• vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m mostly talking about the panicking tone of that comment.

    Also about feasible ways - the goal is to find an economically feasible replacement for the processes leading to such emissions. Or create an ecofascist world government which will force everyone to behave.

    The average of those two is not a goal, as it doesn’t solve the problem.

    So - either we make it cheaper and easier for people in Equatorial Africa, Afghanistan etc to use “green” technologies, or we are fucked, unless conquering the whole planet is back on the menu.

    • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah, rereading I now see what your intent.

      Perhaps “feasible” wasn’t the word I was looking for so much as “realistic.” It’s going to be an uphill battle convincing profit-based companies to produce a cheap, green alternative but I’d love to be proven wrong. Short of fascism I do think government nudging of the market through grants etc is something we sorely need to get moving on, because money is the only thing that speaks to these giant faceless corporations.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nudging - yes, grants - no.

        I’d personally just like some weakening of patent, IP, trademark etc laws. We are at a point when these work for companies too big to not be malicious.

        Anyway, the cheap green alternative is called a nuclear reactor. I’ve read there are some smaller, more compact models in testing.