My main account is solo@slrpnk.net. I’m also using the one here because I really like the feed feature.
Btw I’m a non-binary trans person [they/she/he].
- 64 Posts
- 35 Comments
Tbh I find the “net zero” approach problematic on so many levels that I hesitated posting this article. But due to the fact that this is an analysis of the press that had a span of almost 15 years of this topic, it seemed like worth posting.
Apart from that, personally I agree with you (if I got you right) that privatisation of the energy sector in the UK , or any sector I can think of actually, is to the detriment of all living beings and the environment as a whole. Still I don’t mind researches that talk about other relevant things, even if I consider them less important, for example. Meaning, looking at one thing, doesn’t mean not looking to another.
I suppose, this is quite debatable, because the current money system does waste a whole lot of energy, It’s just not calculated how much. Honestly, if you have have links showing how much energy the banking system consumes globally, please share.
On the other hand, bitcoin’s blockchain is a decentralised and transparent system. This is not something that the banking system can claim.
Industrial manufacturing is declining in Europe for sure, but not because of complying to climate policies, as you claimed. Industrial production is falling in most European Union countries, largely due to a lack of competitiveness with China and the US.
Also, the article you linked about the EU loosing manufacturing jobs does not back your claim. On the contrary it says: The move to a sustainable economy is an opportunity to turn the situation around. Towards the end, it also mentions that the EU should make sure that industry jobs are not lost and that Europe’s industrial sectors and their workers are fundamental to delivering the climate solutions Europe needs, which are very different things to what you said.
The leading countries in addressing climate change appear to have prioritized their efforts at the expense of industrial growth,
Personaly, I would be glad if this were the case. Honestly, I wonder how you came to this conclusion
deleted by creator
I think you are right, but we also need to factor in that the west has been exporting its industrial production to other countries (cheaper labor, cheaper taxes etc). So it seems to be a tricky thing to see this by country.
The way I see things, it’s more that the prevelant economic system dictates this kind of behavior, more than any one country. In the sense that the countries in power change, but they all follow some sort of capitalist model, which is also a form of neo-collonialism imo, at least when it comes from western countries . China is another story imo, that follows the economic model.
About this article, one thing that I don’t like is that once more the focus is on personal decisions. This shifts the focus from a systemic problem to personal problem. It’s the industry that dictates regulations and policies through lobbying. Let’s keep our eyes on the goal.
Edit: Of course boycotting the industry would be a great solution, and this doesn’t even mean that someone needs to be vegan, or that they are loaded wth money. Or even avoiding bying these products would be great. Still, the most important thing imo is that industries stop doing what they do.
Just found a relevant site for the US, called:
Tracking methane-linked health risks to communities.
Dammit, you are totally correct. Deleting this post
Of course the carbon footprint of the billionaires is nothing compaired to what the industry sector emits. My point was in relation to how the per capita emissions are used, not in comparison to the economy as a whole. While keeping in mind that it’s big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed, so that we focus on personnal choices, instead of collective action.
I would be interested in seeing the methodology behind that figure
If you click on the relevant link above, you will find the report itself. You can even download the methodology note seperately.
The super rich are (…) a vast minority
It seems to me that the math in this is overwhelming. If a single person in this minority emits in 90min more than an average person in their lifetime, we should take into consideration that their lifetime is made of many, many, many 90min slots.
Apart from that of course I’m all in for sustainable living and redistribution of wealth for lower classes. Preferably abolish the class-system all together, of course.
Emissions per capita are a distraction that makes us focus on a us, everyday people, instead of the major polluters: the super wealthy and their toxic coorporations. Don’t fall for it!
The Nordic model’s approach is relevant in imo, because this article is about Sweden, and because this path proved not be safe from capitalism taking over. This does not contradict what you said, that the entire world is electing right wing populists right now. It is a reminder that this is a mechanism that capitalism traditionaly uses to resolve its crises.
Yep. To my understanding, in the Nordic model, capitalism continues to devour all socialist tendencies.
I think it’s non-binding, after all.
Dammit, I am confused.
In this article from BBC, it says:
The ruling is non-binding
In another article from the Guardian, it says the opposite:
Countries are now bound under international law
Which one is it?
Let’s also keep in mind what the IPCC warns us about, in relation to Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR):