this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
1868 points (98.7% liked)

Comic Strips

12961 readers
1826 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You think preventing climate change is more expensive than not preventing climate change? That's an interesting point of view. I'm not sure the facts agree with you.

Wildfires that burn down houses and gigantic forests every summer, massive storms that take out coastal cities, that kind of stuff tends to have an expensive price tag attached to it.

It's easy to forget, but the most effective first step for individuals who want to prevent climate change is: Reduce. And that costs nothing at all. It actually saves money. Of course there are many other things that ought to be done as well, but let's keep in mind the starting point.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

You think preventing climate change is more expensive than not preventing climate change?

I don't think that and I didn't say or imply that. No one seems to be able to comprehend the "what if it's all a hoax" in the comic in question. In such a case, there is no climate change, and thus no associated costs.

the most effective first step for individuals who want to prevent climate change is: Reduce. And that costs nothing at all.

Except it does. When you don't buy something, someone is not selling something. And there is likely something that you want to sell also, which others may not buy. That sort of thing applied at the level it would take to stop climate change would stop our entire economy dead in it's tracks.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So you’re saying our economy is a pyramid scheme based on a flawed system?

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Huh? That doesn't remotely resemble anything I said.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It’s basically exactly what you said.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Let’s depopulate the planet and rebuild the economy to healthy and sustainable levels!

I like your thinking.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You think consuming less would stop the economy dead in it's tracks. And ... Is that a bad thing? As we know, "economy" means "rich people's yachts".

And just as obviously, reducing consumption is not binary. There's no way to go to zero, nor would anyone seriously propose it. But anyway, with an increasing population and limited global resources, it's inevitable that people will have to reduce at some point, so the disaster you hypothesize would strike us anyway. And in that case, gradual change now is better than catastrophic change later.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You think consuming less would stop the economy dead in it's tracks.

That's not what I said. We're not talking about reusing a few plastic bags here. We're talking about reversing global warming.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Reusing? I thought we were talking about reducing. And I don't think anyone is talking about reversing.