6 ms·

I'm not sure whether most of this climate activism is productive, or just produces more backlash in reaction. It would be helpful if climate change could be ta

I'm not sure whether most of this climate activism is productive, or just produces more backlash in reaction. It would be helpful if climate change could be taken away from the zealous environmentalists, as they have a long track record of advocating for policies that do more to inconvenience people than they do to solve problems. It's the modern day equivalent of wearing a hair shirt. It certainly doesn't help to keep up the fire and brimstone, judgement day is coming, listen and repent rhetoric. They've played that card too many times to be taken seriously.

pjc50 7y ago
The responsibility lies then with "centrists" to come up with something sensible and effective, doesn't it? Or is the argument that because these people are annoying we're going to do nothing in order to spite them?
- snikeris 7y ago
  These folks seem to get it: http://www.ecomodernism.org/ http://www.ecomodernism.org/
- weberc2 7y ago
  I’m not sure what centrists are meant to do. It seems like an issue like this requires clear, actionable advice from the science community. Maybe the science community has clear guidance, but what makes its way to me is often contradicted a week later (“we need to recycle!”, “actually recycling doesn’t do much and landfills aren’t that bad!”, “use solar power!”, “actually solar may use as much carbon to create as it saves”). I want to do something, but I have no idea what the answer is.
  - danaris 7y ago
    Except that's not actually what science is doing. 1) "We need to recycle"—We do! It's very important. Unfortunately, recycling a lot of materials is not currently profitable (or profitable enough? I'm a bit unclear on that part), so a depressing amount of stuff we put in the recycling goes several steps along the chain, then gets thrown in the trash anyway—or possibly dumped somewhere illegally. This is not a problem with science, or recycling; it's a problem with uncaring corporations and externalized costs. 2) "Use solar power!"—Do. I've only ever heard the claim that solar uses as much carbon in its construction as it saves over its lifetime from unsourced posts on the Internet (which, yeah, who am I to throw stones? but still...) who clearly had a pre-existing bias against everything that liberals like. Every reputable study I've ever seen linked regarding the total cost of solar puts it much lower than its output for modern panels. There is some concern regarding some of the components—the more unusual metals, for instance—but the main solution to that, to the best of my understanding, is better recycling. (See #1.) Basically, what science, scientists, and good science reporting does is tell you "if you do X, Y will happen with Z% probability". The reason you see all this contradictory advice is that most of it (on both sides) doesn't actually come from scientists—it comes from the media, imperfectly reporting, and in some cases maliciously misreporting, what scientists say...and often what people who aren't actually scientists say, claiming that it is science.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      That’s kind of what I was driving at—there is a need for good clear communication regarding what to do about climate change. Maybe you feel like there is a clear channel to you—I don’t, and I’m guessing that’s true for most Americans. Maybe I’m just thick skulled, but it’s hard for me to determine what things are bonafide and what things are environmental fashion (do I need to eat organic? Vegan? Do I need to stop using plastic straws? Etc). I’m guessing that I’m more tuned into science journalism than the average American, and I couldn’t give a ballpark estimate as to the carbon savings various initiatives and lifestyle choices would afford.
      - pjc50 7y ago
        The big things need to be system-wide changes through the political system. Individual action isn't going to be enough. Vote for people with serious green policies.
        danaris 7y ago
        This is largely the filter I use. Banning plastic straws (for instance) does very little to solve the overall problem—the majority of the plastic in the oceans is commercial fishing nets—and does actually have significant negative impacts on some people with particular kinds of disabilities. Using less water, eating vegan, all the individual-level things you can do are not worthless, but they are vastly overshadowed by the harm done by large corporations with an overdeveloped interest in profit and underdeveloped scruples. There are certain individual-level measures that, if our whole society decided to adopt them, would be beneficial, and others that are beneficial (at least long-term) to the individuals who can adopt them, and also have small positive effects for the environment. Rooftop solar is, for many, in the latter category. I believe my parents expect theirs to have fully paid for its installation (3-4 years ago) within the next year or two, and get several more years of useful life out of it, despite living in the US Northeast (winters aren't nearly as detrimental to their effect as is often suggested).
melling 7y ago
There’s evidence blah blah blah could be swaying blah blah blah” don’t waste your time reading articles like this. Climate change is a very divisive issue, for whatever reason. The media doesn’t help when every time there’s a hurricane that hits land, or a forest fire in California, someone brings up climate change. Spend any time in the comment section of the Wall Street Journal, when climate change is mentioned, and the majority of people are deniers in one form or another.

