• Johanno@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Problem with that is that in comparison the alternative to CFC was not that more expensive and then a cheaper one was invented shortly after.

    For climate change you basically can double our energy costs and therefore double the cost of almost everything.

    • Jax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Not to seem callous, but the first world could learn to live off of a little less.

      • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        8 months ago

        Honestly this is what I keep saying and everyone gets pissed when I do.

        There’s enough resources on this planet that every living human could live a decently luxurious life. But because we allow a small handful of us to hoard all those resources we have poverty on a global scale.

      • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Whoa there buddy. That would put my butler’s butler out of a job. Also where does a person park their yacht if not inside another, larger yacht?

      • bloom_of_rakes@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        It wouldn’t even be less. We’d just have to reign in the capitalist feeding frenzy a bit.

        2000 brands of shoes? Advertising? 99% of our production is wasted.

    • r1veRRR@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      But that isn’t true anymore, right? Renewables are now way cheaper per produced Watt. And still, we’re stuck with people pretending that’s not true.

      • nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s not so simple. They’re cheaper than building non renewable, but are they cheaper than keeping the current plants running? Also, energy consumption keeps growing, and in many places, new generating plants using renewables usually only take care of the growth, and doesn’t allow for room to take older plants out of operations. If we don’t make huge efforts to reduce our energy consumption, I doubt we’re going to get rid of non renewables so soon…

      • Johanno@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Currently they are cheaper despite the financial support for fossils but back then it was not and not enough was spent on research