• ch00f@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah but consumers already have choices when it comes to fossil fuels and they’re sticking with fossil fuels.

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      my point is that the consumers are not where change starts. it’s cheaper to run ad campaigns than it is to change the production process, but for CFCs they couldn’t do that.

      • ch00f@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Oh sure. I agree with that. Obviously many people have limited options.

        I just think think it’s a monumentally bigger ask no matter where the change has to be made (policy or individual choice).

        Like our best solution for transportation (in the US at least) is to just keep making larger free ways. Even gas powered buses running on decades old technology could make a significant impact on the climate crisis, but people either don’t want to ride them or cities don’t want to build them.

        Any way, I’m just frustrated with the attitude that we’re going to technology our way out of this hole without needing to change or sacrifice anything (like we pulled off with ozone).

        When it comes to energy use, there’s such a thing induced demand. If it’s cheaper, people will use it more. Hell, look at how much energy it takes to use AI to write an email.

        There’s no induced demand with refrigerants.

          • ch00f@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah, but again, try running on a platform of “everything you enjoy will need to be different.”