this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
23 points (82.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43939 readers
516 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The obvious answer is fossil fuels, right? Few people want to cook the climate, they just can't quite fathom something that abstract and slow-moving, so they do it anyway.
Less obviously, feeding all our most sensitive data to random websites and apps. Again, the threat just doesn't look enough like a sabre-tooth tiger.
Fossil fuels is kinda a prisoner's dilemma issue. Everyone cooperating to save the planet is obviously ideal, but realistically there are always going to be companies/countries that won't. And as long as it's cheaper to not be environmentally friendly, there's always going to be someone taking that option.
For example, lets say country A passes new regulations on manufacturing to be more environmentally friendly. The new regulations take the country's manufacturing from low pollution to very low pollution. However the increase in cost causes many companies to stop manufacturing locally, and instead outsource their manufacturing to country B with low regulation and moderate pollution during manufacturing. The end result is more money leaving the local economy of country A, and increased global pollution.
It's a similar prisoner's dilemma for the individual companies involved. If your competitor is able to make their product for cheaper because their process is less environmentally friendly, then they can undercut you and put you out of business.
I don't think the problem is that people are unaware. Even people who believe they are against cooking the environment have other rationalisations, like "the economy isn't able to shut down all the coal plants yet, it'll collapse". Propaganda is a hell of a drug.
No, it's not that people are unaware, or even don't believe it, it's that they can't reason about it strategically
It's spending now to save later. If that's about military spending or emergency services everyone gets paying taxes for it, but words are as far as most will go to stop nonspecific far future weather. Even when people talk about the situation with climate change, you hear them frame it in moral terms instead of practical terms.
Case in point: Canada has a carbon tax, and a majority want to get rid of it. Denialism is not a prominent part of the campaign, just the fact that it costs something. And not even much, and it's all given back in refunds - doesn't matter, the extra gas cost people will bear is zero.