this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
95 points (91.3% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34293 readers
1279 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Id like lemmings take on how they would actually reduce emissions on a level that actually makes a difference (assuming we can still stop it, which is likely false by now, but let's ignore that)

I dont think its as simple as "tax billionaires out of existence and ban jets, airplanes, and cars" because thats not realistic.

Bonus points if you can think of any solutions that dont disrupt the 99%'s way of life.

I know yall will have fun with this!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Negative, you don't ban things to get them to go away, you just end up with tons of legal fights that last forever. You make the next gen stuff cheaper. You fund solar, electric and nuclear, and anything else that's renewable and cleaner than what we have now to the max. You kill the market for it, not try and ban it.

Fund the hell out of the research and you'll make the old tech obsolete. People will choose via their wallets and kill the industry overnight basically.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Remember when we discovered there was a giant hole in the ozone layer, and scientists determined that it was due to all the chlorofluorocarbons we were using for a million different things?

Yeah. They didn't get rid of CFC's by incentivizing alternatives. They straight up banned them. And it forced the world to start finding other ways to get the same things done. Period. The world didn't end. We just started using less harmful methods.

When it comes to fossil fuels, we've been fucking around with incentives, in the hope that industry and the market will change their patterns, voluntarily...and we are still nowhere near our goals. And at this point, it's starting to look like they've stopped even pretending they care.

If you make it an "option"...they will never change. If you make it mandatory...they have no choice. It really is that simple.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

CFCs didn't make your food, or transport you to work or make sure the electricity stayed on in hospitals. You're talking about something that while used, was not a major foundation of the entire global existence. It's not even in the same galaxy.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They were used in almost everything that required compressed air to function...from fire extinguishers to refrigeration units, air conditioners, and even hair spray bottles. Entire industries needed to come up with alternatives, with millions of products directly affected.

Sure...fossil fuels are a bigger issue. But that only means that even harder methods are required to force a change.

Look around you. What gains have we made, by leaving it up to the fossil fuel industry to phase itself out, voluntarily? We already have cheaper alternatives...thanks to the incentives you mentioned. But we are still nowhere near the point of replacing them on any significant scale. That will never happen as long as they are still "allowed" on the market.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They were used in almost everything that required compressed air to function...from fire extinguishers to refrigeration units, air conditioners, and even hair spray bottles. Entire industries needed to come up with alternatives, with millions of products directly affected.

That's not a ton of stuff. They had replacements already in use. Oil is literally in everything we use, and I mean literally everything.

Sure...fossil fuels are a bigger issue. But that only means that even harder methods are required to force a change.

Again, good luck.

Look around you. What gains have we made, by leaving it up to the fossil fuel industry to phase itself out, voluntarily?

They won't, and that's not the argument I have presented at all. I've already stated they will fight.

We already have cheaper alternatives...thanks to the incentives you mentioned.

Yea no shit, but we've not done enough, and thanks to the turnip we're rolling back a huge portion of those incentives.

But we are still nowhere near the point of replacing them on any significant scale. That will never happen as long as they are still "allowed" on the market.

This is completely incorrect. EVs have a much bigger footprint then ever before, solar and wind as well. Nuclear should be next but NIMBYs push it away more than anything.

You make something that's cheaper than the alternative, people will choose the cheaper option.

And like I said. Good luck banning the use of oil.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So...what you're saying is...we will never solve climate change? That is the opposite of what this post was looking for, but cool. Thanks for sharing.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Didn't say any of that, said the exact opposite but you and apparently others don't understand how societies work. We have fascist and nationalism solely because of the "ban it" thoughts. You don't change someone's mind by force. You provide a better and cheaper way.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ummm, ok. And how's that been working, so far?

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Before trump? Pretty well, EVs became much more common because of grants and funds. Wind and solar is cheaper now than nat. Gas and coal because of funding that pushed the tech further. We just need more funding put towards it. Good luck banning oil.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And none of that slowed down oil and gas production, at all. Did it? Why would it? The oil and gas industry makes billions in profit, every year...largely due to the subsidies and grants provided by the government. They are funding the problem, along with the solutions.

So, of course, they are never going away. Climate change is only going to continue to get worse, because no one is willing to do what's actually necessary in order to change anything.

It doesn't matter how many alternatives there are available. They aren't going to stop producing it, unless they are forced to.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-renewable-energy-by-country-in-2022/

The fuck are you talking about?

It absolutely has. At this point you're not even arguing in good faith, your just spouting silliness.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why are you showing data on renewables? Of course their use is increasing. Our overall demand for power is increasing all the time. Renewables aren't the problem.

Oil production, is. And aside from a few outliers involving economic collapses, production has been steadily increasing for decades, without any signs of slowing down.

Nothing will change unless we do something to stop that. Adding renewables to the supply, does nothing to decrease the effects of fossil fuel use, unless you stop using fossil fuels. How is this so hard for you to understand?

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because renewables are replacing a large portion of oil based fuels? The global use of fossil fuels is also increasing as China/Africa/India and SEA nations are becoming more industrialized. This isn't a new concept. Even your own link shows this.

I'll say it again, good luck banning oil/coal. No one will do so.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago

Then I guess we're fucked.