An analysis by the IMF warns that government financial aid for polluting energy sources continues to grow, and calls for its complete elimination
This would have been so great 20 years ago.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=Uc1vrO6iL0U
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Suggestion: let’s stop subsidizing oil companies.
Whew. Good thing we are making absolutely sure those pile of shit students pay back their loans though. How else would we be able to cover these super important subsidies!
Folks, in case you weren’t paying attention, I present to you: ✨capitalism✨
As long as it’s around, this crisis (and so so many others) is only going to get worse as those who benefit feed the rest of us to their monster of a system for end of days record profits.
And no, you can’t vote capitalism out when both main parties (and most minor ones) serve it (and this is of course relevant pretty much to all current “superpowers”, at the very least).
Capitalist, socialist, communist, it doesn’t matter so much. This is more about greed, the fallibility of man, and insufficient / inadequate controls. Oil companies make enough money that they can buy legal protection; it’s a matter of finding politicians (or people of enough influence) that are willing to suck … for some cash.
Capitalist, socialist, communist, it doesn’t matter so much
names polar opposite ways of running society, claims there is no difference, enlightened centrism gone mad.
This is more about greed, the fallibility of man
encouraged and rewarded by capitalism, not some natural way of existing, like capitalism has convinced you it so you think this shitty way of life is inevitable
Oil companies make enough money that they can buy legal protection;
because capitalism is a system that allows and encourages this behaviour
it’s a matter of finding politicians (or people of enough influence) that are willing to suck … for some cash.
so continue working within the framework of the system that designed said framework to ensure those in power continue to hold it.
I really wish you bootlickers would realise how pathetic your grovelling sounds to others, you could do with some shame, but if you were capable of it, you wouldn’t have reached this point in the first place.
Jesus, did I just witness a murder?? 💀
Capitalism literally encourages this greed. It systematizes greed, instead of even attempting to fight it.
What does this have anything to do with economic systems? The problem is with a political system that allows such large scale corruption. When you have corruption and bribery in politics, this is the outcome, regardless of capitalism vs other.
If you got rid of capitalism but kept corrupt lifelong politicians, do you really think anything would be better? Capitalism is not the problem.
Jeezus, the fucking wilful ignorance… Imagine still thinking our political systems are not tied in directly to and co dependant with capitalism.
Getting rid of capitalism means by default getting rid of the governments that uphold it, it’s literally there in the comment:
And no, you can’t vote capitalism out when both main parties (and most minor ones) serve it (and this is of course relevant pretty much to all current “superpowers”, at the very least).
Economic systems and political systems are heavily linked. Who holds the power? And is there a meaningful difference between political power and power through wealth? Or are they 2 sides of the same coin?
If, say, a tiny 1% controls all the wealth in the world, what does that mean for politics? Does democracy hold any power if the 1% can just use their wealth to get their way anyway? What can the 99% do if they have no wealth, and are dependent on the 1% for housing, food, etc? With the police and military legally and violently enforcing that the wealth of the 1% is protected and not just taken by the rest?
While it isn’t as drastic as the 99% controlling no wealth, this really isn’t far off from reality at all. If the vast majority is dependent on a small powerful minority to survive and have any meaningful quality of life, is there really a meaningful difference to an oligarchy?
This is not the fault of capitalism, this is lobbying and corruption and no other system would be able to effectively abolish this either.
The cause is human nature and the only things that can prevent this, are better systemic structuring, more decision-making-redundancy and independend inspection.
Communism for example would have the exact same issues. Granted: not in its utopic form, but as we have seen with all the examples so far, such a system can not succeed, because you still have people at the top of the ladder, who will inevitably fall for the same reasons.
