5 ms·

A serious question for those who are generally skeptical about climate change: Why do you think that so many scientists, nations, and people are generally in ag

A serious question for those who are generally skeptical about climate change: Why do you think that so many scientists, nations, and people are generally in agreement that climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity. Who do you think gains by pushing the (in your mind, false) climate change narrative? I honestly want to know, I'm not trying to belittle. Even ignoring the data (whichever way you interpret it), those of us who accept anthropomorphic climate change see a pretty clear case of "look who benefits" in terms of climate change. The vast majority of money and power is on the climate-change-is-fake side in America (if not worldwide). Huge, extremely powerful interests have a great deal at stake in whether or not we work to reduce carbon emissions and by how much. The switch from fossil fuels to renewable resources could lose some very powerful people a lot of money. On the climate-change-is-real side, its much harder to tell. Climate scientists don't have that much to gain, maybe a little research money here and there but nothing in comparison to say the oil and gas industries and those that use petroleum and petroleum derivatives. Renewables are an emerging industry. Batteries, solar panels, wind farms, tidal power etc all represent a financial opportunity to whoever gets out front. China is making large strides in this industry, but still its an industry in its infancy, it doesn't have nearly the political and financial clout that entrenched fossil-fuel industries do. Do you see why it might be confusing for some of us to see regular people essentially defending the powerful against the weak, as it were? I think that the overall of the research indicates that the earth is warming and we're the primary cause (in that we're the cause that it is increasing so rapidly, as opposed to at historic rates), I know there is some bad science as there always will be, but this situation just makes absolutely no sense from a logical perspective. It would be the most confusing conspiracy probably ever to have a worldwide, grassroots coordination to move to cleaner energy sources for bogus reasons and defeat the most entrenched and wealthy interests in probably all if history in the process. For what? If the reasons are bogus why do all these scientists care? Who benefits?

benlorenzetti 9y ago
I believe in climate change and I am proud of some of the successes of the EPA/other US policies have had in protecting the global commons (ozone, lead, NOx, etc). But following your point, ignoring this to focus on a "who gains" perspective... Trump used now-unsurprising hyperbole when he said that global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese, but he was alluding to this point. China has over a billion citizens, a disproportionate number of young men, and quasi open economy + closed political system where who you know & schooling strongly affects your ability to succeed. Also, like the US and Russia, it has tremendous natural & mineral wealth available for traditional enterprises. In such a <em>political</em> climate, China has made it a national policy to out-compete America for traditional manufacturing jobs to keep all those people, particularly young men employed and rising. Cheap energy is a major manufacturing consideration and if you can get the American government to deficit spend money or regulate private industry on this, that fits China's national goals nicely. (Encouraging deficit spending by the US helps keep the Renminbi cheap relative to the dollar in our crazy fiat world) Russia has an even stronger incentive to encourage environmentalist policies by the US government because of its fossil fuel wealth and ambitions for the opening Arctic ocean without US competition there. Ironically, historically, betting against American ingenuity and worldwide technological advancement has been a mistake; some minimally invasive level of US government intervention is probably worth it for mitigating global warming and blunting oil-rich oligarchies. But it is also still in the interest of current Chinese/Russian/Iranian/Venezuelan leaders at this time. Finally this can be viewed two ways in US politics. On the one hand, environmental protectionism logically hurts the working class in America, to some difficult-to-quantify extent in the immediate term/recent past. On the other hand, America is a world leader. We may have some moral imperative, plus gains in technology financed in America lift all boats, including ours which is the largest and finest. (may have to reevaluate the phrase "lift all boats")
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  Some interesting thoughts. Alternatively, I could see fueling the climate-change-is-fake side in America could benefit China and Russia in totally hypothetical ways. 1) We stay dependent on fossil fuels and make it harder for the world to make the transition, allowing Russia to continue making money exporting. 2) We stay out of the renewable energy research and manufacturing business globally, allowing China to corner that market while our traditional industries are propped up longer than they should be (ie, Coal) . 3) Our influence gradually weakens as we're the last holdout, despite being the most powerful and wealthy nation. Who will listen to the US on anything if we're anti-science and the only major holdout on climate change?
  - benlorenzetti 9y ago
    Thanks for honest counter arguments! I agree with (1) from a long term perspective and think we should increase funding to green tech researchers. But I weigh political resistance to developing resources (ice breaking trade lanes, oil wealth, etc.) on the North American side of the Arctic ocean as benefiting Russia more than unquantifiable acceleration (due to more research funding) of the eventual long term, technology based decline of fossil fuels. On (2) and (3) these are basically free market vs. government organized enterprise and left vs. right political arguments, so I'm not sure if I can rebut them articulately. And they probably come down to Putin's and Xi's personal opinions, not ours. But if Xi wants to subsidize worldwide solar power production at the cost of China's other industries, I say go ahead and we'll probably still compete with private actors. They should lead some like us. And again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be any US government organized enterprise in this field. For example I think the US, Russia, China, UK, and others could work together by laying a great circumnavigating high voltage DC cable for solar energy, on which ``the sun never sets''. But still the validity of (2) and (3) is definitely colored by political leanings.

