4 ms·

There is a substantial percentage of the electorate who are ideologically opposed to the very notion of climate change. They're ideologically opposed to conser

by 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.

by curtis 10y ago

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.