5 ms·

I will explain my upvote: the single greatest enemy of solving Climate change, literally anywhere in the world, is the Republican Party. If you imagine a world

I will explain my upvote: the single greatest enemy of solving Climate change, literally anywhere in the world, is the Republican Party. If you imagine a world in which the Republican Party does not have the ability to affect U.S. policy, you can imagine a world in which a) we are already deep into U.S. efforts to lead the way on preventing large rises and b) where the terms of the debate about where to go from here are very different. Right now, Republicans control the government, so you are correct that we should not expect much change at the federal level before 2020 unless something radical and highly unlikely happens. I don't know why you're being downvoted, but I think it's important to say this clearly: anyone who believes that global warming is real, that science is a rational basis for knowledge, and wants humanity to address warming as soon as possible, is in profound, fundamental conflict with the Republican Party about the most important crisis of our time. The significance of this report is to convey the gravity of the crisis and to raise a sense of emergency among the public. If the report succeeds, it will be generating the political will necessary to strip Republicans of power and force through a science-based policy.

whatshisface 8y ago
I imagine it goes something like this: "Wow, that really seems to be a problem. Wait, that's me they're mad at? And all my enemies are the ones baying for blood? They're probably lying, they are the other team after all. Nevermind." I didn't downvote, but unless you have a plan for wiping out half the electorate you'll have to work with the other party. Activating everyone's mental immune systems with a nice pathogen-like protien coat of enemy rhetoric is not a good way to do it. It's like stirring peanut butter into the vat at an antihistamine factory.
- ForrestN 8y ago
  1) I think that when one of two parties is condemning the world to grave harm on the basis of corruption, graft and ignorance, it's worth explicitly calling that out as a bad thing irrespective of how that party responds. 2) The Republican Party doesn't represent the will of half the electorate at a national level—they received a minority share of the vote in the last presidential, house and senate elections, and only by virtue of the antiquated, undemocratic, and intentionally manipulated system we use do Republicans hang on to power. In a modern democracy with the electorate we have, we wouldn't be in this situation. No plan for "wiping out" millions of people needed. 3) I see the challenge facing us differently. We have to galvanize and activate the political energy and force of people who want the world to be safe and healthy as much as possible in order to forcibly extract concessions on the part of the ruling minority and set the stage for the reclamation of the government. If the large majority that support solving this crisis were mobilized, this would create enormous pressure for things to change. To put it your way, unless you have a plan for changing the minds of millions of Republicans in the face of decades of increased polarization, a multi-billion-dollar propaganda apparatus working in concert with the president, and a near-endless supply of money from very rich corporations who benefit from our current paralysis, you'll have to settle for applying as much pressure on Republicans as we can.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    Why didn't your party fix all this when they ran the executive branch for the previous two terms, and the Senate for 6 of those years?
    - torpfactory 8y ago
      I’m sure you’re aware that it typically requires both houses of the legislature to pass an meaningful legislation. No?
      - ForrestN 8y ago
        Exactly!
    - ForrestN 8y ago
