https://www.researchgate.net/publica...al_Campaigning
Short answer is it’s complicated but at best the effect seems to be minor and mostly found in people who already identify as caring about the environment anyway
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...al_Campaigning
Short answer is it’s complicated but at best the effect seems to be minor and mostly found in people who already identify as caring about the environment anyway
Maybe the idea of of international climate regulations being neocolonial is itself neocolonial because it assumes the pressure would come entirely from the outside and developing countries don't have their own motions for change and environmental activism.
How is it OK? Production in the taxing countries is going to be less efficient/competitive. The decrease of fuel demand in the taxing countries will lower fuel prices, which in turn will make the non-taxing countries even more competitive.
Assuming a free international market, there's a strong incentive for countries to be the last ones to implement that sort of measure.
That's why I find it hard to see a solution that doesn't involve international regulations and/or protectionism.
don't quote me on this
Well, Australia just said they don't give a shite. We'll all go down under I guess...
the only solution
Spoiler:
The big screw up was shifting the framing from global warming to climate change. Global warming was on the precipice of taking us really far but you all were too good for it.
^ It's a Muskdam, Elon's Counterattack, Starmusk Memories, Endless Musk, Iron Blooded Musk, 08th MuSk Team etc etc.
"Here's a bangin lil' tune about takin' on The Man!"
(Check out my Super Special Awesome Servant Compendium here)
Modern growth in both population and in turn industry is unsustainable. There will be either a collapse or at least major conflicts and huge decrease in the standard of living sooner or later. And that's developed countries, have fun Africa, Greece and South Italy.
I told them fifteen years ago to build a Dyson sphere already.
Right, let's all move to Mars before that happen
In Elon we trust
Leveling off is the most optimistic prognosis and no less than 30-40 years in the future. By then there will be several more billion people.
Unless a collapse comes sooner in which case we will have a type of population decrease that has been somewhat common in history.
Overpopulation is not the problem; it is overconsumption
- - - Updated - - -
Population growth is a problem, because one of the main issues of global warming is that it is expected to decrease available resources. Yes, parts of population will die off to sustainable levels or learn to live with less, but that's one of those things we'd rather do without.