4 ms·

> The only real question is: What are we going to do about it? Zilch, so long as politicians corrupted by the fossil fuel industry are in power. "It is diffic

by rectang 10y ago

> The only real question is: What are we going to do about it? Zilch, so long as politicians corrupted by the fossil fuel industry are in power. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair

curtis 10y ago
There is a substantial percentage of the electorate who are ideologically opposed to the very notion of climate change. They're ideologically opposed to conservation, they're ideologically opposed to large scale government interventions for any purpose, they are specifically opposed to any sort of tax so a carbon tax is right out, and they are even ideologically opposed not simply to environmentalism, but to (it seems) environmentalists. Now in this environment, all the fossil fuel industry has to do is encourage that section of the electorate to continue to believe things they already believe. The fundamental problem here is (in my own humble opinion) the large number of voters with ideological blinders on, and that's the problem that's ultimately got to be addressed.
- bunderbunder 10y ago
  Calling it ideological blinders is an easy dismissal, and also one that, IMO, isn't terribly useful. I think what you're really dealing with is cognitive dissonance: Accepting what the science says on climate probably means accepting that you yourself could be be contributing to a situation that could be a serious problem for your children and grandchildren. It probably also implies making some lifestyle modifications that may feel severe, such as cutting way back on high-carbon activities like driving and meat consumption. In a situation like that, which option is less daunting: Accepting the consensus opinion of climate scientists and all the worry that implies, or going with the denialists so that you can get back to business as usual?
  - curtis 10y ago
    > Calling it ideological blinders is an easy dismissal, and also one that, IMO, isn't terribly useful. No it's not an easy dismissal. It's the exact opposite of an easy dismissal. It's a really hard problem.
- dahdum 10y ago
  I think there needs to be a grand compromise, but we're a bitter two party system that makes every issue a grand ideological debate. Give me nuclear energy and I'll gladly pay that carbon tax.
olavgg 10y ago
This is what we can do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade It may not be cost effective today, but it may be later. There are bigger threats out there than the current climate change. Antibiotics losing effectiveness is one, yet is seems like almost all countries in the world still ignores that fact.
- JoBrad 10y ago
  The pro is that it is a single thing that we can do no matter who believes what. The negative is that it allows us to bypass one problem of pollution (climate change) but does noting to address the problem itself, which has other side effects that also harm humans.
- pg314 10y ago
  > There are bigger threats out there than the current climate change. Antibiotics losing effectiveness is one, yet is seems like almost all countries in the world still ignores that fact. I'm not sure antibiotic resistance is a greater threat to humanity than global warming. Sure, people dying from simple infections and pretty much all surgery becoming very risky is bad, but humanity has survived for thousands of years without antibiotics. We've never experienced a 5+ degree increase in global temperatures. Relying on unproven climate engineering seems risky.

by rectang 10y ago

curtis 10y ago

There is a substantial percentage of the electorate who are ideologically opposed to the very notion of climate change. They're ideologically opposed to conservation, they're ideologically opposed to large scale government interventions for any purpose, they are specifically opposed to any sort of tax so a carbon tax is right out, and they are even ideologically opposed not simply to environmentalism, but to (it seems) environmentalists. Now in this environment, all the fossil fuel industry has to do is encourage that section of the electorate to continue to believe things they already believe. The fundamental problem here is (in my own humble opinion) the large number of voters with ideological blinders on, and that's the problem that's ultimately got to be addressed.

bunderbunder 10y ago
Calling it ideological blinders is an easy dismissal, and also one that, IMO, isn't terribly useful. I think what you're really dealing with is cognitive dissonance: Accepting what the science says on climate probably means accepting that you yourself could be be contributing to a situation that could be a serious problem for your children and grandchildren. It probably also implies making some lifestyle modifications that may feel severe, such as cutting way back on high-carbon activities like driving and meat consumption. In a situation like that, which option is less daunting: Accepting the consensus opinion of climate scientists and all the worry that implies, or going with the denialists so that you can get back to business as usual?
- curtis 10y ago
  > Calling it ideological blinders is an easy dismissal, and also one that, IMO, isn't terribly useful. No it's not an easy dismissal. It's the exact opposite of an easy dismissal. It's a really hard problem.
dahdum 10y ago
I think there needs to be a grand compromise, but we're a bitter two party system that makes every issue a grand ideological debate. Give me nuclear energy and I'll gladly pay that carbon tax.

olavgg 10y ago

This is what we can do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade It may not be cost effective today, but it may be later. There are bigger threats out there than the current climate change. Antibiotics losing effectiveness is one, yet is seems like almost all countries in the world still ignores that fact.

JoBrad 10y ago
The pro is that it is a single thing that we can do no matter who believes what. The negative is that it allows us to bypass one problem of pollution (climate change) but does noting to address the problem itself, which has other side effects that also harm humans.
pg314 10y ago
> There are bigger threats out there than the current climate change. Antibiotics losing effectiveness is one, yet is seems like almost all countries in the world still ignores that fact. I'm not sure antibiotic resistance is a greater threat to humanity than global warming. Sure, people dying from simple infections and pretty much all surgery becoming very risky is bad, but humanity has survived for thousands of years without antibiotics. We've never experienced a 5+ degree increase in global temperatures. Relying on unproven climate engineering seems risky.