comment: >
  
  Doing it how you suggest is like saying let's sink the titanic before hitting the iceberg
context: Needs over wants is one thing, but only going for needs and not going for wants wouldn't kill an economy 💀💀. A lot of this post is bogus >
  
  Looks like my opinion is unpopular.
  Look at what happened during covid with no one going to resturants. (Which are included in things we don't need IMHO) >
  
  Yes, but that didn't kill an economy and the restaurants that did were small. And no just because your post is low-quality and not factually true doesn’t make it unpopular. >
  
  It didn't kill the economy but we are in a pretty serious economic downturn.
  What I believe is the drastic reduction required would have a greater impact than covid did. >
  
  Not really; even then, if people did follow what you said, it wouldn't change too much oil companies in the USA wouldn't feel a dent in their revenue. They can easily continue to pay and pander to politicians to make them not push to reduce emissions. What needs to happen is we need leaders who aren’t swayed by crap like that. And we need sources that aren't reliant so heavily on fossil fuels so these oil companies can stop making so much money. >
  
  Big companies love regulation. They lose competition . 
  Be a cobalt miner right now. This “green revolution” is totally badass for big business. >
  
  I'll think I'll pass. I make a good wage already >
  
  Well there is a river of money if you care to dip a bucket in. >
  
  You know companies that are responsible for fucking up the environment spent millions of dollars to create this narrative that people are to blame for the pollution right >
  
  I'm not denying that.
  I'm simply stating that if no one buys their products then those companies will go out of business fairly quickly.
  Think back to 2017 and all those fidget spinners.
  Every atom of emissions that came from the 
  
  extraction of those raw materials, 
  transport to factories, 
  manufacture into component parts,
  transport to further factories, 
  manufacture into the spinners themselves, 
  transport to the stores, 
  transport to our homes 
  and then subsequent transport to the dump 
  
  was unnecessary.
  if we hadn't bought them then none of that pollution would exist.
  A more subtle example is diapers/nappies. Cloth diapers/nappies are cheaper over the lifetime of a child and much more sustainable due to their reusability but almost no one uses them.
  As far as I am aware that is not in dispute but people continue to use the single use plastic ones. Why? Because they are easier. because we don't want to.
  I'm not saying that big corporations aren't the cause. just pointing out that we don't want to >
  
  You really think you're the first to figure it out that if people just didn't do a bad thing then the world would be better? >
  
  You can't just get people to voluntarily stop buying shit. The government needs to regulate more to get anything done at the end of the day. >
  
  I don't disagree. That is tangental to my point.
  My point is we CAN but we won't because we don't want to.
  No one is forcing you to buy stocking stuffers at christmas. >
  
  I don't buy stocking stuffers. I'm a miser and only buy essentials usually. But even if everyone acted like that it wouldn't make a dent compared to what these corporations and governments around the world produce in terms of emissions. >
  
  What corporation is making emissions without sales? >
  
  Que?
  ​
  Oil companies do it and produce surplus to fuck with the markets and make profits. Other companies have similar practices that are not directly related to supply and demand. one small solution is for the government to stop allowing so much consumerism. >
  
  
  one small solution is for the government to stop allowing so much consumerism.
  
  I don't disagree (apart from the word small) but that would have the same effect as I was stating in the original post. People not buying crap reducing the energy requirements reducing climate change.
  My question though is why does the government have to force it and why aren't we doing it already? >
  
  Wth is global warming? >
  
  Just a natural phenomenon that changes the earth's temperature at a steady rate. It wasn't until humans started industrializing and tampering with this rate making it rise at an unnatural pace.