ILikeNeurons t1_jbo78v3 wrote
This might be a good time to mention that I used MIT's climate policy simulator to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results here.
Climate change is not going to solve itself without action from the masses, things will continue to get worse.
smaller_god t1_jbp8jdv wrote
I don't like putting it all at the feet of the masses.
I've talked with people across the political spectrum. Most people have a sense that this is serious, not just climate change denialism, but we're not the ones with the power to change things.
Shifting to sustainability does not have to entail massive quality of life sacrifice for everyone. In fact as we increase our green spaces, build smarter-greener cities and towns (looking at you, US suburbia) , collective quality of life can go up.
But shifting to sustainability does require changes to power structures and the divisions of wealth. It requires some industries to give up some of their massive profits, or even go out of existence. Most people are pretty OK with this of course but the few with the extreme power and wealth majorities are obviously not.
Test19s t1_jbppowr wrote
My grim intrusive thoughts are that we’re heading into an era of complex problems (the climate, regulating and taming capitalism, public health, public infrastructure) that require collective action and likely require more cohesive nation-states than most of the world has available to them, a huge shift from the prior 75 years and one that could prove devastating to regions like the Americas with low-cohesion, high-diversity histories. I don’t want to die and be buried in Planet Nazbol.
[deleted] t1_jbqs5ic wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments