Black and white cartoon.  Left panel: a group blocks a road with a banner reading "No new oil | so there's a liveable planet for our children."  Right panel: A boardroom, with members of the board raising their hands.  In front of them is a chart showing planned oil extraction going well above a dashed line marked "Level beyond which there will be no livable plant for our children.

    • dfc09@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      If we really want to split hairs over money, how much would it cost to replace Earth?

      Like c’mon, we’re really gonna incinerate our own biosphere over some money? Shouldn’t this be a problem to tackle, spare no expense?

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re also acting as it there is a lack of money in the first place, because they don’t see those who are profiting off of the destruction of earth as also responsible.
        Honestly, I’d love a diagram of the mental gymnastics you need to be able to so wholeheartedly yourself of that…

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In the 19th century the fossil fuels justnlying around might have been more accessible (but at this point most of the world lived without them), but since the middle of last century it has been concerted effort to externalise the costs and widely documented conspiracy and violence used to destroy alternatives with externalised benefits.

      Electrified rail (even if running on coal) uses a few % of the fossil fuels of trucks + roads, but top-down decisions by governments on the take were made to dismantle rail.

      Same with trolley busses and trams.

      Just building houses slightly taller and closer together reduces oil consumption by about 50%, but that was literally banned because it makes everyone owning a car impossible.

      Wind + pumped hydro has been an option since the 40s (much cheaper than coal + lung disease), and would have come down the cost curve with even a tiny fraction of the subsidies fossil fuels get. The first large scale wind farm was abandoned because it cost 60% more than unfiltered, acid-rain-spewing coal as if that was a failure rather than an overwhelming success.

      Trillions were spent securing oil. This isn’t paid back at the pump though.

      Solar thermal has always been a viable option for low grade heat everywhere and was proven viable for mechanical work in 50% of the planet in the 1910s. Coal soot makes it a lot worse.

      The ones holding the deeds to the coal mines and oil wells don’t murder, send armies, fund coups, buy the entire media, own most major political parties in the global north, purchase and dismantle transit systems, and strongarm universities because their product is better on technical merit.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you have an idea of how many billions were invested for fossile fuels to be what they are today? The roads didn’t built themselves alone.

      The problem is that capitalism is completely unable to invest for society’s future, because the reward is too far in the future and spread across the whole society. Capitalism want cash now for themselves alone, the world can burn otherwise.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      but I’m not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend there aren’t really challenges that need to be overcome.

      except that’s literally all you’re doing in this thread - ignoring everything everyone else is telling you because you’re not comfortable with reality and would rather just continue to protect your ego and cognitive dissonance (because you’re wrong, but not the type capable of admitting it).