• nednobbins@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I’m curious why you see my comment as a defense of shareholders?

    The beneficiaries of faster transportation, abundant food, and vast material wealth are the consumers. The shareholders only benefit indirectly in that they can take their money and consume goods and services that others have produced.

    That’s a tradeoff that happens no matter what economic system we choose. I’m also not even suggesting that we pull back on addressing climate change; I’m saying that this is an ineffective way to advocate for it.

    • RobotsLeftHand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      Youre presupposing that were losing something by cleaning up the environment. As if we cant invest in a cleaner environment the same way we spent money of the other things that made the pollution. Its absolutely possible to have all these things.

      The point is that we are ALREADY paying more for living in a polluted world than a clean one. Pollution causes so many widespread health problems that we’d make that money back on healthcare costs alone.

      Thats what makes this environment discussion so nonsensical. We dont even have to address climate change to get a return on our investment in cleaning up the world.

    • FatherPeanut@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I didn’t, I just wanted to throw my thoughts out lol. Seemed like everyone was piling on with some opinion or thought, so I chimed in.