[microsoftedging]

Op was referencing a comic [0]

Furthermore, yes, getting to the point where we're no longer starving and in thatched huts did require fossil fuels, but now we know what they do, and that they're actively having an effect on the environment, and clearly us, are we so stuck in our ways we can't change our actions to secure a life for those that come after?

[0] https://www.bureauofinternetculture.art/memes/shareholder-va...

[slibhb]

What difference does it make what they're referencing?

I'm glad we agree that fossil fuels were necessary. It has nothing to do with "shareholder value" -- it has to do with minimizing human suffering.

Also, it's noteworthy that US emissions peaked in 2007. We're down ~20% since then. The world is absolutely addressing climate change, and the worst case scenarios have already been avoided. Faster would be better but we're moving reasonably fast.

[DoctorOW]

> It has nothing to do with "shareholder value"

The reason other countries are able to move so much faster than the U.S. is because parties that have power in the U.S. push back with economic concerns. The distance between "shareholder value" and "stock market performance" is miniscule.

[slibhb]

What is this obsession with "shareholder value"? Moving away from fossil fuels too quickly will hurt normal people. It will increase the cost of everything (energy prices determine the cost of stuff), make it harder to heat/cool people's homes, etc. You'll also see people burning more wood, which is far worse for air quality and may be worse in terms of CO2.

[ChromaticPanic]

Consumerism is the problem. If fossil fuels were used on necessities sure. Single use plastics, individually packaged consumables, planned obsolescence are examples of things that are not necessary. These examples have all to do with shareholder value.

[slibhb]

Consumerism is not the problem. Human beings don't stop wanting to improve their lives once they have the bare necessities and there is nothing wrong with this.

We can have our cake and eat it, we just need to transition to cleaner forms of energy. Which we are doing.

[kelseyfrog]

> there is nothing wrong with this

Look at the headline. Res ipsa loquitur.

They told us to deny the evidence before our very eyes.

[myaccountonhn]

No, just cleaner energy is not enough.

[gamerdonkey]

> and the worst case scenarios have already been avoided.

Do you have a source on this?

[gamerdonkey]

Interesting that this question didn't warrant a response.

Anyway, here's new research demonstrating the near polar opposite of the original claim, in case anyone digging up these old threads was also wondering if slibhb's foundational arguments held up: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389855619_Global_Wa...