At a larger level, "hurting the economy" may be the best thing to happen in a long time for (1) the environment, e.g. clean air, (2) family time, (3) cutting out some useless activities that go on due to sheer inertia, like formula-1, olympics, auto shows, most conventions, etc., (4) give people and societies a chance to slow down, think through things and refactor a system that was running full speed towards the wall anyway.
Doesn't seem so clear. During a recession, you might have less money for investing green technologies. No one will be able to afford an electric car. You might get more family time but the stress of the main earner being unemployed will mean it's not high quality.
I really wonder why we can't all just slow down the money circulation. There are many business and people endangered by the situation? They can't earn enough money? Well they don't have to pay the full price for basic needs, mortgages etc. People living on this stop gaining money like before? Discounts for them as well, they just keep working for the greater good because we are in a unique situation. Rinse and repeat until we go full circle.
What's the problem here?
The (totally made up number) 15-20% of greedy people who put money first no matter what.
I realize my opinion may not be the mainstream one, but I think the 2008 financial crisis did more good for the environment than all the "green investments" of the past few decades.
> the stress of the main earner being unemployed
That can indeed be a problem for families. I hope the crisis will bring about some reduction in consumption/travel, downshifting, rethinking of priorities, simpler living.
