Giving money to Amazon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Google .etc

It’s like, you can’t have an argument for price gouging, when you’re enabling them by spending. If people were smart, they’d stop giving them money 10 - 15 years ago and they’d be right now, trying to reconstruct so they can be more economically friendly than how they are now.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    The obvious answer is fossil fuels, right? Few people want to cook the climate, they just can’t quite fathom something that abstract and slow-moving, so they do it anyway.

    Less obviously, feeding all our most sensitive data to random websites and apps. Again, the threat just doesn’t look enough like a sabre-tooth tiger.

    • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Fossil fuels is kinda a prisoner’s dilemma issue. Everyone cooperating to save the planet is obviously ideal, but realistically there are always going to be companies/countries that won’t. And as long as it’s cheaper to not be environmentally friendly, there’s always going to be someone taking that option.

      For example, lets say country A passes new regulations on manufacturing to be more environmentally friendly. The new regulations take the country’s manufacturing from low pollution to very low pollution. However the increase in cost causes many companies to stop manufacturing locally, and instead outsource their manufacturing to country B with low regulation and moderate pollution during manufacturing. The end result is more money leaving the local economy of country A, and increased global pollution.

      It’s a similar prisoner’s dilemma for the individual companies involved. If your competitor is able to make their product for cheaper because their process is less environmentally friendly, then they can undercut you and put you out of business.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 hours ago

        The tragedy of the commons is definitely part of it, but until recently there was a sort of global consensus anyway. Domestically climate change action - real action - is unpopular.

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Few people want to cook the climate, they just can’t quite fathom something that abstract and slow-moving, so they do it anyway.

      I don’t think the problem is that people are unaware. Even people who believe they are against cooking the environment have other rationalisations, like “the economy isn’t able to shut down all the coal plants yet, it’ll collapse”. Propaganda is a hell of a drug.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        No, it’s not that people are unaware, or even don’t believe it, it’s that they can’t reason about it strategically

        It’s spending now to save later. If that’s about military spending or emergency services everyone gets paying taxes for it, but words are as far as most will go to stop nonspecific far future weather. Even when people talk about the situation with climate change, you hear them frame it in moral terms instead of practical terms.

        Case in point: Canada has a carbon tax, and a majority want to get rid of it. Denialism is not a prominent part of the campaign, just the fact that it costs something. And not even much, and it’s all given back in refunds - doesn’t matter, the extra gas cost people will bear is zero.