3 ms·

Why is every group calling the benefits of climate change legislation into question immediately smeared as "climate change deniers?" It's perfectly valid to loo

by pzone 7y ago

Why is every group calling the benefits of climate change legislation into question immediately smeared as "climate change deniers?" It's perfectly valid to look at the science, accept its conclusions, and remain unconvinced by the economics in cost-benefit terms.

dv_dt 7y ago
Because IMHO groups like these are looking to block or slow climate legislation wrapped in fake concern for the validity of science or economics.
washpanzer33 7y ago
Because once you start talking about economics and fiscal issues you rapidly lose control of the political discussion. Suddenly, the issue isn't 'we must do x' it is 'x costs y and has z payoff.' This is a major political problem because the way public understands most issues is that there isn't a tradeoff between costs and benefits like this. When there is it's usually hidden behind a myth like 'the space program produces lots of commerical knowledge' or 'military spending produced the internet.' Of course, neither of these is true in any real sense. It doesn't mean that the space program or military spending don't have benefits in and of themselves but claiming that they didn't cost anything because they produced ancillary benefits that just so happened to cover their investment is magical thinking. You have the same problem with discussions on green energy today. Saying we have to invest in green energy not because of climate change but because "that is where all the jobs will be" and "renewable energy pays for itself because it is cheaper" are basically the same kind of mythmaking to rationalize away costs. From a political perspective, this makes a lot of sense. If you want a discussion about actual costs and expected payoffs you can't claim that climate change legislation has no downsides; which, while true, is incredibly problematic to assert. What you want to do is have the costs managed internally by the political coalition so you can handwave away hard discussions about fiscal issues. Of course, it always turns out that the subsidies required are either always politically acceptable or do much less than what population expects.
resoluteteeth 7y ago
Imagine that a meteor is heading toward the Earth, and there's a 50% chance that it will hit us and wipe out all life, but we won't know whether it will for sure until later and if we want to be able to stop the meteor in the case where it will we need to start preparing now at immense cost. In this scenario, if you say "we're not 100% sure it's going to hit the Earth so we shouldn't prepare until we know for certain" does that make you "unconvinced"? Or does it make you a "denier"?
- perl4ever 7y ago
  So are you actually concerned about CO2 driven climate change or asteroid strikes? What about all the other things that could potentially eliminate civilization? Something something Pascal's wager... People constantly talk about "externalities", which implicitly means the downside of using fossil fuels isn't infinite. Equivocating between "infinite" and "actually a rather small amount on a global scale" makes anyone paying attention tune out. You've got to consistently fake sincerity to influence people. Or I used to think so.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  CO2 driven climate change isn’t going to wipe us out or do anything particularly exciting. Micro plastics are a more plausible doomsday eco-disaster.

by pzone 7y ago

dv_dt 7y ago

Because IMHO groups like these are looking to block or slow climate legislation wrapped in fake concern for the validity of science or economics.

washpanzer33 7y ago

Because once you start talking about economics and fiscal issues you rapidly lose control of the political discussion. Suddenly, the issue isn't 'we must do x' it is 'x costs y and has z payoff.' This is a major political problem because the way public understands most issues is that there isn't a tradeoff between costs and benefits like this. When there is it's usually hidden behind a myth like 'the space program produces lots of commerical knowledge' or 'military spending produced the internet.' Of course, neither of these is true in any real sense. It doesn't mean that the space program or military spending don't have benefits in and of themselves but claiming that they didn't cost anything because they produced ancillary benefits that just so happened to cover their investment is magical thinking. You have the same problem with discussions on green energy today. Saying we have to invest in green energy not because of climate change but because "that is where all the jobs will be" and "renewable energy pays for itself because it is cheaper" are basically the same kind of mythmaking to rationalize away costs. From a political perspective, this makes a lot of sense. If you want a discussion about actual costs and expected payoffs you can't claim that climate change legislation has no downsides; which, while true, is incredibly problematic to assert. What you want to do is have the costs managed internally by the political coalition so you can handwave away hard discussions about fiscal issues. Of course, it always turns out that the subsidies required are either always politically acceptable or do much less than what population expects.

resoluteteeth 7y ago

Imagine that a meteor is heading toward the Earth, and there's a 50% chance that it will hit us and wipe out all life, but we won't know whether it will for sure until later and if we want to be able to stop the meteor in the case where it will we need to start preparing now at immense cost. In this scenario, if you say "we're not 100% sure it's going to hit the Earth so we shouldn't prepare until we know for certain" does that make you "unconvinced"? Or does it make you a "denier"?

perl4ever 7y ago
So are you actually concerned about CO2 driven climate change or asteroid strikes? What about all the other things that could potentially eliminate civilization? Something something Pascal's wager... People constantly talk about "externalities", which implicitly means the downside of using fossil fuels isn't infinite. Equivocating between "infinite" and "actually a rather small amount on a global scale" makes anyone paying attention tune out. You've got to consistently fake sincerity to influence people. Or I used to think so.
SamReidHughes 7y ago
CO2 driven climate change isn’t going to wipe us out or do anything particularly exciting. Micro plastics are a more plausible doomsday eco-disaster.