We live in a world driven by capitalism, not by logic. If global environmental collapse is more profitable for those making the decisions in the medium term then that's what we're going to get, their descendants be damned.
> Wouldn't it be more profitable to solve the issue?
Not in the short to medium timeframes we're talking about, no. Certainly it doesn't make sense in a long-term perspective to make investments that will immediately pay great and continue to do so for a century and then collapse society itself. But one's lifespan is shorter than a century, so it makes more sense to do that than to make investments which won't start paying out until you're retired or dying. Especially when it's not so much your personal choice as it is the choice of shareholders looking at year on year reports.
But if you believe otherwise then I certainly encourage you to start investing.
> Wouldn't it be more profitable to solve the issue?
Profitable for what entity? You need to find an entity that agrees with itself enough to have a notion of revenue that is hurt by deteriorating climate, and that has the means to "solve the issue" in an economical way.
The case against is obvious: the energy industry has a clear notion of revenue that is hurt by climate actions, and it has the means to combat it by political capture; whole countries are created and destroyed for oil.
North Korea is completely crippled because of the dominance of capitalist countries. The Soviet Union was also unable to escape capitalism because of its influence on global supply chains etc. It furthermore presented them with an outside factor which could dissolve their entire system if allowed to come in and flourish, forcing them into a state of semi isolationism. The same thing is true of North Korea.
Pressure from capitalism eventually lead to the USSR's collapse.
Think about it like someone with extreme immune issues who has to take multiple shots every day to avoid a certain disease. Your argument is that because they don't actually carry the disease it's not a dominant factor in their lives.
At one point almost 40% of the world population lived in communist countries. They had more then enough people and resources to make it. If by pressure of capitalism you mean pressure of reality, then yes they mostly folded one by one and switched to economic systems that were closer to reality. North Korea is mostly crippled by their own idiotic ideology in which they are persisting. But going back to your original point, communist countries had much worse pollution and more environmental disasters then their capitalist counterparts.
40% is far from the overwhelming global majority that would have been needed to make it work according to theorists like Trotsky. But maybe read his work instead of acting incredulous with a random on Hacker News.
But certainly back to my original point, because I'm really not sure what you're seeing in it. I said we live in a world driven my capitalism, not by logic. I certainly didn't say anything about adopting communism as a solution, and I actually didn't suggest or imply anything about communism at all. You've wasted both our time on an imaginary argument.
