That would require them to think long term and logically , Also i assume lots of companies would not like that they won’t be able to get as much profit. Don’t get me wrong I definitely agree but there’s just so much things that would work better, be cheaper more efficient and better for the environment but that would cost money and not make much profit. Sometimes I have hope people will get fed up with this BS and change happens but mostly I’m skeptical.
Comment on Wait, my body's own heat is enough? Always has been.
renzev@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoFigure out a system to prevent overuse
If we’re going down the “government should pay for it” route, then a good solution would be subsidizing thermal insulation. It’s a big investment upfront, but will save a lot of money for both homeowners and the government in the future. Not to mention the obvious ecological benefits.
Emi@ani.social 3 weeks ago
dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Absolutely. We should be subsidizing anything and everything that helps decrease energy usage, especially in ways that mean we don’t have to make big changes to lifestyle. Though that’s a whole other discussion. :/ But utilities in general, electricity, water, Internet, gas (though if possible move that shit to electric) should be public and no cost at the point of use, imho