sure it is. removing subsidies on commodities like gas doesn’t change the demand for gas, it just puts more of a burden on poor people, and doesn’t matter at all to the rich who use it most. that path will only lead to backlash against green policies in general, see the yellow vest protests. in order to reduce consumption you actually need to reduce demand by giving people sustainable alternatives.
Demand elasticity is a thing. Demand won’t shrink by the same ratio prices rose after removing subsidies, but it will shrink.
Response to that I can’t predict, but there are places in the planet where prices are lower because of the general poverty of population and the need to still sell it, and places where prices are even higher, but most of the population can’t afford fuel, I can’t name.
EDIT: This was incomprehensible, sorry. I meant that in the long term prices for the consumer are going to become closer to what they were with subsidies, likely, thus the real prices - lower. The question is how bad it gets before that happens.
How the fuck do they afford subsidies? Why do you think they have been in this crisis for 30 years? It is a well educated and fairly modern society. But if you think socialist programs can be paid by borrowing money or printing money indefinitely and won’t result in cronic poor outcomes then you have little understanding of basic economics.
Diapers are causing the most damage to the planet? You sure about that? Also the dude is a climate change denier so this isn’t even a “broken clock right twice a day” thing, it’s just purely accidental.
It is absolutely not a fact. There is nothing inherent about any human being that causes damage to the environment. It’s what human society as we organize it does, and a very small number of people do an incredibly outsized proportion of the damage. Focusing on things like birth control and overpopulation is a major part of ecofascist rhetoric. It is also very much about punishing a distant other because after all, if you really believed that all human births were inherently damaging to the environment, we wouldn’t be having this conversation as you would have already undone the damage caused by your own parents. But you haven’t, and nor should you for many good reasons! Those reasons also apply to everyone else too.
It is a fact. And fascism would be a policy that is aimed at a specific group of people. Its not fascist to say all humans need to curb our reproduction rates to make a better life for future generations.
Its not fascist to say all humans need to curb our reproduction rates to make a better life for future generations.
Yes it is, because the problem was never the total number of humans, the problem is our wasteful economic system. With a rational economic system we could easily sustain 10 billion people, we literally already produce food for that much, it just goes to waste.
You’re just so brainwashed by capitalist ideology you think the only solution to climate change is genocide, god forbid you try to envision a better economic system.
Ok, explain how it is true that every human purely by being born is equally culpable, and that human society isn’t at issue? And then you can explain why this doesn’t apply to you and your family.
No, humans need to reorganize society before curbing anything
Overpopulation isn’t the driver of damage, overconsumption is
So much damage could be eliminated by
allowing people to not mow their lawns/keep animals on them
abolishing all dress codes (less need for AC in the summer)
mandating green roofs
public transit
eliminating bullshit jobs
requiring ease of repair
and so many other things, which wouldn’t even reduce people’s quality of life, but improve it (so long as these resources are shared equally). After that happens, yes you can talk about limiting births to a 2.0 fertility rate, with some leeway (like you get fewer privileges if you have more kids) but in general this planet could easily handle twice or even thrice the amount of humans with no environmental damage if the population was managed properly. Which of course means you don’t get your own personal carriage to take you to a Taylor Swift concert 50 miles away at the drop of a hat
this reads like the reddit mayobrain take where they pat themselves on the back for not eating octopus because it’s “smart”
You’re not doing anything, you’re just stretching and reaching for a bright side to make yourself look good/feel good. Plastic literally-everything-fucking-else usage (ziploc bags, garbage bags, cups, spoons, forks, condiment packets, takeout containers, grocery bags which still exist despite having been banned) is so astronomically higher than diapers that it probably makes the CO2 differential between Africa and Europe look small
You missed the point. Disposable plastic items filing our landfills are bad, sure.
But the problem I was referring-to isnt the diapers. It’s the catastrophic environmental damage caused by humans reproducing. The problem is the babies.
Let me guess, you’ve never raised small children while also having to work full time?
Washing, boiling and drying poopy diapers is something people had the time to do back when women were expected to be full-time housewives. Unless you’re proposing a drastic reduction of work hours for parents, something “just raise the price of everything” is the direct opposite of doing, you’re simply cheering for life becoming harder for ordinary working class people.
You’re not going to avert climate change by making things suck more for working class people. All that is going to lead to is ecofascism. A socialist alternative to climate change has to offer actual justice and a better future than the present.
Look, theres a lot of reasons this guy sucks.
Increasing the costs of two things that are causing the most damange to our planet is not a reason to criticize him tho.
This guy isn’t a climate activist. It’s funny to see the price of fuel going up with a climate denier.
Maybe he’s an eco terrorist in deep cover?
It would be a nice plot twist in a movie.
sure it is. removing subsidies on commodities like gas doesn’t change the demand for gas, it just puts more of a burden on poor people, and doesn’t matter at all to the rich who use it most. that path will only lead to backlash against green policies in general, see the yellow vest protests. in order to reduce consumption you actually need to reduce demand by giving people sustainable alternatives.
