311
Class war solves most issues
(lemmy.ml)
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/51623256
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
311 points (100.0% liked)
Climate
8919 readers
497 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
True and I was going to post something similar. One thing to keep in mind though is that the abolition of billionaires or more broadly speaking the capitalist class would enable the possibility of a totally different economy where profits are no longer the only goal. This could result in a more efficient way of doing things and therefore drastically reduce our negative impact on nature.
The capitalist class aren't cartoon villains; they're normal people. Changing the system to get rid of them isn't going to magically get rid of the human preference for the easier path. People aren't going to just suddenly wholesale agree to take the long view and do things the more expensive, but more environmentally friendly way. And when I say "more expensive" I don't mean the added expense of corporate greed. Even after you take out that factor, a lot of the expense comes from the simple difference in energy density.
I don't think anyone is claiming that removing capitalism would magically make environmentally friendly choices effortless or eliminate human preferences for convenience. The point is that the system determines what gets treated as the "easy" and "cheap" option in the first place. If an economic system rewards short-term returns while externalizing long-term environmental costs, then of course the dirty option tends to win. That's a structural issue, not a question of whether individual capitalists are cartoon villains. Physical constraints are real, but they're not an argument for treating the current economic incentives as inevitable.
I think you may be extrapolating in the wrong direction from my comments.
My main point isn't that the status quo is inevitable or anything like that. I'm trying to keep people focused on the whole problem, not just "eat the rich" type sloganeering. It's going to be a multiple generation endeavor to fix the environment, even if we magically started doing all the right things now. If we keep keep presenting it as something that can be solved by just getting rid of the rich, we're going to run into a whole new batch of problems when that doesn't work.
Yeah, I think we're mostly on the same page about it not being as simple as "get rid of the rich and problem solved."
Where I think we differ is that I see capitalism itself as probably the biggest hurdle. Not because people in capitalism are inherently bad but because the system's incentives are fundamentally at odds with living sustainably. I don't think changing that magically solves everything but I do think it's a prerequisite for solving the problem in the long run.