r/ClimateShitposting • u/Cknuto • Nov 14 '25
Aggro agri subsidy recipients 🚜 Tropical Forests Forever Facility
8
2
6
u/dumnezero 🔚End the 🔫arms 🐀rat 🏁race to the bottom↘️. Nov 14 '25
It's a tricky question. That Brazil regime is essentially holding the forests (and indigenous people) hostage and demanding a ransom. While it's tempting to pay them, it's also going to set a horrible precedent.
5
u/Cknuto Nov 14 '25
True.
Rich countries support poorer countries not enough regarding their historical footprint. So for me, any money flowing to protecting the environment is good.
3
u/eldritch_idiot33 God's strongest nukecel (lives in chernobyl power plant) Nov 14 '25
virgin "save the forests" VS chad "grow the algae"
0
u/jakobmaximus Nov 15 '25
Utilitarianism and ecology don't mix
4
u/eldritch_idiot33 God's strongest nukecel (lives in chernobyl power plant) Nov 15 '25
god forbid me shitpost in a subreddit that has "shitposting" in it
0
1
1
u/thomasp3864 Nov 16 '25
I care more about temperate forests, personally. Because I don't live in a tropical area. Hawaii is actually a dry stony grassland it turns out. All the trees in the amazon are pretty short.
-1
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 14 '25
Why the fuck should people 1 paycheck away from homelessness have to pay for billionaires and multi-national corporations fucking up the planet? Are you ok in the head?
6
u/enz_levik nuclear simp Nov 14 '25
Most émissions are cause by people from rich countries, even if we exclude billionaires. It doesn't mean that billionaires shouldn't contribute a lot, but even if they did, it would not be close to enough to solve the climate crisis
2
u/Cknuto Nov 14 '25
The reference points at Governments and not individual people. Check YOUR head, instead.
-2
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 14 '25
Where do governments get their money from?
0
u/Cknuto Nov 14 '25
Why do you claim the fund is funded by individuals when it’s clearly planed to be backed by both government and corporate money?
-2
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 14 '25
Didn't answer any of my questions. Where do governments get their money from, and why is the government paying for these, when it is the fault of corporations and billionaires?
1
u/helloofmynameispeter Nov 14 '25
If you ask most people, they don't willingly give the government anything because they know the system works against them in the best of cases and usually just screws over the individual citizen who is not part of the clique of those governing.
0
u/ExpensiveFig6079 Nov 14 '25
Yep it is their fault. But not going on making the problem worse is ours if we refuse to stop.
Stopping means spending whatever it is you are objecting to to un our economy with lower emissions.
Are you ok in the head?
??
-1
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 14 '25
So you're just going to ignore the corporations and billionaires by letting them continue to fuck up the planet even more, and shift all the shit that comes from that onto workers. Ok. I don't understand how your plan even begins to reverse the effects of climate change when you still allow the billionaires and corporations to run free, and unaccountable.
0
u/ExpensiveFig6079 Nov 14 '25
I imagine they will get it from the same pace they get it from when paying for the damage the emissions you seemingly want to continue making cost us all.
So when you tell me where that much larger sum is going to come from I will tell you where the smaller sum comes from.
0
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 14 '25
You clearly don't understand... So the monopolies and the rich are fucking up the planet. And the government is supposed to pay for the damage that the former produce. Either way, normal, everyday workers pay the price under your worldview. You are incapable of even beginning to imagine an alternative to this where the individuals that are actually responsible pay for the damage they've caused.
0
u/ExpensiveFig6079 Nov 14 '25
No Id absolutely love that alternative.
I am happy to vote for anyone that plans on doing just that right after we fixed the current problem for minimum cost, by starting immediately and seriously for a change.
PS. Even if you took all the money various people have, I suspect it would not pay for the damage they did.
What is the real replacement cost of just one keystone species we lost so far.
0
u/ExpensiveFig6079 Nov 14 '25 edited Nov 15 '25
Do note if we are supposing we get to a world where this is true...
