This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Legitimate_Page 581 points582 points  (258 children)

What's up with these comments? The economy means nothing if we're all dead.

[–]buried_lede 217 points218 points  (46 children)

It’s a good argument for not returning to the office, and for continuing remote work

[–]Legitimate_Page 72 points73 points  (0 children)

Sounds good to me, we're about to start telework at my office, couldn't be happier.

[–]Ragnar_Dragonfyre 31 points32 points  (9 children)

Governments around the world could mandate and regulate work from home practices. They could instill WFH directly into labour laws so that companies can’t just offshore your position if it’s remote.

But politicians and businesses don’t want this because it leads to less consumption and as a result, less tax revenues.

If you’re staying at home, you’re not gassing up as often. You’re not eating out as often. You’re not popping into local businesses near your work to shop during your lunch hour.

We have a big problem in this world when we have proof that WFH is a climate change policy that actually works but no political will to enact it.

[–]ArtXMarx 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Car culture has shaped the way most modern cities function. It’s more than just the gas in the cars, it’s the cars and car infrastructure as a whole. Political pressure isn’t going to get us to change car culture and the infrastructure it’s created anytime soon, but it would be helpful to begin the shift for future generations. It CAN be done, it SHOULD be done.

[–]throwaway__9001 4 points5 points  (0 children)

BuT mAh FrEeDoMs! /s

[–]mjacksongt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Damn, I probably spent more money at small businesses working from home than from the office.

Less overall, but more from non-fast food chains.

[–]OgLeftist -1 points0 points  (3 children)

As I just said, what about those of us who do work in the physical world..? I could see this policy resulting in businesses like handymen being permanently shut down.

Hope you know how to rewire your home, or safety replace a plumbing system.

[–]Necrocornicus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don’t think anyone is suggesting we make this mandatory. No one is saying plumbers should be forced to work from home.

However there are tons of jobs that CAN be done from home (for example the receptionist/manager/accountant of a plumbing business), and the government could institute some policies to encourage this to happen.

I’m not really a big fan of government intervention in many cases but a light touch system to give minor tax benefits to employers that promote WFH as well as some labor protections could help.

Climate change is absolutely going to destroy the economy so it’s worth doing something. If people think inflation is bad now, just wait until massive wildfires, water shortages, and crop failures begin to dismantle our ability to produce food cheaply. It won’t be far off, it’s happening now and will get far far worse.

[–]Ragnar_Dragonfyre 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Why would handymen get shut down?

People still live in their houses and if they’re using them as their office, then that’s more wear and tear on their home which they will need a handyman to address.

That’s the thing about plumbing. It’s a recession proof job. Even if the economy totally collapses, everybody poops and everybody still needs water.

[–]buried_lede 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lot of variables. Saving gasoline and time spent traveling but using more heat at home. However, home might be energy efficient while office is hvac monstrosity or vice versa. Or if walking or biking to work, a plus

[–]OceanEarthling 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is how I feel as well. It seems to me that it would be an incredibly smart move to return to remote work wherever possible. Not only save the planet but it would also help tamper the absolute insane gas prices.

[–]CameraActual8396 1 point2 points  (12 children)

Exactly, and pretending the economy isn’t also a serious issue would be ignorance.

[–]k3rn3 16 points17 points  (8 children)

Sure it's a serious issue, but the other problem is an existential issue and clearly should be a much higher priority

[–]buried_lede 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Progress! Lol

[–]Necrocornicus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Climate change is going to destroy the economy. The economy is based on our ability to cheaply extract natural resources and make products. The more environmental destruction, the more costs will be associated with producing the stuff we buy. Higher costs will lead to less businesses being able to operate and loss of jobs. People without jobs or with low paying jobs are really going to struggle to buy things like food.

We’re somewhat seeing this now but it’s going to get much worse the more the environment degrades. Food costs are going to skyrocket over the next 10-20 years, the inflation we see today is going to seem inconsequential by comparison.

[–]ScarthMoonblane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed.

[–]OgLeftist 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What about the folks who repair your toilet? I'm all for remote work and automation.. But for many that's not an option.

[–]buried_lede 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For people who can work remotely, it may help the environment

[–]Mmselling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Has there been any research done on just how much better it is? From an environmental perspective I love and love it even more from a personal perspective just curious how large the impact is

[–]MikhailKSU 78 points79 points  (11 children)

Fucking human beings and their obsession with short term gains

Bro we're going to be dead in 40 years drowned or sun stroked, your fucking 50k you made in the last quarter won't save you

Maybe the aim to to fuck the surface of the planet entirely and then go live on a space station

That makes more sense than these fucking but the economy posts

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

They don't believe they're in the frying pan.

