this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
133 points (94.0% liked)
Asklemmy
44273 readers
1008 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you truly don't need the money, donate it to an org that's doing political advocacy.
10k of solar isn't going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Changing laws and regulations will.
You're implying advocacy can beat financial and industrial interests on critical topics, something that goes against what we have been witnessing for a while.
Solar, wind, and EVs have become much cheaper after they received significant government incentives. Feed in tariffs started in the 1990s, implemented by Japan, Germany, China, and many other governments decreased the cost of renewables and built industrial capacity.
Governments did that because of significant environmental advocacy from the 1960s onwards.
Advocacy feels like it doesn't work now because there's massive advocacy pushing back against our longterm interests, but it's couched as "industrial interests" so we don't see it.
None of this put a dent in CO2 emissions, because more energy available just means more energy consumed. These are distractions, especially EVs. For the sake of how livable the planet will be in 50 years, all these efforts had a negligible effect.
The current trend of governments abandoning mitigation strategies in favor of adaptation is a testament to the irrelevance in the overall response to climate collapse. The "green transition" is just a way to sell more and produce more.
I'm my geo, we're lowering GHG emissions and increasing electricity output. That isn't entirely due to renewables, but it's part of the equation. Those renewables were affordable due to feed in tariffs mentioned above.
Without continued advocacy, entrenched interests will reverse those trends. With continued advocacy, we may be able to lower emissions further.