Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Prestigious_Clue145 t1_j3er10g wrote

We tried, unless you've got a plan to hold oil companies and billionaires accountable then pour trillions into 100% renewable electricity for the entire world the situation is not going to improve any time soon.

All we can do now as individuals is improve our local community as much as possible, help your neighbors, plant yourself a vegetable garden if you have the land, learn to produce your own food.

Being on good terms with your neighbors, having valuable skills and being able to rely on yourself to feed the people you care about is the best thing I can think to do.

186

meowmix778 t1_j3fd1a9 wrote

This is probably the best answer for now. Unfortunately. The war in Russia has taught us two important lessons. The first is that food scarcity can happen in the blink of an eye and the second is how oil dependant developing nations are.

The reality is if we support a totally green initiative the cost would be the greatest from the poorest globally and those who cannot afford to transition. The costs would be in human lives and would come exclusively from the unwilling and unable as conflicts worsen.

There won't be a genius billionaire like Iron man coming to invent a magic solution. Unfortunately it'll he about learning to mitigate the consequences and preparing for worse and worse until we find a point climate change becomes unacceptable.

14

Fireonpoopdick t1_j3fmnge wrote

But it's one of those things where if we don't change now everyone will suffer in ways we cannot even imagine right now, especially the poorest countries, and when they send refugees to ours because we refused to hold out powerful people accountable we'll start gunning them down at the border, and then, eventually, when enough people die and enough environmental damage occurs that civilization as we know it collapses and I'm guessing at least 2-300 years of techno feudalism before either extinction or something, maybe nuclear Holocaust if we're lucky.

4

meowmix778 t1_j3hg1dn wrote

There's a book I read that's really reframed my thinking on this called "the climate Leviathan".

It frames the argument that we will see more and more climate refugees and the world will be pressed to a breaking point. Once that happenes it argues for 4 outcomes.

  1. we all just sort of let it happen, and very little changed. Business provides solutions to mitigate the issue, and we praise them as heroes.
  2. People become so outraged by the current system they topple the current one and replace it by a Mao style government. Substituting safety in the state for freedom. Thus solving the climate issues.
  3. everything just regular goes to shit
  4. the almost impossible one. We all realize what's happened. Neighbors help neighbors. We agree to topple most business and heavily involve ourselves in a utopian society for eachother. Science builds a Mcguffin to save everything. We all live happily ever after. The authors also warn most people believe this will happen and aren't putting effort towards it.

Really we need to get comfortable with the reality of more refugees, more climate crisis, more places becoming inhospitable and giving up more luxury to make life for the future possible.

2

Fireonpoopdick t1_j3hpvw7 wrote

What I'm saying is yes we do but people won't, it will cause war, wars and refugee massacres and genocides world wide, my hope is it goes well but at this point I have little faith that the people in charge could be toppled without triggering a nuclear incident and I'm guessing more walls, more guns, more bombs and violence like we have not seen since the world wars just to try and keep everyone distracted until the global environment is so damaged there's no going back, we may already be at that point, we should be working together and doing things to mitigate and we are in some degrees but drops in buckets compared to the actual work that needs to be done, we would literally need to change the entire economic system the world currently runs on and that means a lot of very rich people would loose a lot of money, humanity would be saved but people would loose money, and we can't have that, money is more important than life, or freedom, or love, money is everything, embrace it or die, because to destroy would give you a freedom only dreamed of.

2

liteagilid t1_j3grfze wrote

Just want to point out there isn’t one ‘developing nation’ in Western Europe and that they’re being broken by a need for natural gas. Would we call India a developing nation: I think they’re the ones slopping up most Russian oil.

The efficiency of the oil market is amazing. If a third of the world doesn’t buy it, the other two thirds does and it is all part of the same pie. I feel like this ‘special military operation to get rid of nazis’ has taught us a lot about the interconnected nature of certain economies and how globalization has created certain third rails when it comes to war and diplomacy

2

meowmix778 t1_j3het2q wrote

That's actually true. I was mostly thinking about Ghana and the untold harm that's been caust there but you're not wrong.

Hell even with food. With Russia and Ukraine not shipping resources around its art harder for a lot more people to eat. Globalization by far is a good thing but also exposes huge weaknesses in economies and I think barring massive upheaval we won't see change.

5

vsanna t1_j3h4qi8 wrote

I took a job on a local veggie farm when the pandemic first started causing supply chain problems in grocery stores. The local food community in many parts of the state is robust! Anything you can do to get involved with and invest in local producers is great. You don't have to do everything yourself, but doing things like planning gardens with your neighbors so you can trade and care for each other is good materially and for your collective mental health, and everything we do to keep things as local as possible breeds resilience.

11