7 ms·

I’ve never understood how the parts of the country most affected by sea level rise have been so vociferously against it being real. When the BP spill happened

by erentz 8y ago

I’ve never understood how the parts of the country most affected by sea level rise have been so vociferously against it being real. When the BP spill happened and they had all the local mayors and politicians crying about the damage to their coast, I couldn’t understand why no one had the cajones to ask them why they cared so much about their coast being damaged now, when they were completely fine with it being gone and under water in a few decades.

IB885588 8y ago
Hyperbolic discounting is a very common way to be irrational. Humans are not very good at thinking long-term. Bezos became the world's richest person in part by extending his time horizon by a few years longer than most CEOs.
throwaway5752 8y ago
Really? It's because wealthy people tend to have physical assets and political power there. They don't want to pay more for insurance for their assets in the short term (property/catastrophe coverage) and in many cases they would be difficult or impossible to liquidate and transfer to somewhere not effected. This has been the case in coastal areas, with property developers at least. They have it very badly, where they typically are small-ish family operations at the core and they operate with high leverage as land banks.
- scottlegrand2 8y ago
  Simple answer with horrible consequences, discontinue all FEMA insurance. This of course will never happen because many elected representatives from both parties have coastal properties that require it in order to get a mortgage. But if you did the above, it really doesn't matter whether climate change is real or not, all the risk will be on the homeowner going forward. That ought to be enough to change behavior in the long run.
WillPostForFood 8y ago
Here is what creates cognitive dissonance and drives inaction. The BP spill came with apocalyptic rhetoric about the destruction of the gulf and gulf coast. Yet, within a few years, things are near normal. Please, I’m not saying it wasn’t a tragic, disruptive, damaging event. Just that the reality has diverged wildly from the story told at the time. This creates distrust and inaction for every new apocalyptic prediction. No doubt, at some point, an apocalyptic prediction will come true, and we’ll be caught with our pants down.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > No doubt, at some point, an apocalyptic prediction will come true, and we’ll be caught with our pants down. We consistently have this problem with preventative measures. Someone accurately predicts that something terrible will happen unless we do something about it, we spend a large amount of time and money preventing or mitigating it, then people ask why we spent all that time and money when the thing turned out not to be that bad. It turned out not to be that bad because we spend all that time and money. The problem is it's also easy to spend time and money on wasteful pork barrel projects to prevent threats that don't actually exist but line the pockets of government contractors, and then they make the same argument for not cutting them. What we need is a better way to separate the legitimate problems (e.g. climate change) from the hype (e.g. terrorism). Because if you're going to pay a bunch of money for something that also serves as a jobs program, it might as well be addressing the real problem instead of the fake one.
panzagl 8y ago
You can sue BP, can't sue the atmosphere.
- overcast 8y ago
  Not with that attitude!
psychometry 8y ago
I think there's been a brain drain happening in a lot of red states in recent decades. The educated people who have the ability and will to leave often do, leaving behind an increasingly ignorant population. It's coincidental that this same geographic region will be most affected by sea level rise, although nowhere on earth will be immune to the effects of climate change.
- ataturk 8y ago
  I have a hard time with so-called "educated" people. People who go to college fit into a bell curve of intelligence, the same as all human beings. Regardless of their education level, their true intelligence remains the same. Going to college does not make you more intelligent. It might make your more well-rounded, it definitely subjects you to Marxist indoctrination attempts. Generally, people tend to migrate to places where opportunities exist, regardless of education or intelligence. Currently, there is a huge outflow of people from California and NY, which are NOT red states. Rather, they are high-tax, high-cost-of-living states. I can't exactly understand which states you are talking about? Maybe Alabama? Red states such as Texas and North Dakota, where job opportunities are increasing, have seen inflows of all kinds of people. I'm not even sure who you think these "ignorant populations" are. Sure, there are ignorant rural people who fit into specific stereotypes, but the majority of the low information, "ignorant" live in big cities like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. These are the bluest of the blue areas! Rural poor people tend to be much more self-sufficient than urban poor, but both have many issues they must deal with in life.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Do you have any evidence for this claim?
  - tartuffe78 8y ago
    His own smug sense of superiority should suffice.
    - thetrumanshow 8y ago
Synaesthesia 8y ago
Because there’s been a huge and dedicated propaganda machine to saying the opposite. And it’s worked.
ctlby 8y ago
Your premise is incorrect. The parts of the country most affected are the coasts--and they are blue.
- dsr_ 8y ago
  The northeast and west, perhaps, but not the south and southeast.
- erentz 8y ago
  If we exclude Alaska then about half the coast encompasses Texas through North Carolina. This is also the part of the US coast that is most low lying and will see the greatest encroachment from rising sea levels.
  - ctlby 8y ago
    Half of your “red” coastline consists of Florida—the vast majority of the coastal population of which is blue (see any 2016 electoral map).
    - ataturk 8y ago
      The red vs. blue dichotomy is the man pulling the wool over your eyes in order to divide and conquer. The smartest thing to do would be to not let him get away with it.
    - erentz 8y ago
      Your point about red vs blue isn’t at issue here. These are all still the coastal states that are the most vociferously denying climate change. You’ll find it pretty hard to argue that any of them are more in favor of climate change action that the other coastal states regardless of whether they show up blue or red on an election map.
      - ctlby 8y ago
        Of course. But we didn't really start off by arguing about state-level beliefs. You claimed the people most affected by sea level rise least believe in it--presumably as a dig at republicans (haha they're so blinkered by ideology they can't even see their own self interest!) And I claim that, no, republicans mostly do not live on the coasts, are not the most affected, and thus there is no tension between their ideology and their self-interest.
nemild 8y ago
Simple. Lousiana has a big oil and gas industry: https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=LA https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=LA I call it the truth distortion field when any large industry impacts what politicians say. Here’s some background: https://www.nemil.com/tdf/introduction.html https://www.nemil.com/tdf/introduction.html
wwweston 8y ago
Many people don't vote their interests. They vote their identity and values. Rational self-interest is an assumption that enlightenment liberals and market fundamentalists alike have overplayed. It has its applications, and it may even be a somewhat valid assumption for individuals carefully looking at the terms of an economic deal they have make-or-break decision making power over. For collective civil action, my guess is its influence is somewhere between minimal and a wash.
RoutinePlayer 8y ago
It's "cojones" :-)
- erentz 8y ago
  :-) I blame a former manager. His automatically generated username (first two letters of first name + surname) was cajones, so that’s what he got called. And now I’ve automatically spelt it wrong ever since.

