The problem is that our response to unsustainability has to be lessening our consumption. Which means less profit, less 'opportunities'.
anthonyqkiernan wrote:
What I don't understand is how come (fuel) efficiency doesn't get equated with saving money.
i think you answered it yourself;
anthonyqkiernan wrote:
less inputs to start with.
The more we consume, the more we spend, the more chances to make a profit. The less we consume, the less opportunities.
Plus, some efficiencies can be cost-effective, but many cannot. cover your roof with solar panels and you'll be lucky if they pay for themselves before they break.
The only efficiencies capitalism allows are the ones that are cost-effective. Even if we did all of those, it's not enough to make us tackle climate change let alone become genuinely sustainable.
I find that I'm drawn again to one of the key points of madness in our system. As Claire Fauset put it:
"The legal structure of corporations means that they must be committed to profit above all other concerns, even if those concerns are our survival. Given two ways to make the same money they will choose the one that means the least murder, blatant theft and environmental devastation. And then pat themselves on the back for being so responsible. But if there is any conflict between responsibility and profit, profit will win every time."
http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2007/12/asking-wrong-question.html
