Fossil fuel companies knew about global warming since at least the 1970s. Those companies have used their enormous wealth to reverse trends towards public transit (e.g. Los Angeles used to have street cars...), halt the green energy transition until very recently, and spread misinformation and buy politicians.
Edit: also think about how all of those oil spills, mountain top removal, air and water pollution, cancers, asthma, heart disease that were "necessary for the economy" over the past couple of decades. When instead we could have already had fully sustainable energy systems with similar economic growth. Vote for politicians willing to do something about it.
Still is ongoing. And nobody got life imprisonment and all wealth confiscated for this degree of lying, nobody of them got prohibited from calling people who criticised or tackled them "ecofascists"
While I agree there are issues with capitalism. I disagree this was capitalism working as intended. If it were, the better/more innovative technology (green/cheap energy) would have surpassed the worse technology (dirty energy reliant on continued investment and extraction) because as we are finally seeing, there is more money to be made with green energy than fossil fuels. Suppression of green energy took active anti-capitalist anti-competitive efforts to preserve the edge of fossil fuels.
The purpose of a system is what it does. The way that capitalism is advertised to work and the way that it actually works are quite different. To understand how it actually works, one might turn to Marx, Lenin, Sweezy & Baran, and Michael Hudson.
Catholicism, people still give a percentage of their paychecks to an autocrat of a foreign city state so he can tell them what God wants. You'd figure after 1,400 years people would figure out they were getting scammed.
That's not too say protestant churches aren't guilty of the same things, they just haven't been at it as long.
Democracy. the powerful continue to rule, but plebs think they somehow made a difference once in a few years.
Four out of five times I hear someone explain an economic concept like inflation or investment, there's always an instinctive inkling that it wouldn't be ethically workable under normal circumstances. Take the investment part for example. On Shark Tank, the sharks often say things along the lines of giving the entrepreneur a boost in return for a piece of the spoils. That sounds like trade Faustianism. Or the idea that the functionality of money is affected by spiritual adherence but not national population. Or the idea a set standard [of pay] deters crime... which the news plays around with economically but I get "huh what's going on here" reactions for entertaining a follow-up to. It's almost as if the sensitivity is consciously selective.
This is as confusing as your downvoted post, which was downvoted for being confusing. You might work on your communication skills.
Actually, looking at the modlog,
I have a single opinion associated enough with people who act in bad faith that I was thought of as being one. You got a problem with that? That doesn't reflect interactive performance here.
If something I say confuses you, I welcome questions about whichever part does, and I'd be willing to explain myself, as opposed to speaking for all those who gave me the thumbs down, for whatever reason they may have, and applying that as a weight on me.