It’s like they teach all you bootlickers the same exact script, and also the sense of entitlement that means you lack the ability to not voice your opinion, no matter how ignorant, and despite the fact that a couple of drones have already regurgitated said script in response to this particulate comment…
Go read my replies to them, or don’t you don’t seem like the type who likes to be informed (more like a child with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears going “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA” ignoring all reality around them to plough on regardless), I’ve wasted enough breath on you pathetic brownnosers already…
*Defends capitalism, blames individuals pursuing self-interest under capitalism, suggests a system that detaches decisions from capitalist self-interest (((totally not socialism)))
How do you not just walk in circles all day?
deleted by creator
Lol like they’ll acknowledge this ever. The bad faith is so mountainous they’d call their grandmothers liars if they brought up this study
It’s bonkers to me that one would subsidize an insanely profitable business sector. Smells like straight up corruption and stealing from public to private interests.
How long would it take us to be carbon neutral if we took all that and put it in green energy?
Not an economist. My guess, 2 -4 years. Cut subsidies to oil, methane, natural gas. Incentivize and subsidize renewables. The market reacts quickly.
That’s the thing. Governments and corporations tell us that we need to give up our luxuries. That we need to recycle. That we need to do this and do that when what we do is a piss in the ocean compared to what they do while they spend our fucking money to do it.
I can reduce, reuse, recycle til the cows come home but it doesn’t fucking matter when all my options to buy products come in containers that harm the planet.
Pisses me off to no end.
I watched some video some time ago where they put that in perspective: If I stopped causing any climate negative emissions now and for the rest of my life, it would amount to like 1 second emitted by the top 100 companies (not 100% sure about the numbers exactly, but it’s basically the same order of magnitude).
I’m not saying that we should stop caring about it at all, but it’s much much more important to try and steer politics into the right direction, than it is to change personally. Still, do all you can personally, but imo it’s fine to “cheat” here and there.
Very true, I put my effort towards trying to reducing my waste rather than gas electric and water. One thing I do think people should change is reducing how much meat they consume though, specifically beef. That produces a lot of bad environmental effects like deforestation and runoff.
It would require mineral extraction at a scale larger than any in human history to build that many batteries, solar panels, windmills, etc.
Considering the scale of the project a decade would be very optimistic.
If you want to pay for the new stove, furnace, water heater, and the electric upgrades I’d need for that, please do. I picked gas over electric because I didn’t have the wiring necessary to get electric. If it was cost effective to go with electric, I would.
That’s the idea. 7 trillion dollars per year is a lot of money and that stuff is where some of it would go.
This is exactly the reasoning that big corporations have
What about MEEEEEE?!?
I don’t know about you guys but all the major political parties in my country take donations from the fossil fuel industry.
Would be nice if we just did remote work without some CEO complaining for no practical reason.
Who would have thought
Sell your cars and buy bikes: give up gasoline.
That would be nice, but I, and many people, live too far from work to be able to bike and there is no public transportation in most of North America.
Can I ask how far you live from work? I’ve always tried to keep my commute distance short because I hated the time I wasted driving. Eventually I sold my car for a bike and have been much happier.
Google maps says 25 miles. It takes me a little more than 30 minutes to drive. It would take 2 hours, 22 minutes by bike.
Ahh yes. Our planet is dying so you can live too far from work.
If I could afford closer housing, I would. If billions of people could afford to eat with minimal environmental impact, we would
Yeah. I’m sure you have no other options.
You need this, otherwise you would literally die.
Yeah shelter is one of the main human necessities. Have you heard the term “died from exposure”?
Right, but what quality does the shelter need to be?
Lol. Not sure why you think you have a point by saying ‘all or nothing.’ It just shows you don’t understand the argument, so you try to replace it with something that’s easier for you to argue against.
Ahh yes. Our planet is dying due to actions outside of the average person’s control but this commenter is really to blame for driving to work. Just like plastic straws in juiceboxes are why the ocean is a mess…damn kids…
Right. Because we’re all to blame, then none of us are to blame. Great logic. Lol.
For pretty much any world-impacting issue, corporations - not individuals, even all of us combined - are causing significantly more damage.
How do the corporations stay in business without customers?
Lobbyists
Having a big back yard is a human right you damned communist
But what would we do with the money we save from road construction? /s
These implicit subsidies seem somewhat dubious to me, frankly.