      Despite overwhelming bad-faith manipulation of the legislative process by Republicans, Obama managed to move the climate status quo in the U.S. and the world tremendously in dozens of governmental and diplomatic spheres. The Trump Administration is in the process of dismantling all of that work as fast as possible. Here's an article from early 2017, which expresses the contrast between the two quite well: "The order sends an unmistakable signal that just as President Barack Obama sought to weave climate considerations into every aspect of the federal government, Trump is hoping to rip that approach out by its roots." [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-moves-decisively-to-wipe-out-obamas-climate-change-record/2017/03/27/411043d4-132c-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?utm_term=.627944ea6a9e https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump...
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Re 2: If you've got a way to get from this "antiquated, undemocratic" system to a "modern democracy", we'd all love to see the plan. It's going to either involve wiping out millions of voters, though, or else it's going to involve changing the constitution. Pulling that off with the electorate we have seems... improbable.
    - 8y ago
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  No. I am not going to work with people who have spent decades systematically undermining every else's existence and enthusiastically supporting genocide and ecocide, as most hard-right Republicans do (the only kind that are still allied ot the GOP). These people need to be defeated, not reasoned with.
  - someguydave 8y ago
    Why stop at defeat?
    - anigbrowl 8y ago
      I'd like to see the GOP go out of existence as an institution and its major power brokers neutralized. I'm not interested in what they do with their lives once their power is broken.
claydavisss 8y ago
California is a Democrat Monopoly and still the coast is riddled with Sacramento approved drilling Jerry Brown was asked why he continued to approve offshore drilling and his response was that he refused to put so many out of work. Downvoters disprove me or go back to Huffpost Newsom won't end drilling either. But sure, it's all Trump's fault
avip 8y ago
I'm touched by your optimistic conclusion, but the idea we'll see science-based policy does not resonate with as likely. I don't think facts or reasoning were so frowned-upon since medieval times.
tejohnso 8y ago
> single greatest enemy of solving Climate change, literally anywhere in the world, is the Republican Party. Chomsky refers to it as the most dangerous organization on earth. However, as popular as it is in the US to blame a political party, I don't think it's helpful in most cases, and this problem is no exception. The other party is not going to stand up to corporate control of government any better than the republican party. We need a fundamental shift in culture and economic incentive to overcome this problem. Real solutions aren't event being discussed.
- ForrestN 8y ago
  This kind of position ignores the striking differences between the last Democratic president and the current one. There are limits to what a president with an antagonistic congress can do, and within those limits I think Obama did quite a lot. Could he have done more, and done better? Absolutely. Do I think the media's disinterest in his constant speaking about the climate played some role in his lack of traction in forcing Republicans to participate? Yes. Is there a hand-wavey equivalence between Republicans and Democrats on global warming policy? No. Not even close.
  - tejohnso 8y ago
    Neither party has done anything significant to counter climate change in the 30 years since James Hansen's testimony before the U.S Senate. Look at the numbers. Whether this is because of limits to what can or can't be done just further proves my point. Neither party is going to do any better than the other.
dllthomas 8y ago
> If the report succeeds, it will be generating the political will necessary to strip Republicans of power and force through a science-based policy. Alternatively, it could be through generating the political will amongst Republicans to shift their position. I make no particular claim as to likelihood.
dv_dt 8y ago
This is true, but you also have to look out for coopting of the Democratic party. For instance this year the Koch organization is looking a significantly shifting a lot of donations into Democratic politicians. You can blame one party, the GOP primarily, but you also need to lobby for the Democrats to come out with a strong and clear climate plan.

