• silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 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.