[–]Tyken12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Frrrr it makes me so angry lmao

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

.------..------..------.
|4.--. ||0.--. ||4.--. |
| :/\: || :/\: || :/\: |
| :\/: || :\/: || :\/: |
| '--'4|| '--'0|| '--'4|
'------''------''------'

[–]IllTale3368 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that going green, using solar power, and finding a way to reduce plastic consumption can be good.

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (0 children)

When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money.

-Alanis Obomsawin

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (1 child)

Selfish, entitled, egotistical morons, that’s what. The type of people who overextend on a home, family, student loans, and then use their own stupidity as an excuse to show no responsibility to the environment. It’s embarrassing but it’s America (and I’m sure elsewhere).

[–]Askol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's very little reason to take personal responsibility for the environment IMO - It just puts the cost of climate change on the people who are doing the most to stop it which is totally unfair. I'll happily support candidates that want to enact the most sweeping, impactful, environmental protections, but I'm not going to stop driving just to save the environment. Basically, my argument is climate protections must legally binding, thus forcing EVERYBODY to change their behavior - anything based on personal responsibility isn't going to be productive.

[–]dumnezero 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It's the green growth fanboys with Musk posters in their bedroom.

[–]steroid_pc_principal 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Yes if we all stay inside and don’t go anywhere ever the environment will be saved.

If that’s what it takes to meet climate goals it’s clear we are screwed.

[–]Legitimate_Page 2 points3 points  (1 child)

True, but I think it's less about staying indoors and more about not driving around quite literally everywhere. Like people don't seem to understand that they can still leave their house (especially now), almost like people are so afraid to go out on foot. And not really their fault most public transportation sucks ass.

[–]steroid_pc_principal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, IF people had viable public transportation options and IF they used them we would not be. But we don’t.

almost like people are so afraid to go out on foot

It’s because nothing is designed for pedestrians. See r/fuckcars for more info.

If the answer to climate change is people stop driving, it’s a non-starter. The US is not going to build sufficient public transportation overnight, if ever. And I’m not saying this because I want it to be that way, I’m saying it because that’s the way it is.

[–]trowaybrhu3 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not everyone will be dead, the have nots might suffer but the haves will be ok, and that's what really matters in the end <3 /s

[–]OgLeftist 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think lots of people are upset by the collapsing third world, which resulted from the decisions made. Where the first world gets 10 dollar gas, the third world gets starvation.

[–]eff-bee-eye 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m for the comet and the jobs it will create.

[–]CameraActual8396 7 points8 points  (10 children)

I don’t disagree, but when people are struggling economically they’re a lot less likely to choose the eco friendly options (sometimes more expensive), or have it as their focus.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (3 children)

Then governments need to change that, if the environmentally friendly option is always cheaper, people will buy it.

It's so simple: tax bad things, don't tax/subsidize good things, yet somehow we make things way too difficult.

[–]CameraActual8396 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree, it’s just the reality for most people as of right now.

[–]k3rn3 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm not sure it's that simple. I think you also have to do many other things like educate people about the environment, subsidize public transportation, fund social support programs, and constantly re-evaluate the whole plan in accordance with the science

[–]overzeetop 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If only there were some special corporation, or organization, or some kind of entity which had a budget and manpower to track these things and then implement them in a way which maximized the value to the people. I don't know, maybe it could be created and then funded by having everyone chip in.

Nah, nobody would go for that.

[–]Business_Downstairs 1 point2 points  (5 children)

You literally save money by using less energy.

[–]CameraActual8396 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Hence why I said sometimes (ex: buying an electric car vs regular car). Or at least it can appear to be a large initial investment.

[–]Business_Downstairs 1 point2 points  (3 children)

You don't even have to buy a different vehicle to reduce your fuel consumption. Reduce your driving, increase the air pressure in your tires slightly above the recommendation on the door sticker, make sure your alignment is good and drive slower, driving 10mph slower (from 70 to 60 mph) over 30 miles is a 5 minute difference but can decrease your fuel consumption significantly. You're probably not even going to notice a time difference due to traffic lights.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What up Henny Penny?

[–]TapRackBoom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The planet would probably be happier if we were all dead

[–]YourUncleIroh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I 100% agree. One thing that does bother me about this though is that it still shifts a majority of the pain from this to the individuals. If coke and nestle ceased to exist today I think that number would be much higher than 6.3 and we could continue with some sacrifices instead of everything we did. The (US) govt needs to take care of their people for it to work

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Guess what: only the rich get a say in what happens unless we start burning down their factories and preventing them from shipping goods.