whatshisface 8y ago

I imagine it goes something like this: "Wow, that really seems to be a problem. Wait, that's me they're mad at? And all my enemies are the ones baying for blood? They're probably lying, they are the other team after all. Nevermind." I didn't downvote, but unless you have a plan for wiping out half the electorate you'll have to work with the other party. Activating everyone's mental immune systems with a nice pathogen-like protien coat of enemy rhetoric is not a good way to do it. It's like stirring peanut butter into the vat at an antihistamine factory.

ForrestN 8y ago
1) I think that when one of two parties is condemning the world to grave harm on the basis of corruption, graft and ignorance, it's worth explicitly calling that out as a bad thing irrespective of how that party responds. 2) The Republican Party doesn't represent the will of half the electorate at a national level—they received a minority share of the vote in the last presidential, house and senate elections, and only by virtue of the antiquated, undemocratic, and intentionally manipulated system we use do Republicans hang on to power. In a modern democracy with the electorate we have, we wouldn't be in this situation. No plan for "wiping out" millions of people needed. 3) I see the challenge facing us differently. We have to galvanize and activate the political energy and force of people who want the world to be safe and healthy as much as possible in order to forcibly extract concessions on the part of the ruling minority and set the stage for the reclamation of the government. If the large majority that support solving this crisis were mobilized, this would create enormous pressure for things to change. To put it your way, unless you have a plan for changing the minds of millions of Republicans in the face of decades of increased polarization, a multi-billion-dollar propaganda apparatus working in concert with the president, and a near-endless supply of money from very rich corporations who benefit from our current paralysis, you'll have to settle for applying as much pressure on Republicans as we can.
- ams6110 8y ago
  Why didn't your party fix all this when they ran the executive branch for the previous two terms, and the Senate for 6 of those years?
  - torpfactory 8y ago
    I’m sure you’re aware that it typically requires both houses of the legislature to pass an meaningful legislation. No?
    - ForrestN 8y ago
      Exactly!
  - ForrestN 8y ago
    Despite overwhelming bad-faith manipulation of the legislative process by Republicans, Obama managed to move the climate status quo in the U.S. and the world tremendously in dozens of governmental and diplomatic spheres. The Trump Administration is in the process of dismantling all of that work as fast as possible. Here's an article from early 2017, which expresses the contrast between the two quite well: "The order sends an unmistakable signal that just as President Barack Obama sought to weave climate considerations into every aspect of the federal government, Trump is hoping to rip that approach out by its roots." [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-moves-decisively-to-wipe-out-obamas-climate-change-record/2017/03/27/411043d4-132c-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?utm_term=.627944ea6a9e https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump...
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Re 2: If you've got a way to get from this "antiquated, undemocratic" system to a "modern democracy", we'd all love to see the plan. It's going to either involve wiping out millions of voters, though, or else it's going to involve changing the constitution. Pulling that off with the electorate we have seems... improbable.
  - 8y ago
anigbrowl 8y ago
No. I am not going to work with people who have spent decades systematically undermining every else's existence and enthusiastically supporting genocide and ecocide, as most hard-right Republicans do (the only kind that are still allied ot the GOP). These people need to be defeated, not reasoned with.
- someguydave 8y ago
  Why stop at defeat?
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    I'd like to see the GOP go out of existence as an institution and its major power brokers neutralized. I'm not interested in what they do with their lives once their power is broken.

claydavisss 8y ago

California is a Democrat Monopoly and still the coast is riddled with Sacramento approved drilling Jerry Brown was asked why he continued to approve offshore drilling and his response was that he refused to put so many out of work. Downvoters disprove me or go back to Huffpost Newsom won't end drilling either. But sure, it's all Trump's fault

avip 8y ago

I'm touched by your optimistic conclusion, but the idea we'll see science-based policy does not resonate with as likely. I don't think facts or reasoning were so frowned-upon since medieval times.

tejohnso 8y ago

> single greatest enemy of solving Climate change, literally anywhere in the world, is the Republican Party. Chomsky refers to it as the most dangerous organization on earth. However, as popular as it is in the US to blame a political party, I don't think it's helpful in most cases, and this problem is no exception. The other party is not going to stand up to corporate control of government any better than the republican party. We need a fundamental shift in culture and economic incentive to overcome this problem. Real solutions aren't event being discussed.

ForrestN 8y ago
This kind of position ignores the striking differences between the last Democratic president and the current one. There are limits to what a president with an antagonistic congress can do, and within those limits I think Obama did quite a lot. Could he have done more, and done better? Absolutely. Do I think the media's disinterest in his constant speaking about the climate played some role in his lack of traction in forcing Republicans to participate? Yes. Is there a hand-wavey equivalence between Republicans and Democrats on global warming policy? No. Not even close.
- tejohnso 8y ago
  Neither party has done anything significant to counter climate change in the 30 years since James Hansen's testimony before the U.S Senate. Look at the numbers. Whether this is because of limits to what can or can't be done just further proves my point. Neither party is going to do any better than the other.

dllthomas 8y ago

> If the report succeeds, it will be generating the political will necessary to strip Republicans of power and force through a science-based policy. Alternatively, it could be through generating the political will amongst Republicans to shift their position. I make no particular claim as to likelihood.

dv_dt 8y ago

This is true, but you also have to look out for coopting of the Democratic party. For instance this year the Koch organization is looking a significantly shifting a lot of donations into Democratic politicians. You can blame one party, the GOP primarily, but you also need to lobby for the Democrats to come out with a strong and clear climate plan.