SexyOldHobo t1_j7gr857 wrote

I blame voters for constantly electing fossil fuel executives into our government, who then nominate more people with fossil fuel ties to the judiciary.

Not only are current policies inadequate, at least in America, I bet it will be illegal to attempt to close power plants by 2050, and we will most certainly be using our military and international presence to keep the world using our products.

Pretty much the same situation we have now, just with more judicial precedent preventing any civil or public action against the fossil industry.

Voters have shown they do not want change, so there will be none


SexyOldHobo t1_j5vnelc wrote

Trees also exist at the whim of whoever manages that property. A lot can happen in 50 years, you can’t guarantee favorable political winds or rule out accidents.

Just look what Bolsonaro did to the Amazon in a short amount of time. Additionally, as global warming increases the severity of droughts, we should be expecting more forest fires.

Unfortunately I don’t think trees alone will be enough, although we should definitely be doing it anyways


SexyOldHobo t1_j2k8k2l wrote

China never had the brutal imperialism that defined western economics the past few centuries, so they have a blank slate. They certainly have their problems, but violence in the recent centuries has been largely domestic, they didn’t have a recent slave trade and certainly weren’t aggressors in WWII. They’ve always been insular


SexyOldHobo t1_j1ht12c wrote

We’ve done nothing and we’re all out of ideas!

The “formulation” is probably one of the least important aspects of improving this issue on a national scale. Diet and consumer access to healthy food options is the most important, that’s what hits certain communities who aren’t well served. Next is the cost of insulin, which has sky-rocketed, that hits poor and uninsured people the hardest. When people start rationing their insulin, all your optimization and catered treatments go out the window.

We need green spaces with gardens, quality markets, places to exercise, affordable access to cheap medicine. Things everyone wants, but becoming less and less accessible

I’d argue stop subsidizing corn and find an alternative national beverage to soda, that’s not diet soda.

Until we pull ourselves out of our cultural tailspin and establish an improving baseline, any benefits of further drug developments will disappear into the statistical background of deeper social problems


SexyOldHobo t1_ixrduep wrote

The side of climate denial will always have a lot of money behind it. Just about every point of action we make within our economy releases greenhouse gasses, so conversely, we need less economic action. We can do that by consuming less or by having less people. Most products are ultimately mined, with a carbon intensive processing and logistic networks behind them. Asking the people who built globalization and profit at every stage of the global capitalist economy to fix this is preposterous. We need a radically different economy which means we need radical changes which are incapable of coming up from within, and will be difficult and alienating to all kinds of people.


SexyOldHobo t1_itzn6u5 wrote

Unfortunately so many of the worlds governments were taken over by fossil fuel cabals in the 20th century and they built economies they could dominate, which means dependence on their products.

People are going to have to start counting their kWs and the only people who will have surplus energy are the ones who invest in renewables


SexyOldHobo t1_itutoq9 wrote

Genocide is a pretty strong word and I don’t feel it is accurate, the UN hasn’t called it that either. Yeah they aren’t being very respectful to their cultural sensitivities, but they are also preserving it in their own way.

I feel like you’re purposely evoking images of Nazi Germany which I think is little disingenuous and doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation because frankly, people aren’t being murdered


SexyOldHobo t1_isp6ffs wrote

There’s a reason the communists have the mainland and the US backed regime is isolated on a little island.

Like it or not, China had a revolution one way, it’s was massively successful, and millions of people in China have been lifted out pf poverty since then. Modern China is a stable state the successfully meets the needs of its citizens

Also the Qing dynasty was weakened by a century of extreme violence (much of it directed by the British against the Chinese during the opium wars), hardly the actions of one man


SexyOldHobo t1_is6b7x1 wrote

I think we should bioengineer some kind of bacteria or maybe even self replicating robots that are capable of destroying oil and make it impossible to refine. Something that would just take one person slipping it in the well.

People support the oil lords with religious fervor, whether it’s the Saudi kings (decedents of Muhammad) or the US Supreme Court (Evangelicals), so I don’t think seizing the supplies through direct conflict is feasible, as conservatives across the world would view it as a holy war challenging Gods graces


SexyOldHobo t1_is60drx wrote

This country already socialized agriculture once, it was called “the homestead act”.

Socializing agriculture would mean breaking up big farms and then subsidizing and paying individuals to grow food.

Our current system of spraying a layer of pesticides multiple times a year over large swaths of the country so we can have as much corn syrup pumping through our blood as possible is terrifying to me. That’s why I’m offering solutions

Socializing agriculture would literally mean paying people to eat healthier choices from their gardens and it would give more property to more people