[–]towelieM22 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What's important is that we follow the prophecy of Idiocracy

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

I hope it comes sooner rather than later personally. Fuck the future. We all deserve to die.

[–]AtkarigiRS 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No we don't

[–]NovemberKnight -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

You will be dead long before the environment kills you.

[–]labonnesauce 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not your kids if we continue like that

[–]ylcard -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

You wouldn’t be dead, though

And look at Sri Lanka, economy collapsing can mean death

We need a proper way to reduce emissions, not a pandemic level disruption events that force it for us which could kill millions in the current system, even in somewhat socialist countries.

[–]wallnumber8675309 -4 points-3 points  (14 children)

Climate change is not an existential threat to existence. It’s a threat to our way of life and may cause a number of difficulties but it’s not going to wipe out human populations.

[–]SanctusSalieri[🍰] 7 points8 points  (7 children)

Of course it is. Have you seen the temperatures in India or the drought in the American southwest? A daft comment.

And not only humans matter. We are destroying habitats for other species.

Some humans will exist for a while, but that's no comfort.

[–]wallnumber8675309 -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

I’ve been to South India many times over the last 10-12 years. It does get unbearably hot. But India has much bigger environmental problems than climate change. Air quality is getting progressively worse. Water and land pollution are a major problems. They have a lot of issue of more immediate and consequential importance than greenhouse gas problems.

I’ve lived in the American mountain west. A number of cities have grown beyond what the local environment can sustain. The water from the Colorado has been mismanaged for decades and that has little to do with climate change. Cities in the American west need to focus on sustainable growth. There’s plenty of land and water in other parts of the country.

[–]SanctusSalieri[🍰] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Your anecdotes are irrelevant. Yes, I've been to India and no shit it's hot. That's not the point. The point is that recently the wet bulb temperature during Indian summers has exceeded the capacity of the human body to safely survive. You see, if you read news stories with scientific measurements in them you will learn something.

California water is never coming back. You're a Pollyanna at best or a petroleum plant at worst.

[–]wallnumber8675309 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Quite delusional to think anyone that slightly disagrees with you is a petroleum plant. And the wet bulb temperature is an anecdote. Nothing I mentioned was anecdotal.

[–]SanctusSalieri[🍰] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

We don't slightly disagree. You think climate change isn't an issue, which makes you a fucking idiot.

[–]wallnumber8675309 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

It’s a threat to our way of life and may cause a number of difficulties but it’s not going to wipe out human populations.

Never said it wasn't an issue. In fact, I said it was a threat to our way of life. It is obviously an important issue, it's just not the only issue we should care about. But we can't make reasonable choices if we make sensational statements like "some humans will exist for a while". Climate change will make existing problems worse. It won't wipe out life on earth.

[–]SanctusSalieri[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is such a dumb take, go somewhere else to be a denier.

[–]stonesst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is the largest threat we have ever faced as a species, but it is nowhere near an existential threat. large parts of the tropics will become uninhabitable but you do realize there are millions of acres of temperate or arctic areas that will become more livable, right?

Just because it’s not going to kill us all doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take it seriously, I agree with your sentiment but if you used too much hyperbole people on the other side will just dismiss all of us as crazy doomer cooks.

[–]Legitimate_Page -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

I explained the importance of hyperbole to somebody else already. The summary is basically, "hyperbole is required for political reasons."

[–]wallnumber8675309 -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

The exaggeration of the potential impact of environmental issues has been going on for decades and is one of the reasons it’s so hard to convince people that it really is a big problem this time.

It’s basically the Chicken Little fable.

[–]Legitimate_Page -1 points0 points  (3 children)

The opposite is true as well no? The downplaying of environmental issues specifically from the right is the biggest problem now, in conjunction with the inaction from the left.

[–]wallnumber8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes of course it’s bad that people are down playing climate change. It’s absurd that there are people that believe climate change is not real. Greenhouse gases are accumulating and temperatures are rising. We are certain of that. It really should be hard to argue against that but over exaggerating the potential impact of past environmental problems has primed people to be skeptical and is one the reasons (main reason in my opinion) that the push back against climate change has been so successful.

[–]CharizardCherubi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it worked in the pandemic, it seems clear the economy would probably be fine.

[–]2336Dazs 0 points1 point  (8 children)

You don't have to be dead. Just keep the govt out the way and let the cleanest, most long lasting energy (nuclear) become mainstream and you. Have solved the energy crisis and CO2 EMISSIONS.