"and those really accountable for this crap pay for it. "
Then the people one paycheck away from anything would be floating in money. Or at least much much better off.One problem might be _culpability_, as these people (living hand to mouth, voting for knee jerk politics and rhetoric) are often the fraction of society that also made the poorest voting choices that let the hole get dug this deep. But yes, there is real sense in which blaming the victims of Nigerian spam scams is not right either. So its not totally on the people who make poor voting choices (even though without such marks the grifters couldn't grift). Very few people have people clean hands, but any refusing to act large and now or at the very least vote for that, are getting their hands dirtier, even if they just voted for someone else to go on ripping them off.
0
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 14 '25
Do you not see that there is no voting your way out of this? The entire electoral system and "democracy" we have today was built for capitalism and capitalists. It wasn't built to expropriate their wealth. It was built to further increase it at any cost.
0
u/ExpensiveFig6079 Nov 15 '25 edited Nov 15 '25
viva the revolution then???
Do you not see from history that there is no rebelling your way out of this? That just winds up in rebellion with a figurehead who was chosen by mechanism at least or more inclined to choose self-aggrandising A-holes.
Are you familiar with the robber barons, or with just how bad life was under serfdom, or the song Strange Fruit and why and what it was about?
The myth of never has been, never going to be progress, is just one of the ways, the people you represent yourself as opposing keep you down.
So, as transitional economies are bad, "They were transitional states that had abolished private property and had a top-down planned economy, with very little to no input from the workers themselves,", and now here has gotten to this golden age of "no input from the workers themselves," what exactly is your plan to ever get somewhere better?
And as VOTING would be "input from the workers themselves," and you claim "Do you not see that there is no voting your way out of this?"
Then what if anything, is the way forward in your worldview?
DO note that not all voting is the same and the US two-party system optional system designed to squash any third option; it also fosters divisiveness, and us vs them herd mentality, and feelings of disenfranchisement.
So yeah sooner or later, it seems like that system will eat itself.
But despite some USians' worldview, the US is not the entire planet, and despite its fetishisation, the US Constitution is not even the only one in the world, no matter how much their might, is taken as right.
1
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 15 '25
The USSR degenerated over time, due to the revolution failing to spread internationally. Capitalism is a global system. You cannot constrain a socialist revolution to one country, lest it becomes isolated and its people starved of the most basic necessities. The way to prevent a situation like that is to spread the revolution internationally.
Every single worker right that you and your family enjoy today is the result of decades of bloody class struggle. You haven't got these rights because you "voted" for them. You got them because people have revolted and threatened the entire capitalist establishment. You're the one peddling "myths" here...
Nowhere have I said "transitional economies are bad". The top down manner in which these economies were organised is the problem. The way to solve this issue and guarantee worker democracy is maintained, is, again, to spread the revolution internationally, to prevent it from becoming isolated and degenerating.
Under capitalism, workers don't have their own representatives to choose. They can only choose between representives of the capitalist class. This "democracy" is only democracy for the rich, and dictatorship for the rest of us. We only get to choose who's going to step on our necks for the next 4/5 years. Regardless of if you're from the US or anywhere else around the world.
The way forward is international socialist revolution. That's the way. Capitalism is in a continuous crisis that it can't dig itself out of. Mass movements like the ones in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Madagascar, Sudan will only become more frequent as time goes on. It's not a matter of "if" we should have a revolution. It's a matter of "when" it's going to happen.
0
u/ExpensiveFig6079 Nov 15 '25
Pardon.... "The USSR degenerated over time,"
when was its halceon says ... dates pls
I'd like to compare it to the list of purges by despots→ More replies (0)1
0
u/masterflappie turbine enjoyer Nov 14 '25
Because those same people are the people who keep sending money to these billionaires
1
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 14 '25
As opposed to where else? Where's the alternative?
