|
|
|
|
|
|
by 128bytes
1120 days ago
|
|
|
This analysis is silly because it neglects the fact that the poor are disproportionally reliant on polluting infrastructure that does not have any safe and affordable alternative, while also being those most affected by its dangers. Big corporations have ways to make lots of money from so called 'green technology' and they have the capital to diversify into it and they do, poor people do not. People want to act like there's a simple solution but anyone whose analysed the situation closely enough realizes that climate change is already locked in and renewable technology is not a good enough replacement given the power output and resource wastage. There is no way to even reduce energy demand since any reduction from one entity will be made up for by another entity, nobody has any desire for meaningful degrowth. Now that we have AI just watch us spin up nuclear reactor after reactor, drinking the ocean, and leaving every beach bare for the sake of 'progress'. Society is already collapsing into violence and BOE is a couple years away if we're lucky. There is a reason I don't bother investing in retirement. It's a tragedy and people are in denial. |
|
|
The companies I'm talking about do this since more than 50 years, that's why the infrastructure wasn't changed when the costs would have been lower because there was more time This changed would have benefited the poor too.
Now the time is running out and they choices are they suffer now because of higher costs or suffer later from the effects of climate change. They are the victims one way or the other.