• orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    You think preventing climate change is more expensive than not preventing climate change? That’s an interesting point of view. I’m not sure the facts agree with you.

    Wildfires that burn down houses and gigantic forests every summer, massive storms that take out coastal cities, that kind of stuff tends to have an expensive price tag attached to it.

    It’s easy to forget, but the most effective first step for individuals who want to prevent climate change is: Reduce. And that costs nothing at all. It actually saves money. Of course there are many other things that ought to be done as well, but let’s keep in mind the starting point.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

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