pjc50 7y ago

The responsibility lies then with "centrists" to come up with something sensible and effective, doesn't it? Or is the argument that because these people are annoying we're going to do nothing in order to spite them?

snikeris 7y ago
These folks seem to get it: http://www.ecomodernism.org/ http://www.ecomodernism.org/
weberc2 7y ago
I’m not sure what centrists are meant to do. It seems like an issue like this requires clear, actionable advice from the science community. Maybe the science community has clear guidance, but what makes its way to me is often contradicted a week later (“we need to recycle!”, “actually recycling doesn’t do much and landfills aren’t that bad!”, “use solar power!”, “actually solar may use as much carbon to create as it saves”). I want to do something, but I have no idea what the answer is.
- danaris 7y ago
  Except that's not actually what science is doing. 1) "We need to recycle"—We do! It's very important. Unfortunately, recycling a lot of materials is not currently profitable (or profitable enough? I'm a bit unclear on that part), so a depressing amount of stuff we put in the recycling goes several steps along the chain, then gets thrown in the trash anyway—or possibly dumped somewhere illegally. This is not a problem with science, or recycling; it's a problem with uncaring corporations and externalized costs. 2) "Use solar power!"—Do. I've only ever heard the claim that solar uses as much carbon in its construction as it saves over its lifetime from unsourced posts on the Internet (which, yeah, who am I to throw stones? but still...) who clearly had a pre-existing bias against everything that liberals like. Every reputable study I've ever seen linked regarding the total cost of solar puts it much lower than its output for modern panels. There is some concern regarding some of the components—the more unusual metals, for instance—but the main solution to that, to the best of my understanding, is better recycling. (See #1.) Basically, what science, scientists, and good science reporting does is tell you "if you do X, Y will happen with Z% probability". The reason you see all this contradictory advice is that most of it (on both sides) doesn't actually come from scientists—it comes from the media, imperfectly reporting, and in some cases maliciously misreporting, what scientists say...and often what people who aren't actually scientists say, claiming that it is science.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    That’s kind of what I was driving at—there is a need for good clear communication regarding what to do about climate change. Maybe you feel like there is a clear channel to you—I don’t, and I’m guessing that’s true for most Americans. Maybe I’m just thick skulled, but it’s hard for me to determine what things are bonafide and what things are environmental fashion (do I need to eat organic? Vegan? Do I need to stop using plastic straws? Etc). I’m guessing that I’m more tuned into science journalism than the average American, and I couldn’t give a ballpark estimate as to the carbon savings various initiatives and lifestyle choices would afford.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      The big things need to be system-wide changes through the political system. Individual action isn't going to be enough. Vote for people with serious green policies.
      - danaris 7y ago
        This is largely the filter I use. Banning plastic straws (for instance) does very little to solve the overall problem—the majority of the plastic in the oceans is commercial fishing nets—and does actually have significant negative impacts on some people with particular kinds of disabilities. Using less water, eating vegan, all the individual-level things you can do are not worthless, but they are vastly overshadowed by the harm done by large corporations with an overdeveloped interest in profit and underdeveloped scruples. There are certain individual-level measures that, if our whole society decided to adopt them, would be beneficial, and others that are beneficial (at least long-term) to the individuals who can adopt them, and also have small positive effects for the environment. Rooftop solar is, for many, in the latter category. I believe my parents expect theirs to have fully paid for its installation (3-4 years ago) within the next year or two, and get several more years of useful life out of it, despite living in the US Northeast (winters aren't nearly as detrimental to their effect as is often suggested).

melling 7y ago

There’s evidence blah blah blah could be swaying blah blah blah” don’t waste your time reading articles like this. Climate change is a very divisive issue, for whatever reason. The media doesn’t help when every time there’s a hurricane that hits land, or a forest fire in California, someone brings up climate change. Spend any time in the comment section of the Wall Street Journal, when climate change is mentioned, and the majority of people are deniers in one form or another.