German energy giant RWE has begun dismantling a wind farm to make way for a further expansion of an open-pit lignite coal mine in the western region of North Rhine Westphalia.

I thought renewables were cheaper than coal. How is this possible?

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Lol, no.

    The fault lies with those who built and benefit from the system, not those trapped in it who are merely given the illusion of choice.

    Get off your high horse and aim your anger at the right people, otherwise all you are doing is enabling their rigged system.

    • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Your first link is US only, your second link is about a completely seperate issue. You don’t need to dismantle capitalism to protect the climate.

      In Germany, where I live, the voters could easily vote for the greens “Grüne” and the left “Linke”.

      If those two parties had a majority in government, we’d have a climate friendly system in no time.

      But they don’t. We had a conservative government for 16 years. Now we have a center government, which sadly includes the small government / free market party “FDP”, blocking all significant progress.

      No systemic oppression stops people from voting Left/Greens. But they never did, and never will.

      There’s now an uprise of the far right party “AfD” in Germany, to the point it’s becoming one of the major parties.

      In Germany people have the choice readily available to stop actively damaging the climate.

      But every couple of years, they freely choose to not do that.

      I feel like many left-wing people regularly forget about the billions of people who genuinely do not care to do anything about climate change.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t need to dismantle capitalism to protect the climate.

        You absolutely do. If it was profitable to destroy the envrionment capitalism would do it in a heartbeat. And guess what it IS profitable to destroy the environment, that is why it is happening! You cannot protect the environment under capitalism.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          When you try to dismantle capitalism… you get capitalism under a different name, with a dictator on top of it. Better hope the dictator wants to protect the environment, and that he knows how to! (see: Great Chinese Famine)

        • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You can limit capitalism without abolishing it.

          In Germany people are guaranteed 20/24 paid vacation days. That’s not profitable.

          That’s a limit imposed on capitalism. It can be done and has been done without abolishing capitalism.

          That’s just one of the thousands of policies that limit capitalism.

          You can limit capitalism (as literally every capitalist nation does) without abolishing it.

          Enforcing climate friendlyness would be just another limit.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            When you try to limit capitalism you get nuclear plants being shut down and coal plants being opened and the environment still being destroyed.

      • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Under capitalism, the capitalist class controls the media, and can use their wealth to control the political class.

        A democracy can only make choices so far as it’s voters are informed, and when a group controls most sources of information, it can control the democracy as a whole.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Under a capitalist democracy with antitrust laws… the “capitalist class” will create all sorts of media sources to earn money from whatever sort of information any voters will eat up. A single group can’t control most sources of information, because it will be eaten alive by all the competing groups at once.

          It’s up to each voter to decide whether they want to religiously follow a single source, or contrast it with others, and which ones.

          • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            There will of course be different sources of information, but that does not mean that they will present a fair and balanced spread of ideas. The capitalist class will push their own interests. A single owner is not required for that to occur

            • jarfil@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              does not mean that they will present a fair and balanced spread of ideas

              Not fair, and not balanced, just full spread.

              The “capitalist class” interest is to earn money, which necessarily makes it fill ALL possible revenue niches: from state sponsored propaganda, through different interest group propaganda, all the way to anti-system, extremist, and a large variety of scams. If nobody else is doing it, someone will, no exceptions.

              Assembling a “fair and balanced” set of sources, is left as a task for each voter; that’s where each one’s ability to contrast sources comes into play.