7 ms·

My own opinion after talking with conservative friends and on the 'net is that if climate change is real, the only known option for countering it requires gover

by deeg 9y ago

My own opinion after talking with conservative friends and on the 'net is that if climate change is real, the only known option for countering it requires government (or world) regulation. It is hard for people to accept a problem if the only solution violates their strongly held political/moral beliefs. In other words it's easier to deny the problem than admit that your politics has no room for the solution.

hutzlibu 9y ago
"the only known option for countering it requires government (or world) regulation." Disagree. The regulation is only neccesary, if the common people/companys don't acknowledge the problem. And even then, I don't think regulation helps much. More likely the opposite. Because if it is just ordered from above, then many just get childish rebellish and do the opposite. This is in my opinion the main problem. Conservative people also like unpolluted citys I believe (side effect of electric cars) - most of them just taken a anti position to the leftish-green-hippi-liberal pro-enviroment stand. So if people wants it, then it will happen. But I believe, we are allready on a good way. It just takes time to change the core of our industry and transport ... it is a huge effort. And will it be too late? That depends. I don't think it will be the end of the world, if the polar bear goes distinct or the netherlands get flooded. And we are allready causing great distruction to nature and people are starving by the millions. And this might get worse, but it is all connected, as the global population numbers are still greatly increasing who all want more things. So I don't see how regulating things down in Europe or US can help with that on a global scale. So we as humanity have big problems, yes, but climate change is only one of them. And the solution to most, in my opinion, is better technology which will supply humanity in a sustainable way. Once people are not hungry anymore and are educated and connected with the rest of the world, then they usually tend to think, before just making more babys - about wheter they really want to raise a child and into what world they want to raise that child ... And back to the topic, if you don't tell the conservatives what to do and think, but just show them how it can be done differently, then they will change, too, I believe.
roenxi 9y ago
There is a slightly more subtle point to be made here. Politics is too complicated to generalise, but here is the kernel of the idea for others to mull on. In my view, the part of the government most mobilised to deal with climate change is likely to be aligned to the (hopefully small number of) political actors comfortable with the idea of people getting less energy/more expensive energy/no growth in available energy. I don't want these people in the seat of power under any circumstances. They have views that are a direct threat to my comfort and standard of living. Cheap energy should always be a priority. EDIT Just for reference, focusing only on electricity and ignoring the broader energy market, I have read that South Australia (where Elon Musk is building his big battery) is competitive for world's highest electricity prices. The German energiewende has driven them to top 2 or 3 in Europe for prices paid by consumers. France, who has some of the cheapest and cleanest electricity in the world, runs nuclear. Ironically, in Australia, the most pro-nuclear party is also the anti-climate-change party.
- yongjik 9y ago
  What about cheap energy that is known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm? Are they a direct threat to your standard of living? Because, you know, a lot of politicians against climate policies are aligned with these energy sources.
- danmaz74 9y ago
  > They have views that are a direct threat to my comfort and standard of living. Cheap energy should always be a priority. I'm seriously wondering if you're being sarcastic here.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Unfortunately, you've fallen for factually incorrect propaganda. On-shore wind is the cheapest source of energy at the moment. Which side of the political aisle is against that? Coal is only cheap if you ignore all the costs borne by those affected by its pollution, which literally kills people in large numbers. Which side of the political aisle is keen to ignore these costs of energy and force people to continue paying them. But, even if you ignore those externalities, it's still more xpensive than the alternatives. Shutting down coal plants could save electricity customers in the US up to 10 Billion dollars a year. Which side of the political aisle is trying to subside it further?
collinmanderson 9y ago
> My own opinion after talking with conservative friends and on the 'net is that if climate change is real, the only known option for countering it requires government (or world) regulation. It is hard for people to accept a problem if the only solution violates their strongly held political/moral beliefs. It's unfortunate too, because I don't even think it necessarily requires government to solve it. There are real decisions individuals and companies can make (and have been making) on their own to improve things. (But some people deny or don't take the problem seriously, and therefore don't try to help out.)

by deeg 9y ago

hutzlibu 9y ago

"the only known option for countering it requires government (or world) regulation." Disagree. The regulation is only neccesary, if the common people/companys don't acknowledge the problem. And even then, I don't think regulation helps much. More likely the opposite. Because if it is just ordered from above, then many just get childish rebellish and do the opposite. This is in my opinion the main problem. Conservative people also like unpolluted citys I believe (side effect of electric cars) - most of them just taken a anti position to the leftish-green-hippi-liberal pro-enviroment stand. So if people wants it, then it will happen. But I believe, we are allready on a good way. It just takes time to change the core of our industry and transport ... it is a huge effort. And will it be too late? That depends. I don't think it will be the end of the world, if the polar bear goes distinct or the netherlands get flooded. And we are allready causing great distruction to nature and people are starving by the millions. And this might get worse, but it is all connected, as the global population numbers are still greatly increasing who all want more things. So I don't see how regulating things down in Europe or US can help with that on a global scale. So we as humanity have big problems, yes, but climate change is only one of them. And the solution to most, in my opinion, is better technology which will supply humanity in a sustainable way. Once people are not hungry anymore and are educated and connected with the rest of the world, then they usually tend to think, before just making more babys - about wheter they really want to raise a child and into what world they want to raise that child ... And back to the topic, if you don't tell the conservatives what to do and think, but just show them how it can be done differently, then they will change, too, I believe.

roenxi 9y ago

There is a slightly more subtle point to be made here. Politics is too complicated to generalise, but here is the kernel of the idea for others to mull on. In my view, the part of the government most mobilised to deal with climate change is likely to be aligned to the (hopefully small number of) political actors comfortable with the idea of people getting less energy/more expensive energy/no growth in available energy. I don't want these people in the seat of power under any circumstances. They have views that are a direct threat to my comfort and standard of living. Cheap energy should always be a priority. EDIT Just for reference, focusing only on electricity and ignoring the broader energy market, I have read that South Australia (where Elon Musk is building his big battery) is competitive for world's highest electricity prices. The German energiewende has driven them to top 2 or 3 in Europe for prices paid by consumers. France, who has some of the cheapest and cleanest electricity in the world, runs nuclear. Ironically, in Australia, the most pro-nuclear party is also the anti-climate-change party.

yongjik 9y ago
What about cheap energy that is known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm? Are they a direct threat to your standard of living? Because, you know, a lot of politicians against climate policies are aligned with these energy sources.
danmaz74 9y ago
> They have views that are a direct threat to my comfort and standard of living. Cheap energy should always be a priority. I'm seriously wondering if you're being sarcastic here.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Unfortunately, you've fallen for factually incorrect propaganda. On-shore wind is the cheapest source of energy at the moment. Which side of the political aisle is against that? Coal is only cheap if you ignore all the costs borne by those affected by its pollution, which literally kills people in large numbers. Which side of the political aisle is keen to ignore these costs of energy and force people to continue paying them. But, even if you ignore those externalities, it's still more xpensive than the alternatives. Shutting down coal plants could save electricity customers in the US up to 10 Billion dollars a year. Which side of the political aisle is trying to subside it further?

collinmanderson 9y ago

> My own opinion after talking with conservative friends and on the 'net is that if climate change is real, the only known option for countering it requires government (or world) regulation. It is hard for people to accept a problem if the only solution violates their strongly held political/moral beliefs. It's unfortunate too, because I don't even think it necessarily requires government to solve it. There are real decisions individuals and companies can make (and have been making) on their own to improve things. (But some people deny or don't take the problem seriously, and therefore don't try to help out.)