Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's really surprising to me that we tend to focus on sustainability rather than simple economic benefits when pitching initiatives to combat climate change.

Case in point: The US had a great opportunity to sell alternative energy sources as way to get off Middle East oil after 9/11. Instead we continued to consume oil like there's no tomorrow while squandering trillions on fruitless wars.



Reminds me of this classic political cartoon: https://i.cbc.ca/1.5192931.1562703009!/fileImage/httpImage/j...

The problem with any revamp is that powerful incumbents wield the most power. They are capable of controlling the rate of change. In the early 2000s, Exxon and other oil companies were the most powerful, influential businesses on the planet, and they weren't about to let their politicians endorse a shift to renewables.


The trillions weren't squandered for the thousands of defense contractors and suppliers that made fortunes off said wars. Its why they lobbied for them in the first place. Now a lot of warmongers profiteering off occupational imperialism are rolling in wealth courtesy of the US taxpayer.


The valuing of (short-term) economic benefit over sustainability is precisely what is fueling climate change.


I would go a little further and say that short term economic benefits of existing entrenched players is causing harm. Its taking too long to get those people out and replaced with fresh minds who can look at the same systems and find new ways to make money while having a sustainable earth


Where did the money go, whom did it benefit? The military-industrial complex wants to be fed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: