[V__]

Because 15min cities are Soros funded projects to imprison us and the sheeple don't understandit. Renewable energy is a "gina" scam to destroy our economy. Healthcare is communism, socialism, fascism. Everything sucks but I don't want anything to change... /s

If a society makes every problem a culture war, there can't be any progress until it gets so bad it can't be ignored anymore. But I feel even that is bit too optimistic.

[InsideOutSanta]

One of the fundamental issues is that some people so strongly tie their identity to a party that an idea can by definition not be good if the other side supports it. It's not a project to improve society, it's a game, a war, and the other side is evil and must be defeated.

[duskdozer]

This may be true in some cases, but when you have a system that entrenches two major parties, you don't get to vote for idea X, you have to vote for party A or party B. If you have some policies that are dealbreakers, and party A agrees with you and party B doesn't, you can't vote for party B even if they support idea X. So then you become a supposed "party B fanboy"

[jmcgough]

Billionaires can spend unlimited money convincing people to oppose anything that benefits them, and we have an entire industry of social media influencers who get rewarded for stoking conflict. Citizens United passed in 2010 and everything has gone dramatically downhill since then.

[eimrine]

What is more important for you - economy or ecology?

[kuerbel]

You frame this as an either-or choice. It's a false dichotomy. economic prosperity and environmental protection are often interconnected.

That said, ecology is more important to me in general. The economy exists within the environment, not the other way around. It's definitely a more nuanced relationship than "either-or" suggests though...

[panick21_]

Trains, walking, bikes, solar or nuclear plants are all good for both.

Smart policies like land value tax are good for both.

Tons and tons of things are good for both.

In general economy is more important because people, but people also live in the environment. But not building a mine because of tailings is a bit silly as it just mean a mine somewhere else is built that handles tailings even worse. These things can be done reasonably.

And if you actually price in the environment destruction in the supply chain cost, we could do a lot of things.

[psd1]

> ...if you actually price in the...

Ding ding! We need to internalise the externalities. Put a value for pollution right into the retail price tag. Capture it as tax, and reduce other tax correspondingly.

In counties with a sales tax, this move could be approximately neutral to a basket of goods. More realistically, it will generate outrage. Fuck 'em. There's already outrage against megacorps. Take the economic hit in the short term, rebalance shopping habits, profit.

[Juliate]

Why should any be exclusive of the other?

My take is that it is kind of exclusive today, because the economy is designed and limited against the ecology, but that's not a fundamental given. It comes down from the choice of humanity to extract itself from nature. That's a choice and a story we can identify, criticise, and counter with another choice. Which would take some time, but... that's all we have.