Our hobby faces an existential threat

[_Maq_]

Note l said energy giants

Giants too have shareholders, investors. If you cut their profits, what would follow? Investors would take note that investments in energy sector are not safe. As a result, investments in energy will diminish. Lower investments --> lower production --> higher energy prices.
You don't need to tell me anything about communist methods, I lived in communism. You wouldn't like it, rest assured.

 

[PARAGUAY]

@_Maq_ Er when was l telling you about communist threats? Actually though l am glad for you and your country you now have democracy.That means we and you can challenge suffering and injustice without the threat of say a 16 year prison sentence. Don't think we will agree on this so respect each other's opinions🙂

 

[Guest]

We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a corporatocracy. Where corporations are the actual constituents, and the public just passive consumers. The interests of the two very rarely align.

For example, one off windfall payments don’t work. It doesn’t fundamentally change how the system operates. It isn’t socially responsible because the energy companies can continue to operate business as usual. They will still exploit the consumer long term with high prices, and record dividends to shareholders.

A socially responsible democratic government with always cap energy prices at source without delay. To ensure the actual cost of crude is instantly reflected in fuel prices. But also to ensure that the cost doesn’t place people in poverty.

That is not happening. The real question is why do we continue to allow corporations to exert so much influence and control over our lives through our elected representatives?

And it’s not because they need the gargantuan profits to invest in green energy, etc. And even if it was, is it morally and socially acceptable to place ever greater numbers of people in poverty to do so?

 

[PARAGUAY]

I think there's a lack of well certain apathy towards politics ,a lot of people haven't a interest and put all MPs in the same boat so to speak. Bit like what you see in election figures esp local elections when less than 30 % turned out to vote and the successful candidate rarely mentions. The expenses scandal should have motivated people to use their right to vote but did it? Even now on the back of David Cameron's lobbying for his chums,Boris trying to protect Owen Patterson and Rishi Sunaks tax dodging wife and the latest might be apt for your last paragraph @Guest Mps have claimed£420000 for you guessed it for energy expenses

 

[Tanksy]

Socrates said:
Democracy is the rule of the unwise mob. Like children loose in a candy store, people pursue pleasure only, rewarding sweet-talkers and flatterers with the power of political office, who in turn exploit politics for their own gratification.
The result is injustice. Democracy ultimately dissolves into tyranny — a population of citizens dominated by their basest desires, and an opportunistic ruler that manipulates them for personal gain.

Socrates wasn't an anti-democrat though. He was pointing out a weakness. He abided by the democratic laws and that's why he didn't escape when he had the chance a few days before his execution.
2,420 years later and democracy still has the same weakness. Why? People still think the same way. In our days most people reward sweet-talkers, who have no allegiance to the institutions of democracy.

One could argue that most people vote with their wallets. But it's a bit more complicated than that.

Scientists working for ExxonMobil have warned their bosses that burning fossil fuels is the most likely manner that mankind is influencing the climate change. That happened in 1977.
Western governments didn't do anything, mostly because the oil companies spread misinformation, trying to delay any action on global warming.
At first, in the 80s, they denied there's climate change. They've funded scientists, organisations, businesses and politicians who were advocating their rhetoric.
In the 90s they've lobbied against any regulations to cut emissions and undermined the public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by fossil fuels.
It was in April 2014, that ExxonMobil released a report publicly acknowledging climate change risk for the first time.
It's 2022 and politicians are still debating if they should cut the emissions or invest in clean energy.

45 profitable years for the oil industry. 45 profitable years for politicians. 45 profitable years for citizens who were able to buy cheap cars, houses, etc and now get fat pensions that are linked to energy companies like Centrica.
45 years lost!

Socrates, you were so right!