable at sea level and touch off the largest movement of refugees in human history.
At the same time but separately we’re approaching tipping points for eco-diversity that could screw with our ability to grow food.
But the only one we’ve actually passed is the 1.5 degree Celsius one that sucks but isn’t catastrophic.
That’s the joy of nonlinearities. Every new threshold opens up a qualitatively new world of suckage.
Yeah that’s my point. The chain reaction stuff associated with 1.5 isn’t catastrophic to the human race or civilization. It might be catastrophic to the Western liberal political paradigm but that’s about it. Shits going to suck, a lot of people are going to die, but on the whole we can get through it. The chain reactions associated with the next threshold are fun things like ocean acidification that extends so far it kills all marine life and forces a ground up redo of our drinking water systems. The complete loss of reflectivity at the poles. Uninhabitable latitudes extending into developed countries. The loss of arable land too quick for the northern latitudes to replace.
So we get locked into a higher stable level even if we contain it and we get to deal with a food and water crisis. All while we get to see how much the EU actually likes Spain and Italy.
And in case anyone reading this is like, so what? We still don’t know how much crap is hiding in the permafrost. Just that it keeps heating up ahead of schedule. So the sooner we can contain this, the better our chances at still having a functioning civilization in 100 years. Which could be really important if the anti-aging scientists turn out to be right.
It’s a coping mechanism if anything I guess, thinking we could do something to mitigate or at least delay the crisis.
The best carbon emission bang for buck would be making cities cyclable and walkable. The best long term carbon reduction investments per lifetime $ are by replacing car and flight intensive travel with rail, highspeed rail and bus transit, reducing our reliance on oil. Imagine if these “carbon offset” scams were instead grants to building dense, affordable housing units.
Even if humanity dies a horrible death due to our insatiable need to consume, it is better for our collective conscious to say we died trying to fix it rather than deny it completely, even if such distinction is futile or practically insignificant in the long run.
Cars are only the third largest aspect of our pollution.
Second is houses.
First is diet.
Incorrect, first is coal then cows then cars.
My mistake
So?
The cars are pushed as the number one thing because it’s something that only requires you to just drive less and puts the onus on car manufacturers to make more efficient or electric.
It avoids the #1 and # 2 factors because doing anything about those would hurt the economy.
I’m kinda annoyed that it is taking so long for plastics to be phased out of the packaging industry… Plus there is the fact that one of our political parties only wants to pass laws favoring fossil fuels
Money.
It’s all always money. How powerful do you think the plastics lobby is? How much money do they have to throw around? A lot.
There are solutions, lol. It’s easy stuff, such as buying an ebike for trips less than 25 miles away. Or better insulating your house. Or replacing a furnace with a heat pump when your furnace breaks. Buying in bulk instead of buying micro things wrapped in plastic. Buying used equipment and jewelry rather than buying new. Eating less meat, or at least less beef.
There’s lots of small stuff that can have a dramatic impact on your carbon footprint. It also tends to save you shitloads of money, all green arguments aside. Up front costs might go up, but over time, you save a lot of money.
It’s just that your or some person’s footprint moves the needle only a little when the problem lies in with the corporations, industries and countries still allowed to pollute or create the consumer market options, and they’re pushing the narrative toward people in the environment they set. Insanity is in the illusion of choice, that something like shittier, more polluting clothing is forced to the masses because they can’t choose the expensive better options even though it’d be better in the long run.
It will have to get very very bad in order for the average person to support action
The fact that gas vs electric is even a debate annoys the hell out of me. Just stop this stupidity.
I’ve had this sinister feeling in the back of my head ever since I saw Extrapolations that it was far more of a documentary of what’s to come than even the creators intended.
It’s been a year since I watched it the first time, and that feeling has only gotten worse since.
Renewable energy is increasing at a rapid rate. You need to be less of a doomer.
It should have ramped up like that 30 years ago
That, and many later buses, have left the station.
Does that change that we’ve now hit a turning point and are on the correct path?
We started changing course, we’re nowhere near “correct path”
“I’m doing what I can”
“You’re in DENIAL!”
“I understand there are factors outside of my control”
“You don’t FEEL BAD ENOUGH about those factors!”
Ok, asshole.
