4 ms·

Yeah, if Republicans lead by Trump passed some plan where carbon was taxed, and some of the money was used to offset the increased fuel cost for the poor/middle

Yeah, if Republicans lead by Trump passed some plan where carbon was taxed, and some of the money was used to offset the increased fuel cost for the poor/middle classes, whereas rich folks were thrown a bone with tax cuts, that would be phenomenal. I would be very, very happy with that decision, enough so to feel happy with the Trump administration in spite of everything else. Chance of this happening, IMO: 0% As I said in another comment a long time ago and thus sparking an argument with a conservative commentator: this has become a political issue where the majority of people do not understand it. Laypersons are arguing with scientists. There is a tribal sense of which side is correct that is totally unrelated to the facts, and until that is pierced it doesn't matter how urgent the warnings or how win-win the proposals. In the mainstream conservative view, this is firmly in the realm of hysterical, liberal bullshit and does not merit further negotiation. I mean, people actually argue that "the climate is always changing" as though that in any way counters what scientists are saying - fucking asinine. It breaks my heart that we're going to play chicken with the habitability of our planet just as I'm preparing to bring children into the world.

jawarner 10y ago
> There is a tribal sense of which side is correct that is totally unrelated to the facts I think it's important to acknowledge some role of the Left in alienating the Right in their framing of climate change: Greedy, evil corporations are polluting the environment, and the solution is massive public spending or restructuring of society. Of course I'm exaggerating. To me the most important questions are: How has science communication failed to convince the public of the danger, and what can be done memetically to counter corporate misinformation campaigns?

jawarner 10y ago

> There is a tribal sense of which side is correct that is totally unrelated to the facts I think it's important to acknowledge some role of the Left in alienating the Right in their framing of climate change: Greedy, evil corporations are polluting the environment, and the solution is massive public spending or restructuring of society. Of course I'm exaggerating. To me the most important questions are: How has science communication failed to convince the public of the danger, and what can be done memetically to counter corporate misinformation campaigns?