this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
1869 points (98.7% liked)

Comic Strips

12796 readers
2818 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 232 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

This comic is from 2009, over 14 years ago. Good thing we took action and have made great strides towards combating climate change during that time. Could you imagine how screwed we'd be if our world leaders had sat on their asses and did fuck all instead? /S

[–] [email protected] 32 points 10 months ago

We aren't doing enough but we are doing something.

Renewables are up YoY and solar and wind are quickly becoming the predominant deployed energy generators (in the US anyway).

[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Idk what all the world leaders have & haven't done, but I know we've made great progress in green technology. Compared to 2009, we're poised to more than double the efficiency of solar panels & the installation price per watt has fallen from $8.50 to $2.77. Bigger, better, better understood...and also cheaper.

This is what you want to see if you want the whole world adopting renewable energy sources.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Okay. We still need to do a lot more. The science is clear that this is the make or break decade. Either we severely curtail emissions now or we break the 1.5C/3F limit for the bad scenarios to happen.

And everything has happened faster than predicted so any millennials thinking this isn't going to really effect their life is deluding themselves. It's just going to hit while we have silver hair. We'll all be hungry, thirsty, and trying to figure out several billion refugees.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

In Australia we are moving in the right direction towards more energy efficient houses, solar and now batteries. By no means are we close to the low emission society, but 500Pj of renewable electricity generation in a year is not bad, and increasing day by day

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

You mean you finally have a (president? Prime Minister? Whatever it is) hat doesn't do everything they can to kill the great barrier reef ?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Need to drop meat & dairy consumption in rich nations if we have any hope of managing climate change while we transition out of fossil fuels, which will take time.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 101 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Rich people won't make as much money.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

I make some mean barbacoa and egg tacos. Save me their cheeks.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

We could but we won't, because we are not organized.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

They're not organic, and pumped full of plastics and preservatives

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

They actually have studies that show they'd make even more, which makes sense when you realize that the economy is designed to make them richer. They've had these studies since the mid '70s. Cruelty and head counts are the point, at this point. They know they'd be better off as well, and are just seeing how many of us they can murder before we do something about it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If things progress as they are, with accelerating warming, in 20 years the economies start to break down and money can't buy you things anymore. Making money is over by then.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I've given this a lot of thought since the comic above was first published, actually. I think it really reduces to the Tragedy of the Commons. This is where everyone involved sees a limited resource and "gets theirs" since there will always be someone else to do the same if you don't. That explains petroleum writ large, but I think it also explains general wealth hoarding and exploiting market forces for gain. If you don't, the next guy will.

So if the global economy really is headed for a collapse in 20 years, you can bet these animals will spend 19.5 years making cash that other people can't. The remaining few months will be spent buying their way out of the hole they dug, assuming they can get the timing right.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

But the tragedy of the commons is possible due to other circumstances. One of that is a different model of ownership that is used now. If land is owned, you can use it was you want. That's your right. Something that's not owned, like the sea of air, is can be exploited. In the past, there was shared ownership over lands, and if you tried to exploit it you got slapped. Or you only owned something for a time and then came a reshuffle according to their needs. What we have now is en exercise in how far you can take individual ownership until it breaks.

And in the past, there was more a steady state model. Population only grows slowly. Now with fast growing population. Back then you also had money as a hard currency. You wanted more, you had to dig more out of the ground. Now we have a monetary system that gets its value by promising even more value tomorrow. It forces growth on everybody and everything basically as a religion.

Combine the two and things go horribly wrong.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

That's what's probably held us back the most.

I see three situations among the affluent that created a substantial delay in any "Green" products becoming a thing faster:

In the first case, someone making money hand over fist. They will let someone else take on the risk of research and development, and getting it off the ground. I'm happy with my stock in BP.

The second case, disgruntled owners of shares in companies forced to "be more green" in some way shape or form, like factories that need some post processing of their waste products, or that need to pay for their waste to be processed or disposed of. "The only thing this 'save the planet' nonsense has done, is cost me profits" (or whatever).

The last is driven by the numbers. There's no way to take the plan to go green and turn it into sales/profits. If someone were to propose any "Green" solution with a business plan that results in them making money, they're on board, but climate activists aren't necessarily good with business plans.

I mean, look at what happened with EVs, and solar. As much as I'm personally not a fan of musk, he was willing to take the risk to create Tesla. As soon as he started shipping hundreds of thousands of units at $90k+ each, within a few years, other companies had, at least, HEVs available. Solar panel research is starting to push out some pretty efficient panels, those panels are appearing on big retailers stores to offset costs. Solar companies are buying eachother out, it's a crazy market. The demand, not just from eco-conscious consumers, but from businesses, has exploded. The reason is that the return on investment of solar is very very clearly laid out. Spend some money putting them in, and you'll pay less in the long run on electricity. Any retailer with any future vision and roof space would be stupid not to put them in.

If you think about what's important to these capitalists, and adjust to how risk averse they are, this is all very clear as to why this has been moving so slowly. Fact is, if you can demonstrate that the tech works and show the difference, on paper, for operating costs, you'll easily have more orders than you can handle for whatever green product you can think of.

The main issue right now is getting physics to work with you, in your favor, to get the thing to work. There are some serious engineering and physics challenges when it comes to most green technologies that usually makes them "not economically viable" aka, they cost more than alternatives. Once we figure out how to make them cost less, you'll be amazed how fast things change.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Curious that this list is missing short-term shareholder value 🤔

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Won't anybody think of the poor shareholders?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

They are my reason.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 10 months ago (8 children)

Mankind has been cheating for decades now, building a super consuming inefficient society without the means to actually do so sustainably.