by erentz 8y ago

IB885588 8y ago

Hyperbolic discounting is a very common way to be irrational. Humans are not very good at thinking long-term. Bezos became the world's richest person in part by extending his time horizon by a few years longer than most CEOs.

throwaway5752 8y ago

Really? It's because wealthy people tend to have physical assets and political power there. They don't want to pay more for insurance for their assets in the short term (property/catastrophe coverage) and in many cases they would be difficult or impossible to liquidate and transfer to somewhere not effected. This has been the case in coastal areas, with property developers at least. They have it very badly, where they typically are small-ish family operations at the core and they operate with high leverage as land banks.

scottlegrand2 8y ago
Simple answer with horrible consequences, discontinue all FEMA insurance. This of course will never happen because many elected representatives from both parties have coastal properties that require it in order to get a mortgage. But if you did the above, it really doesn't matter whether climate change is real or not, all the risk will be on the homeowner going forward. That ought to be enough to change behavior in the long run.

WillPostForFood 8y ago

Here is what creates cognitive dissonance and drives inaction. The BP spill came with apocalyptic rhetoric about the destruction of the gulf and gulf coast. Yet, within a few years, things are near normal. Please, I’m not saying it wasn’t a tragic, disruptive, damaging event. Just that the reality has diverged wildly from the story told at the time. This creates distrust and inaction for every new apocalyptic prediction. No doubt, at some point, an apocalyptic prediction will come true, and we’ll be caught with our pants down.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> No doubt, at some point, an apocalyptic prediction will come true, and we’ll be caught with our pants down. We consistently have this problem with preventative measures. Someone accurately predicts that something terrible will happen unless we do something about it, we spend a large amount of time and money preventing or mitigating it, then people ask why we spent all that time and money when the thing turned out not to be that bad. It turned out not to be that bad because we spend all that time and money. The problem is it's also easy to spend time and money on wasteful pork barrel projects to prevent threats that don't actually exist but line the pockets of government contractors, and then they make the same argument for not cutting them. What we need is a better way to separate the legitimate problems (e.g. climate change) from the hype (e.g. terrorism). Because if you're going to pay a bunch of money for something that also serves as a jobs program, it might as well be addressing the real problem instead of the fake one.

