Anonymous #1 1w

i dont think that, but many vocal activists of it have a degrowth mindset and platform, and thats unacceptable to people

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

the entire message (thats winning btw) against renewables in america is that people will have to accept a lower standard of living with the adoption of renewables

9

Anonymous OP 1w

Are you trying to say that normal people=extremely stupid people? Bc anyone that needs a business friendly rebrand to see the value of green energy are extremely stupid, or extremely evil

8

Anonymous #4 1w

no, normal people are just incredibly propagandized by well funded anti green energy groups, and pro green energy people arent making the right arguments in public. so the average person is left either anti renewable to preserve their way of life or indifferent and defaulting to the status quo

12

Anonymous OP 1w

that does not justify succumbing to the will of capitalists though. what you should have said, is that those of us who advocate for a more serious mindset towards the anthropogenic climate crisis should be more focused on analyzing and deconstructing dogma and propaganda; rather than adopting pro-business sentiment or whatever the fuck.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

the issue is, as you implied, that hundreds of millions have been spent over the course of decades to condition the masses to be unfavorable towards any form of renewable energy, and to discredit the climate crisis altogether, let alone the severity of it.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

meaningfully combatting said crisis does indeed require a massive shift in the current status quo, and it does require a major change in how we all live our lives. the issue is most people are not willing to do so, and it cannot be achieved on an individual level, it has to be forced on the companies pouring millions into propaganda.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Individual change can help, but it will not solve the issue. most have been manipulated into thinking the have to make individual sacrifices though, rather than the necessary collective societal shift that is truly required to fix this issue. ultimately, it is a “do or die” situation in the long term, for our species and the majority of species on this planet, whether we want to acknowledge that or not.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

also, “normal people”?? if anything, “laypeople” is applicable, “normal” is just a weird ass choice of framing.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

thats the thing though, it wouldnt require a massive change in how we live our lives. apart from switching the green alternatives like electric vehicles, everything an individual does would stay pretty much the same. thats why people are against renewables, they think its part of a larger agenda to make their lives worse

1

Anonymous OP 1w

With all due respect, it absolutely would. it is not just about cars, nor the energy industry (despite those being major contributors); it is also about the extractive nature of our society. truly addressing the anthropogenic climate crisis requires an analysis of our entire relationship with the planet, and specifically our global economies built off heavily extracting resources from the planet.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

that does not mean peoples’ lives get worse though, and honestly I’d argue they’d get better by extension of addressing the exploitative and extractive nature of our current sociopolitical system

1

Anonymous #6 1w

In other words: there is a limit to what we can pull out of this planet, and we cannot sustain our current rate of extraction over time. Another portion of it is agriculture and our current standards for agriculture, for example its estimated that we have roughly 60 years left of topsoil before our practice of widespread tilling each year destroys the vast majority of it, leaving us incapable of growing directly on the surface of the planet as we currently do

1

Anonymous #6 1w

(we’d still have hydroponics and other non-topsoil based methods of growth, but it’s a major issue)

1

Anonymous #6 1w

yeah thats the kind of messaging im talking about that just immediately spikes peoples care about the issue. we can and will switch the grid to renewables without getting rid of capitalism or big business

0

Anonymous #6 1w

hell, if I remember correctly some nations already started taking projected widespread food insecurity caused by the anthropogenic climate crisis into their national security considerations specifically the UK, if I’m not mistaken, but I believe it’s not limited to the UK.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

So your issue entirely boils down to retaining your perceived comfort and preferred sociopolitical systems? maybe the issue isn’t as much messaging, but more so a combination of manipulation and an ingrained resistance to self-reflection and/or change?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

(regardless of the outcome of addressing these issues results in you receiving an increase in material comfort or not)

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Nuclear might be necessary anyway, because solar power requires land, and coastal cities don’t want offshore wind and there are concerns about the impact to marine wildlife. We can’t do solar/wind alone or nuclear alone but they can work hand in hand

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I haven’t seen it that often but there’s one person on here that specifically preaches degrowth 😭

-1

Anonymous #6 1w

no, the issue is people sneaking in a whole host of other politics into green energy. no, the average person is not getting on board with green energy if it means socialism or communism lmao, but the point is the green energy revolution is completely compatible with capitalism

0

Anonymous OP 1w

it doesn’t mean socialism or communism, this is you projecting your misconceptions and, sorry to say, refusing to engage in the slightest bit of self-reflection. reflecting on our current behaviors, or even capitalism as a whole, is not inherently communism nor socialism. The issue is you’re greenwashing yourselves without actually attempting to understand nor mitigate the issues at hand. the issue does not end with energy production, and you need to take that part seriously.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

I’m sorry but think about the shit you’re saying before you actually say it. not once have I mentioned socialism or communism, you brought those into this conversation. take some time out of your day, if you can, to look into some of the topics I mentioned earlier. The topic of damage of tilling on topsoil retention is a great one to start with. With all due respect, the only way to break out of our conditioned dogma is through wanting to learn.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

lastly, to cement the point, the issue is that merely transitioning to green energy does not solve the issue of greenhouse gas emissions alone, let alone the plethora of issues that actually contribute to the anthropogenic climate crisis.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

(My apologies for the comment being disconnected from the thread)

1

Anonymous #6 1w

dawg you are so deeply condescending it is miserable talking to you lmao talk to someone else good luck

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I’m sorry for being condescending, it wasn’t my intention. I’ve studied this topic quite a bit and I’m really passionate about it as you can see, but that doesn’t excuse being overly rude towards you. I’m sorry. with that being said, can you see why i discuss it so comprehensively? It’s a lot more severe than most of us are led to believe.

1