We failed the Candy challenge, we chose to eat our candy now instead of receiving more candy in the future. We wanted to have new toys constantly, make stuff cheap and throw-away, because we want new stuff anyways. We wanted to eat large amounts of meat every day. We wanted to travel across the world. We wanted to have our own large homes with large gardens and heat/cool them to be perfect for living in all the time. We wanted to have our own personal tanks to drive around in perfect comfort, to use as we wish, to go as we wish. But we wanted it, so we made it so. We used the ultimate cheat code called fossil fuels.

Using fossil fuel is like going to a bar and putting everything on the tab. You can drink and eat all you want, but at one point in the future you are going to have to pay up. Previous generations didn't really care, they would just pass along the tab to the next generation, they will figure it out. And with technological progress as it was, it would have seemed likely a solution would be found. Especially in the atomic era the solution to a lot of problems was within our grasp. Unfortunately because a lot of reasons that never panned out.

No solution is within sight and the bill is coming due. But in order to at least pay some of that bill, it would mean we are going to have to give up a lot of riches we've come accustomed to. With a lot of people it isn't they don't want a better future for the Earth and the next generations, it's that they don't want to be the one who gives up those riches. They don't want to give up their car, not even for a day. They don't want to stop eating meat, even if it's only half of the time.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

its nicely written, but i think ur wrong abt some of these points.

We wanted to eat large amounts of meat every day. We wanted to travel across the world. [...] We wanted to have our own personal tanks to drive around in perfect comfort, to use as we wish, to go as we wish. But we wanted it, so we made it so.

Most of this stuff only got popular bc of mass advertising. For example, the idea that bacon & egg makes a good, healthy breakfast was made up and marketed by paying doctors to say its true (look into Edward Bernays). This ofc helped the meat industry sell their dead animals to more ppl. and yet nearly 50% of our food produce is thrown away bc it couldnt be sold. why do they produce so much??

SUVs were heavily marketed to ppl in the US bc theyre classified as "light trucks", making them not subject to "cafe" (corporate average fuel economy) standards in the US and were therefore cheaper to produce and sell. Look into what cars are around in europe today; most of them are still small, efficient, and safe.

the real issue of this is that corporations have a need to make more money every year. it all needs to keep growing to please their shareholders.

this means more aggressive advertising; more shit nobody really needs has to be sold to those who can barely afford it bc we need to be paid less for them to make more.

capitalism is the real problem here. and it needs to stop. we need an economic system thats based on ppls necessities, not on making the most money (selling the most stuff).

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The saddest thing about this is that I've been hearing this joke since at least the 1990s.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

This particular joke is from 2009.

So yeah.

God forbid we do something to improve the world without a profit motive.

edit

Even though the profit motive would be healthier people, and happier people, and numerous studies have shown happy, healthy people are far more productive in a orwellian people-as-product labor kind of way.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 10 months ago (1 children)

her head is on backwards. i hope she's okay

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago

I heard someone say owl and I came as soon as i could!

May I recommend today's breaking owl news story:

What a Twist! : New study says owls may actually be able to turn their heads a full 360 degrees

Visit [email protected] for all your owl-related concerns!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

I kind of get these kind of comics, but isn't the reality that all of humanity is still in a competition with eachother, and doing all the wrong things gives you more power than doing all the right things, so that's what continues happening.

In these climate debates the reality is that it's a global chicken on the road, we all go toward self annihilation at a steady pace, and the first who flinches and tries to take action will get taken advantage of and ruined. So it's slooooooow talks about doing tiny things and kind of maybe a bit cooperating while noone really wants to, because any advantage they can get over another country will be taken advantage of...

Maybe i'm a bit too pessimistic, but it's my assumption that things work like that, and then all this bullshit suddenly makes sense >_<...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Slightly more complicated than that. It's also that some countries are way more affected by changes then others. Sure everyone uses fossil fuels but only specific countries export it so you are basically asking a country to cripple itself for you. Same when people suggest we should just not cut down the rainforests. In both cases it would likely be done if other countries paid for it. But right now it's what you say as well as asking people to handicap themselves

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

From the view of the global West, I believe this comic still applies. I'm very much not a fan of asking developing countries to not go through the same industrial revolution we went through, it's the lack of action at home that bothers me. Here in the US, we've got half the population railing against EVs instead of wanting to invest in them and find more environmentally friendly ways to produce them; people who want to gut the FDA and EPA and reduce regulation; people who who don't give a damn about those who are going to be the first affected by rising water; those who think terraforming Mars is a sexier (and magnitudes more expensive) project than using those resources here on Earth. And so on and so on. Those, I think, are the target of this comic. It's a very Western perspective, I agree, but I also think the West is in the best position to do anything about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Well it's more of tragedy of the commons situation than a game of chicken.

How many times do you hear someone say "why should we change if CHINA is going to keep on polluting the air?"

I just counter with, "who's the leaders of the world? Is China the world leader and we can't doing anything until they do it first?"

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

What's funny is, most people on the ground that I have talked to about this issue agree that the world would be objectively better. They just don't want to make the effort if it would benefit somebody if they don't agree with.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah it would suck if we lived in a world where psychopaths like Vlad Putin and Mr. Bonesaw no longer had power over the world's economy. We'd have to pay the equivalent to the monetary cost of one war in the Middle East to achieve this but without the human cost that a war involves.

Maybe Biden should declare a war on global warming? Or does not actually work because a war on global warming would have an achievable goal?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Yeah, what have those damn kids done for us today?

load more comments
view more: next ›