Michigan and other battleground states might have swung for Trump, but they elected environmentalists to U.S. Senate seats, too.

  • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Your article is cute, but really talks around the issue, seemingly obfuscating it as “polluting investments”. Those billionaires own businesses, the ones that you buy at or buy from in one way or another. It ultimately still falls back to us and our consumerism, as well as just our general way of life and necessities in our developed countries. Sure, you can tax them more, but who do you think is going to pay for those additional costs?

    Remember the downturn during covid? That also came with a drop in emissions, one that would have to continue until 2035, just for us to meet our emission targets. People already went on the barricades at that time, losing their businesses and being able to afford less and less due to rising prices. And that was just after about a year of it, causing massive demonstrations around the globe. If your average voter is already fed up by being mildly affected like this, what do you think would happen if this would have continued indefinitely?

    The inconvenient truth is that absolutely no one wants actual climate policies, except for a very minor fringe movement of climate “extremists”.

    • dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Yes you are correct in that it’s painful to do the things that are required, and if given the choice, nobody would do it willingly.

      My point was, that if everyone has to make sacrifices, there’s a tiny chance. If the deal is “you get to suffer through economic downturn” and at the same time large investors see double, triple digit gains (COVID) then that chance goes to zero/negative.