Demand elasticity is a thing. Demand won’t shrink by the same ratio prices rose after removing subsidies, but it will shrink.
Response to that I can’t predict, but there are places in the planet where prices are lower because of the general poverty of population and the need to still sell it, and places where prices are even higher, but most of the population can’t afford fuel, I can’t name.
EDIT: This was incomprehensible, sorry. I meant that in the long term prices for the consumer are going to become closer to what they were with subsidies, likely, thus the real prices - lower. The question is how bad it gets before that happens.
How the fuck do they afford subsidies? Why do you think they have been in this crisis for 30 years? It is a well educated and fairly modern society. But if you think socialist programs can be paid by borrowing money or printing money indefinitely and won’t result in cronic poor outcomes then you have little understanding of basic economics.
Diapers are straight up more valuable and less dangerous than the phone you type on. Do you like Cholera outbreaks?
I assume they mean disposable diapers. Cloth dipers prevent sanitation issues and solve the waste issue.
But the problem I was referring-to is the catastrophic environmental damage caused by humans reproducing
Everyone knows what you meant, but it’s an ecofascist talking point, and doesn’t engender respect for you.
Diapers are causing the most damage to the planet? You sure about that? Also the dude is a climate change denier so this isn’t even a “broken clock right twice a day” thing, it’s just purely accidental.
Humans reproducing are the most damaging thing to the planet, yes
That’s ecofascism.
No, its a fact. A policy can be fascist, not a fact.
I dont think funding sex education, free contraceptivees, and free abortions services is fascist.
It is absolutely not a fact. There is nothing inherent about any human being that causes damage to the environment. It’s what human society as we organize it does, and a very small number of people do an incredibly outsized proportion of the damage. Focusing on things like birth control and overpopulation is a major part of ecofascist rhetoric. It is also very much about punishing a distant other because after all, if you really believed that all human births were inherently damaging to the environment, we wouldn’t be having this conversation as you would have already undone the damage caused by your own parents. But you haven’t, and nor should you for many good reasons! Those reasons also apply to everyone else too.
It is a fact. And fascism would be a policy that is aimed at a specific group of people. Its not fascist to say all humans need to curb our reproduction rates to make a better life for future generations.
Yes it is, because the problem was never the total number of humans, the problem is our wasteful economic system. With a rational economic system we could easily sustain 10 billion people, we literally already produce food for that much, it just goes to waste.
You’re just so brainwashed by capitalist ideology you think the only solution to climate change is genocide, god forbid you try to envision a better economic system.
Where did I say I’m capitalist or supporting a genocide? Its not genocide to give everyone free condoms lol
Ok, explain how it is true that every human purely by being born is equally culpable, and that human society isn’t at issue? And then you can explain why this doesn’t apply to you and your family.
No, humans need to reorganize society before curbing anything
Overpopulation isn’t the driver of damage, overconsumption is
So much damage could be eliminated by
and so many other things, which wouldn’t even reduce people’s quality of life, but improve it (so long as these resources are shared equally). After that happens, yes you can talk about limiting births to a 2.0 fertility rate, with some leeway (like you get fewer privileges if you have more kids) but in general this planet could easily handle twice or even thrice the amount of humans with no environmental damage if the population was managed properly. Which of course means you don’t get your own personal carriage to take you to a Taylor Swift concert 50 miles away at the drop of a hat
Lol those bullet points
this reads like the reddit mayobrain take where they pat themselves on the back for not eating octopus because it’s “smart”
You’re not doing anything, you’re just stretching and reaching for a bright side to make yourself look good/feel good. Plastic literally-everything-fucking-else usage (ziploc bags, garbage bags, cups, spoons, forks, condiment packets, takeout containers, grocery bags which still exist despite having been banned) is so astronomically higher than diapers that it probably makes the CO2 differential between Africa and Europe look small
You missed the point. Disposable plastic items filing our landfills are bad, sure.
But the problem I was referring-to isnt the diapers. It’s the catastrophic environmental damage caused by humans reproducing. The problem is the babies.
I promise you nobody is going to stop having kids because diapers specifically are expensive
No, a better policy is investing in schools, giving free contraceptives and healthcare including abortion services
that’s nice but has nothing do do with your initial comment
This was not really clear in your previous comments where you zoned in on a specific product rather than population growth.
Let me guess, you’ve never raised small children while also having to work full time?
Washing, boiling and drying poopy diapers is something people had the time to do back when women were expected to be full-time housewives. Unless you’re proposing a drastic reduction of work hours for parents, something “just raise the price of everything” is the direct opposite of doing, you’re simply cheering for life becoming harder for ordinary working class people.
You’re not going to avert climate change by making things suck more for working class people. All that is going to lead to is ecofascism. A socialist alternative to climate change has to offer actual justice and a better future than the present.
I wish I could update this twice.