I don't think cutting fossil subsidies or leaving fossil hydrocarbons in the ground is an ideological position - unless reducing avoidable harm and suffering or protecting the natural systems, environments and ecologies we all depend on is an ideology.
macdoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2026 10:05 am
It's like asking Norway to stop extracting and selling oil....ain't happening.
Then emission will continue to rise (as they are) and the climate will continue to heat (as it is).
macdoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2026 10:05 am
All these countries are working towards net zero in their own borders ....not trying to dictate to others by withholding resources.
The reason I brought this up is because, as Andrew McLachlan noted, political parties that align themselves with free-market economics are now seeking to abandon Net Zero commitments and roll back climate regulation and law, because it's seen as "bad for business". Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement and his administration's increased subsidising of domestic oil, gas and coal is the a leading edge of a new norm, not an aberration. If govts are putting the pecuniary interests of business before human and ecological well-being, while c.80 of people want to see stronger and more decisive action on climate change and global heating, then who is actually dictating to whom here?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.