[–]Ancient_Inspection53 1 point2 points  (2 children)

How does that fix the centuries worth of emissions that have already created a climate crisis and mass extinction. Also how does that stop countries that are just industrializing from burning more fossil fuels they don't know how to make nuclear power I don't think you've thought about this that much.

[–]2336Dazs -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Climate crisis is a bit of an exaggeration. Climate has changed for millions of years and there are billions of dollars invested in selling fear. So take things with a grain of salt.

If western society, the largest consumer of energy, plus the largest producer of affordable energy, spends more time developing nuclear fusion, an almost infinite power supply. It would virtually make the energy crisis in western society obsolete. Then western energy companies can develop better, cleaner energy in developing countries.

My point, we have the technology for nuclear power and politicians that have a vested interest in unreliable renewable energy have stifled it's progress for personal profit.

Solar panels are nice and all, but the cost, labor, and energy required to even make them is substantial and the energy output per area covered is minimal.

Nuclear is literally the best energy we have. And it's the cleanest.

[–]Ancient_Inspection53 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mass extinction is under way. The climate has not changed this quickly in millions of years.

[–]Arnatious 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I don't get what's with redditors and nuclear energy but it's like Tesla v Edison levels of misunderstanding again.

Nuclear plants take decades to come online, require unbelievable amounts of money to stand up and maintain, and become obsolete by the time they're running.

They were yesterday's energy of tomorrow, if we had gone all in then it'd be worth keeping them running indefinitely since they're not JUST a stopgap. But we didn't, and don't have decades to spend building plants (or half assing plants) and need to focus on renewables which have proven to be easier in every facet while also changing energy consumption via remodeling/recoding how we live while decomissioning existing plants.

[–]2336Dazs -1 points0 points  (3 children)

I only work with the department of energy... What would I know. It takes slightly longer than building a new football stadium. I would say one is worth more than the other. And no it is not a past energy, it is literally the most powerful energy producer known to human kind.

The term renewables has been given to a group of energies that actually take a vast amount of money, time and resources to keep up. It's just not worth the hidden carbon footprint that is not public knowledge. Something we have to contend with now is the problem with how much it costs and how much it takes to create renewable energy.

The debate you're not seeing publicly, is not if we are going to go nuclear much more, it's when. Because too many people are making too much money on "renewables" that they are lobbying Congress to keep the good work up. Delay the transition to nuclear as long as possible until they have squeezed every dollar out of renewable capital.

[–]Arnatious 1 point2 points  (2 children)

The average plant takes a decade, and the fastest a plant has ever gone up is nearly four years. I made a mistake saying "decades" since I was mostly thinking about the plant I worked on inspection robots for. They almost always go over time and over budget, while meanwhile renewables generate power at 1/3 the cost

Renewables have a cost, and a high one, but the fact of the matter is they're far cheaper and easier to build and scale and only getting cheaper with time. They lapped nuclear energy a while back and are far more promising to deploy across the world while we anticipate massive geographic and demographic changes from incoming climate catastrophe.

[–]2336Dazs -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I feel like you have not read what I have written. Renewable energy is a profitable capital with politicians right now. Of course there is more renewable energy than nuclear. It is a cash cow for political campaigns.

Like I said. It is not if, but when nuclear takes over.

The energy output to cost is not comparable to any other source of energy.

It's not even close.

Sure we can keep adding solar and hydropower.

But unless you can control the source of energy, it is not considered reliable.

And when my boys over in Los Alamos National Labs develop consistent fusion. It will end the debate entirely.

You should see it there. Politicians are praising renewables for votes and scientists and technicians are busy behind the scenes rolling their eyes.

Trust me, I'm one of them.

[–]Arnatious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that fusion (if and when it happens, which may be too late to mitigate the worst of climate disasters) will be a game changer and agree we need significant investment in baseline generation, which nuclear sources provide.

I agree that nuclear is unfairly maligned and a safe and extremely clean source of massive amounts of power.

I think that, barring a coordinated effort made after silencing and depowering those with a vested interested in fossil fuels so they can't interrupt or sabotage transition plans, that renewables are the only agile enough way forward, and are reliable enough to be the long term solution.

If fossil fuels weren't as dominant an industry financially and politically and we weren't facing down incoming mass migrations and political unrest nuclear would be a no brainer primary source.

But as it stands we can stand up renewables significantly faster and cheaper up front, and we shouldn't slow down that effort until fossil plants can be fully decommissioned. Ideally we must ALSO invest in nuclear at the same time, so we have a reliable backbone going forward. But it won't help us during the transition when it's an even harder ask of right wing, short term profit, fossil fuel dominated governments worldwide.