panzagl 8y ago

You can sue BP, can't sue the atmosphere.

overcast 8y ago
Not with that attitude!

psychometry 8y ago

I think there's been a brain drain happening in a lot of red states in recent decades. The educated people who have the ability and will to leave often do, leaving behind an increasingly ignorant population. It's coincidental that this same geographic region will be most affected by sea level rise, although nowhere on earth will be immune to the effects of climate change.

ataturk 8y ago
I have a hard time with so-called "educated" people. People who go to college fit into a bell curve of intelligence, the same as all human beings. Regardless of their education level, their true intelligence remains the same. Going to college does not make you more intelligent. It might make your more well-rounded, it definitely subjects you to Marxist indoctrination attempts. Generally, people tend to migrate to places where opportunities exist, regardless of education or intelligence. Currently, there is a huge outflow of people from California and NY, which are NOT red states. Rather, they are high-tax, high-cost-of-living states. I can't exactly understand which states you are talking about? Maybe Alabama? Red states such as Texas and North Dakota, where job opportunities are increasing, have seen inflows of all kinds of people. I'm not even sure who you think these "ignorant populations" are. Sure, there are ignorant rural people who fit into specific stereotypes, but the majority of the low information, "ignorant" live in big cities like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. These are the bluest of the blue areas! Rural poor people tend to be much more self-sufficient than urban poor, but both have many issues they must deal with in life.
creaghpatr 8y ago
Do you have any evidence for this claim?
- tartuffe78 8y ago
  His own smug sense of superiority should suffice.
  - thetrumanshow 8y ago

Synaesthesia 8y ago

Because there’s been a huge and dedicated propaganda machine to saying the opposite. And it’s worked.

ctlby 8y ago

Your premise is incorrect. The parts of the country most affected are the coasts--and they are blue.

dsr_ 8y ago
The northeast and west, perhaps, but not the south and southeast.
erentz 8y ago
If we exclude Alaska then about half the coast encompasses Texas through North Carolina. This is also the part of the US coast that is most low lying and will see the greatest encroachment from rising sea levels.
- ctlby 8y ago
  Half of your “red” coastline consists of Florida—the vast majority of the coastal population of which is blue (see any 2016 electoral map).
  - ataturk 8y ago
    The red vs. blue dichotomy is the man pulling the wool over your eyes in order to divide and conquer. The smartest thing to do would be to not let him get away with it.
  - erentz 8y ago
    Your point about red vs blue isn’t at issue here. These are all still the coastal states that are the most vociferously denying climate change. You’ll find it pretty hard to argue that any of them are more in favor of climate change action that the other coastal states regardless of whether they show up blue or red on an election map.
    - ctlby 8y ago
      Of course. But we didn't really start off by arguing about state-level beliefs. You claimed the people most affected by sea level rise least believe in it--presumably as a dig at republicans (haha they're so blinkered by ideology they can't even see their own self interest!) And I claim that, no, republicans mostly do not live on the coasts, are not the most affected, and thus there is no tension between their ideology and their self-interest.

nemild 8y ago

Simple. Lousiana has a big oil and gas industry: https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=LA https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=LA I call it the truth distortion field when any large industry impacts what politicians say. Here’s some background: https://www.nemil.com/tdf/introduction.html https://www.nemil.com/tdf/introduction.html

wwweston 8y ago

Many people don't vote their interests. They vote their identity and values. Rational self-interest is an assumption that enlightenment liberals and market fundamentalists alike have overplayed. It has its applications, and it may even be a somewhat valid assumption for individuals carefully looking at the terms of an economic deal they have make-or-break decision making power over. For collective civil action, my guess is its influence is somewhere between minimal and a wash.

RoutinePlayer 8y ago

It's "cojones" :-)

erentz 8y ago
:-) I blame a former manager. His automatically generated username (first two letters of first name + surname) was cajones, so that’s what he got called. And now I’ve automatically spelt it wrong ever since.