Search Results
7/23/2025, 4:18:34 AM
>>511101328
I think it's more or less the wrong way around.
99% of people could do their utmost to reduce ther personal 'carbon footprint' in their own lives, it wouldn't make a dent in the problem and it would be very bad for all of them economically. If the 1% of people decided to do the same in the industries they own, it would start to solve the problem but they'd post lower profits.
My feeling right now is that the 1% of people do know they'll eventually have to switch up their practices to avoid wrecking the planet, but they just refuse to compromise on the possibility that the 99% will be forced to pay for them to do this. Or they're cynically trying to create laws and regulations that harm regular people first so that when they do eventually switch up their practices they're still economically way ahead.
I think it's more or less the wrong way around.
99% of people could do their utmost to reduce ther personal 'carbon footprint' in their own lives, it wouldn't make a dent in the problem and it would be very bad for all of them economically. If the 1% of people decided to do the same in the industries they own, it would start to solve the problem but they'd post lower profits.
My feeling right now is that the 1% of people do know they'll eventually have to switch up their practices to avoid wrecking the planet, but they just refuse to compromise on the possibility that the 99% will be forced to pay for them to do this. Or they're cynically trying to create laws and regulations that harm regular people first so that when they do eventually switch up their practices they're still economically way ahead.
Page 1