Even climate change as a problem is largely driven by the oligarch class. The working class would have been alright driving the smaller cars used to drive in the 2010s, and would have likely been okay climate action even in the late 80s. Especially since the cost would have been much lower if action was taken at that time.

That is if the oligarch class did not wage relentless propaganda on climate change science and any solutions, instead promoting the fossil fuels industry which they own.

[+] walktheplank@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The changes necessary to mitigate acid rain and the ozone hole didn't threaten existing oligopolies.

Acid rain was "easy" to solve by shipping production overseas (which benefits the rich, since production costs go down), slapping scrubbers onto emitters (whose costs could be passed on to consumers via fees or tax breaks), or changing the formulation of stuff getting burned. The rich stayed rich without changing their business model.

AFAIU, CFCs (and other ozone depleting compounds) had analogs that were relatively easy to use without changing processes. Once again, no yachts were harmed in the making of that solution.

Addressing climate change means we have to change how we do everything: transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing. Even band-aid solutions like EVs and renewable power require minor change and are getting a shit tonne of pushback. Doing the hard work necessary to keep our climate stable (and avoiding possible extinction) would invalidate a bunch of business models.

Hence the resistance.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

No yachts were harmed in the making of that solution.

👏

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

I totally agree.