• CloudwalkingOwl@lemmy.caOPEnglish
    7·
    2 days ago

    I don’t see how we can remove economics and politics from environmental policy. We’re not talking about climate science, we’re talking about what human beings are doing to the environment. And everything we do isn’t a question of doing the best thing possible—it’s about doing the best thing that the citizens and the ‘players’ will let you do.

    I’ve argued for ‘leave it in the ground’ most of my life. I was pretty successful in that I got people elected and build a large body of people working together. But the fact was both inside that organization and among the general public the vast majority weren’t going to buy a simple ‘leave it in the ground’ strategy.

    • kbal@fedia.io
      7·
      2 days ago

      the vast majority weren’t going to buy a simple ‘leave it in the ground’

      Well then, the vast majority are in the wrong. It happens sometimes. This is one of those times. It does not mean you should join them.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.caEnglish
      6·
      2 days ago

      From the posting comment:

      but I think there’s a case to be made that the three new pipelines announced recently could end up being a good thing–for the environment!

      There ARE economic and political reasons why they could be good, but building more pipelines will NOT be good for the environment.

    • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.caEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      The facts don’t care about the feelings of the electorate, let alone that of shareholders.

      1. Carbon capture does not work. There’s no practical case for it, even if you throw the economics out.
      2. Increasing renewable energy is not enough if we continue to increase our fossil burning.
      3. Any economic or political case for fossils is necessarily short-term, because points 1 and 2 ensure that the long-term always ends in catastrophe and catastrophe is bad for the economy.