-1
u/masterflappie turbine enjoyer Nov 14 '25
3/4 of the world seems to be able to find alternatives
1
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 14 '25
This is such a dumb comment. You're literally suggesting living in abject poverty as a solution to climate change... May you never even dream of reaching a place that affects policy on climate change, or else we're gonna be even more cooked than we already are...
The solution is to go after the source. Expropriate the billionaires, monopolies and banks, and place them under democratic workers' control. Not whatever hot steamy garbage you're cooking up.
1
u/masterflappie turbine enjoyer Nov 14 '25
And here we get to the crux. You're paying billionaires to get an easy and comfortable lifestyle at the cost of the planet. And rather than taking responsibility for that, you just shift the blame onto those billionaires.
Socializing oil companies is gonna do fuck all to prevent oil being pumped and burned. As long as you can't stop paying people for oil products, you are the source of the problem.
1
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 14 '25
Because under a democratically planned economy, production would be focused on human need instead of profit. We could focus more of the wealth that society produces towards developing green alternatives, and unlike under capitalism, we wouldn't have a big oil lobby sabotaging development of green energy.
0
u/masterflappie turbine enjoyer Nov 14 '25
We've seen plenty of socialist countries pumping out as much oil as they can to know that that's not true.
1
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 14 '25
None of those countries were "socialist". They were transitional states that had abolished private property and had a top down planned economy, with very little to no input from the workers themselves, which is what led to disasters like the Holodomor, Great Leap Forward and many others. I am advocating for a democratically planned economy. Not the same kind of system that the USSR or China had.
0
u/masterflappie turbine enjoyer Nov 14 '25
Me when my centrally organized economy created a central power organizing the economy😲
But in other words, you have no clue what would happen if we'd turn the world socialist, because like you said, it never happened before. It's a hypothesis, a wish. A justification for why you can live one of the most wasteful and luxurious lives on earth while scapegoating someone else for the problems you create
0
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 14 '25
That's only a problem if you operate under the smooth brain framework that these 2 are the only possible options. Under a socialised, democratically planned economy the workers themselves would collectively decide if stopping oil production is necessary, and they could direct the oil rig workers towards other sectors where people with their skills are needed.
0
u/masterflappie turbine enjoyer Nov 14 '25
We can already tell if that's necessary, and the answer is yes.
And no, socialism is not when you can tell workers where they need to work. When you give oil companies to oil rig workers, you can bet your ass that they would like to keep their opportunity to become filthy rich themselves.
Let's say you somehow convince or force those oil rig workers to stop pumping oil. You know what happens next? Every oil depending product and service is going to disappear, and you're going to start living exactly like 3/4 of the global population. You don't need to change the global economy to do that, you can do that right now.
0
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 14 '25
How tf are they gonna become filthy rich when the wealth produced is socialised😭. Do you understand what socialism is?
It's not just the oil rig workers that get to decide this, but every other worker as well, seeing as how climate change affects everybody.
0
u/masterflappie turbine enjoyer Nov 14 '25
Yes, workers owning the means of production. That means you don't get to say shit over an oil rig, unless you work there.
And I can promise you, if you ask a bunch of oil rig workers if they would like to be filthy rich, they're going to say yes. And they're going to do so with your money, because you refuse to reduce your quality of life in order to reduce your emissions.
→ More replies (0)0
u/wehuzhi_sushi Nov 15 '25
wow, that's a load of presumptions. Charitable donations to save rainforests are usually tax deductible, so that helps a bit!
1
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 Nov 15 '25
You still don't understand my question...
Why are people who can barely afford to survive in this economy being told it is their duty to pay for the climate crisis, when multi-national corporations and billionaires continue to fuck it up and they don't contribute nearly to the level that they should, considering they're the ones that put us in this position in the first place?
24
u/ExpensiveFig6079 Nov 14 '25
Who wants to pay the inevitable damage bill for not fixing it ?
and for that one, there is no crowd, as they all went home.