“Climate Crisis” only identifies the symptoms of oil and gas dependence. As time runs out, we need a term that focuses on what — and who — is to blame.
    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      172·
      9 months ago

      You could have a non-capitalist society burning fossil fuels in the same way, and it would have the same consequences.

      • JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz
        9·
        9 months ago

        Probably, but probably there wouldn’t be a push for keeping things as they are. No wait! Let’s burn even more carbon

        • neanderthal@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          Maybe, maybe not. You get what you measure. Bad incentives are a major contributor to the corruption that ultimately led to the downfall of the USSR.

          Good policy and incentives make the difference. Capitalism and communism aren’t all that different. In practice, they are still largely hierarchical with a few controlling things.

        • Sonori@beehaw.org
          31·
          9 months ago

          The Soviet Union sure wasn’t capitalist by any reasonable definition of the word but still jumped from one major environmental catastrophe to another, to the point where there are still plenty of large areas to deadly to inhabit unprotected.

          Even climate change wise it was effectively a petro state which relied heavily on useing and selling cheap oil at every opportunity.

          I mean I may be a democratic socialist but even I admit that not everything can be blamed solely on capitalism. Even a fully democratic state operating in the best interest of its poorest people could well decide that it’s in their best interest to make thier lives better by focusing on material growth if it thought that that the consequences for its own people were minor enough.