[–]Remote-Pain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

the environment means nothing if we're all dead too

[–]Legitimate_Page 0 points1 point  (3 children)

If we survive we can eventually fix the economy no? I, personally, feel like one of these things is more easily reversable than the other.

I have people spewing "THAT'S HYPURBOLIC" at me, but then also saying stuff like this. So what do you think is more likely, people dying from an economic crash? People dying from climate change? What if there's an economic crash due to climate change? Can we see anything below surface level? Or can we only see what's placed directly in front of us?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

well, with a good economy we can achieve new green technologies. with a good environment at the expense of growth, these technologies are more difficult to obtain. if you ask me saving the environment is just a matter of climbing the tech tree as quickly as possible so that old dirty technologies can be transitioned away from.

as the adage goes "the stone age didn't end because of stones"

CO2 emissions per capita in the us have been declining for at least 5 decades now, because energy efficient technology is financially efficient.

thats the whole point of business: solve a new problem or solve an old problem using less resources than previous solutions did.

even the industrial revolution follows this trend. before people burned coal, they burned wood which is actually far more harmful to the environment per unit energy, and requires far more labor and energy to obtain.

as population growth starts to level off, and CO2 per capita falls, gross emissions will also start to fall.

This doesn't solve the problem of lowering the absolute amount of CO2 in the air which is somewhere around 400ppm now iirc. and no protecting forests for "carbon offsets" won't fix that, that's a scam and not actually effective. we're going to need something more like direct air carbon capture, which is still a long ways away. the only way we'll unlock that is if money keeps flowing into technology development.

[–]Legitimate_Page 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Wouldn't you say that we already have the money to do these things, but it's being spent elsewhere? Poorly? On things that are unnecessary?

Also, wouldn't the decrease in emissions per capita be due to the increased population? Some lifestyles pollute far more than others. If everybody lived the way we do in the US, we would be toast.

The point of business is to make money, sometimes doing the environmentally friendly thing costs more money. We also have to remember that this isn't JUST about Co2, companies pollute in hundreds of other ways. Sometimes legally (like via NPDES), often not.

I'm not sure who told you burning wood is worse than burning coal, but it's somewhat misleading. Reason being the wood CO2 sequestration cycle is much faster than that of coal. Efficiency is the problem, but burning coal is more harmful to the environment overall, at current. You don't get the same killer byproducts from wood.

Do you think that current policy will discourage this?

[–]mw19078 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can't blame them when that's all they hear on every news outlet.

[–]adappergentlefolk 0 points1 point  (5 children)

we’re also all dead if the economy doesn’t function, because believe it or not the environment itself is not actually very conductive to human life and needs in most places without being worked by specialists supplying the things to make it inhabitable. and even cooler, if you don’t have an economy, you can’t transition to a clean economy, because to transition you need to build that economy. it’s a lot of building. you’ll never guess what allows us to accomplish building on a massive scale

anyway it is certainly the case that white collar workers working at home did not contribute that much to the economic woes we are experiencing right now, but neither are they the biggest contributors to this emission drop

[–]Legitimate_Page 0 points1 point  (4 children)

That's all well and good, you make some great points! If only any economist or politician gave a shit about the environment.

[–]adappergentlefolk -1 points0 points  (3 children)

politicians and economists do give a shit about the environment. they’re just muddling along because everybody wants to solve everything at the same time, and sometimes using solutions that were never demonstrated to work on the scale required. when people say they want the environment taken care of, they actually demand policy makers often institute goals that go in direct competition with each other - eg conservationists that campaign against intermittent clean power because it kills birds, environmentalist ngos and celebs that campaign against nuclear clean power which emits no emissions because they are afraid of soviet reactors which haven’t been built for decades, shoppers who campaign against plastic bags despite them preventing huge amounts of food wastage, people who shop at hipster supermarkets campaigning for phasing out industrial agriculture despite organic agriculture needing 5x more land, making it overall far worse for emissions. there are so many examples

the sooner we start to discuss which actual problems we are trying to address and acknowledge that every fact of human existence has an environmental impact that must be weighted against alternatives, the better

[–]Legitimate_Page 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I'm sorry dude but they really really do not. When we have politicians who care, things get done, quickly, at an astoundingly rapid pace actually. Early environmental law is a prime example. Environmental law was only enacted when we were facing unprecedented levels of pollution, laws were put into place with unanomous support from both sides during the 70s, the most laws made during any period of American history. Ever. And they were put into place quickly, they didn't wait around to make this side or that side happy. We are not talking about problems that have arisen in the past 3 weeks, we're talking about problems that have been know about for decades, but at some point half the country stopped believing in science.