this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
1412 points (98.5% liked)

Comic Strips

12544 readers
4371 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

You think preventing climate change is more expensive than not preventing climate change?

I don't think that and I didn't say or imply that. No one seems to be able to comprehend the "what if it's all a hoax" in the comic in question. In such a case, there is no climate change, and thus no associated costs.

the most effective first step for individuals who want to prevent climate change is: Reduce. And that costs nothing at all.

Except it does. When you don't buy something, someone is not selling something. And there is likely something that you want to sell also, which others may not buy. That sort of thing applied at the level it would take to stop climate change would stop our entire economy dead in it's tracks.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So you’re saying our economy is a pyramid scheme based on a flawed system?

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Huh? That doesn't remotely resemble anything I said.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It’s basically exactly what you said.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Let’s depopulate the planet and rebuild the economy to healthy and sustainable levels!

I like your thinking.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You think consuming less would stop the economy dead in it's tracks. And ... Is that a bad thing? As we know, "economy" means "rich people's yachts".

And just as obviously, reducing consumption is not binary. There's no way to go to zero, nor would anyone seriously propose it. But anyway, with an increasing population and limited global resources, it's inevitable that people will have to reduce at some point, so the disaster you hypothesize would strike us anyway. And in that case, gradual change now is better than catastrophic change later.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You think consuming less would stop the economy dead in it's tracks.

That's not what I said. We're not talking about reusing a few plastic bags here. We're talking about reversing global warming.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Reusing? I thought we were talking about reducing. And I don't think anyone is talking about reversing.