benlorenzetti 9y ago

I believe in climate change and I am proud of some of the successes of the EPA/other US policies have had in protecting the global commons (ozone, lead, NOx, etc). But following your point, ignoring this to focus on a "who gains" perspective... Trump used now-unsurprising hyperbole when he said that global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese, but he was alluding to this point. China has over a billion citizens, a disproportionate number of young men, and quasi open economy + closed political system where who you know & schooling strongly affects your ability to succeed. Also, like the US and Russia, it has tremendous natural & mineral wealth available for traditional enterprises. In such a <em>political</em> climate, China has made it a national policy to out-compete America for traditional manufacturing jobs to keep all those people, particularly young men employed and rising. Cheap energy is a major manufacturing consideration and if you can get the American government to deficit spend money or regulate private industry on this, that fits China's national goals nicely. (Encouraging deficit spending by the US helps keep the Renminbi cheap relative to the dollar in our crazy fiat world) Russia has an even stronger incentive to encourage environmentalist policies by the US government because of its fossil fuel wealth and ambitions for the opening Arctic ocean without US competition there. Ironically, historically, betting against American ingenuity and worldwide technological advancement has been a mistake; some minimally invasive level of US government intervention is probably worth it for mitigating global warming and blunting oil-rich oligarchies. But it is also still in the interest of current Chinese/Russian/Iranian/Venezuelan leaders at this time. Finally this can be viewed two ways in US politics. On the one hand, environmental protectionism logically hurts the working class in America, to some difficult-to-quantify extent in the immediate term/recent past. On the other hand, America is a world leader. We may have some moral imperative, plus gains in technology financed in America lift all boats, including ours which is the largest and finest. (may have to reevaluate the phrase "lift all boats")

okreallywtf 9y ago
Some interesting thoughts. Alternatively, I could see fueling the climate-change-is-fake side in America could benefit China and Russia in totally hypothetical ways. 1) We stay dependent on fossil fuels and make it harder for the world to make the transition, allowing Russia to continue making money exporting. 2) We stay out of the renewable energy research and manufacturing business globally, allowing China to corner that market while our traditional industries are propped up longer than they should be (ie, Coal) . 3) Our influence gradually weakens as we're the last holdout, despite being the most powerful and wealthy nation. Who will listen to the US on anything if we're anti-science and the only major holdout on climate change?
- benlorenzetti 9y ago
  Thanks for honest counter arguments! I agree with (1) from a long term perspective and think we should increase funding to green tech researchers. But I weigh political resistance to developing resources (ice breaking trade lanes, oil wealth, etc.) on the North American side of the Arctic ocean as benefiting Russia more than unquantifiable acceleration (due to more research funding) of the eventual long term, technology based decline of fossil fuels. On (2) and (3) these are basically free market vs. government organized enterprise and left vs. right political arguments, so I'm not sure if I can rebut them articulately. And they probably come down to Putin's and Xi's personal opinions, not ours. But if Xi wants to subsidize worldwide solar power production at the cost of China's other industries, I say go ahead and we'll probably still compete with private actors. They should lead some like us. And again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be any US government organized enterprise in this field. For example I think the US, Russia, China, UK, and others could work together by laying a great circumnavigating high voltage DC cable for solar energy, on which ``the sun never sets''. But still the validity of (2) and (3) is definitely colored by political leanings.