Some things are easier to change than others - and the really hard things often don’t require money, but a change in people!

Edit: Sorry for the shitty OP, I should have known better than to post in a hurry.

It reads as if the population is primarily responsible for combating the climate crisis, while industry and government are off the hook because money has little effect.

What I actually meant to express was that technological adjustments that only cost money are easier to implement than changes to people’s habits. Perhaps this is a naive idea because it assumes that there is the political will to make these investments and that the industry is forced to cooperate accordingly. Addressing the climate crisis requires many changes, and economic profitability must be secondary. But achieving this is perhaps one of the most difficult adjustments society requires.

  • advance_settings@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I agree there - if decent public transport is available, it will be used. And it’s clearly the governments responsibility to provide that. Going by the chart, I would put “rethink mobility” in zone 2.

    Damn, my OP really reads like liberal propaganda.

  • Risk@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I disagree that the really hard things don’t cost money.

    Eating less meat does, at the surface, cost the consumer less money. If I go in to the supermarket, it’s cheaper to buy a bunch of chicken wings than it is to buy some plant based protein (not to mention my kids will actually eat the chicken). And yes, I know, “ThErE aRe pLeNTy oF cHeAPeR WaYs to EaT a nOn-MEaT DiEt.”. Thank you, Mr Vegan, we’re talking about converting the masses here. Government’s can change that by changing subsidy weights, but then it’s not really an individual-led change at that level.

    Same for decarbonisation of heating - if I want to install a heat pump and insulate my home better, that costs money!

    As for flying yes, that’s more about regulating air travel to make it cost more and stopping the practice of airlines having to fly empty flights to retain their use of that flight plan. Again, not really an individual-driven change. Especially because the impact of flying disproportionately leans towards the more wealthy and business.

    • Shurimal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Same for decarbonisation of heating - if I want to install a heat pump and insulate my home better, that costs money!

      And older multi-story apartment buildings are often practically impossible to switch to heat pumps. These older buildings make up a vast majority of european city dwellings. All you can realistically do is update insulation and the central heating system to be more efficient, but decarbonizing the latter—I don’t even know if there are heat pump based solutions that can heat water to 50…60°C needed if it gets to -20°C and colder. And if there is, installing it would be a nightmare.

      Individual heat pumps for each apartment? Where to put the 2 to 4 external heat exchangers per apartment that is needed? If they’re on the walls 30 meters from ground how do you have access to them for deicing if they clog up with snow and ice? If they’re on rooftops you need mighty long piping to lower floors.

      Heat pumps are awesome, but for apartment buildings you have to plan them in from the beginning.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I agree, “the really hard things often don’t require money, but a change in people!” despite what I’m sure are OP’s best intentions, is juts more of the same corporate shifting of responsibility away from themselves and on to the individuals they have trapped. Unless the change they mean is becoming an active anti-capitalist and plotting the demise of the rich, which I somehow doubt.

      As long as profit is the priority of society, those who make it off of the backs (and eventual destruction) of the rest of us aren’t going to stop, and as long as they keep going, anything we do in terms of personal eating habits/recycling/travel and so on is an irrelevant drop in the ocean. The only way to have any real impact is remove them and destroy their system.

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/30/capitalism-is-killing-the-planet-its-time-to-stop-buying-into-our-own-destruction

      • advance_settings@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Sorry about that, that was really badly worded by me. I meant to express that behavorial change is a hard challenge, while (some) technological issues can ‘simply’ be solved by throwing money at it.

        I am fully convinced that we need a radically different economic system that steers away from profit as ultimate goal.

    • yessikg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Many poor people already have a mostly plant-based diet because it’s cheaper. All you really need is rice, beans, and veggies

  • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Why is decarbonisation of individual heating and electrify individual mobility not on a similar level? Seriously most people do not care where the heat comes from, but that it comes. Nobody is braging that they have the GasBoiler MilleniumXX at home. However a lot of people are really into cars and the sound and feeling of a combustion engine has been made into something cool by car advertisments. So people are going to switch to low cost green heating, if it is cheaper and practical. I do not see that for cars.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is the CRACK ADDICT model

    The dealer is constantly selling crack without shame and impunity.

    Users keep buying and taking the crack.

    Everyone blames the user for not quiting crack.

    In case anyone is wondering about my metaphor, industry has lots of power and they produce a lot of pollution in order to give us the junk we think we want to buy. They have all the ability to take on more efficient and environmentally safer solutions but they don’t because it will affect their profits. So they shift the responsibility to us and tell us that we need to stop buying this stuff and they’ll stop making them. Unfortunately we’re hooked on this stuff and they know it.

    They’re blaming the junkies for making them sell the stuff that is destroying everyone.