7 ms·
Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem.
by neotek 7y ago
Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem. No worries giving endless buckets of taxpayer money to climate-denying farmers and coal plants, though.
- 0xcafecafe 7y agoThat will continue to happen as long as voting/politics remains ideology based rather than issue based.
- staticautomatic 7y agoIt's always been that way and always will be.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- russdill 7y agoThe first past the post two party systems lock that in.
- neotek 7y agoAustralia has a preferential voting system, and our two main parties are actually one primary centre-left party and two smaller centre-right parties that have formed a coalition. Doesn't stop us making dumb voting decisions every three years, though.
- anoncake 7y agoIdeology determines how we view the world (and thus the issues) and what we want it to look like. Politics without ideology is impossible, there is no objective "null ideology".
- Gatsky 7y agoThere are many people in the current government that believe in climate change. The real problem is that the government has surmised (correctly, it would seem) that climate change isn’t an issue that will win an election. That and the fact that pricing carbon was the opposition party’s policy...
- voqv 7y agoThey're pressured to improve KPIs of economy and life quality (including employment rates) and that's the complete opposite of what fixing the climate requires.
- asdf21 7y agoAre you saying that fixing climate change requires poor life quality for people in Western countries? Is poor life quality in the West going to stop worldwide deforestation somehow?
- asdf21 7y agoThere are very few government policies in the Western world that would have any noticeable impact on climate change. I believe that Climate Change is mostly caused by deforestation, but how would any government stop 7B people from cutting down trees?
- JacKTrocinskI 7y agoI think voting with your dollar is much effective then voting at the ballot boxes since politicians go to where the money is and end up not fulfilling most of their campaign promises anyway.
- throwaway5752 7y agoWell, you can do both really easily. Thankfully it's not a binary decision.
- JacKTrocinskI 7y agoIt's really not though, there are many candidates in a political election, many political debates, many topics, in order to make an informed decision it takes a lot more than just going to the ballet box and ticking a person's name. The fact that the mass media can't be trusted makes that getting correct information even harder. To make a properly informed decision to vote for a candidate you can truly say you believe in and whose agenda you know inside out would take days if not weeks of investigative research in my opinion, how is that easy?
- throwaway5752 7y agoThe mass media is actually pretty trustworthy for the most part. It's incredibly easy to make a binary decision between two candidate about who is better for the climate. You overcomplicate it. In the end, for most places, 1-3 people are your choices. Party affiliation, etc is not pertinent. Just research your actual choices, and make an informed decision. Most of the time it will be obvious, and if it's not, then maybe you have a dilemma. But don't paralyze yourself by assuming the dilemma.
- neotek 7y agoThe Labor party have constantly and consistently fought to address climate change, and have been thwarted by right-wing politicians every time. Voting absolutely matter, and anyone who tells you it doesn't has an agenda.
- gameswithgo 7y agoclimate change is not likely even a second order reason as to why this river is drying up. Maybe you and everyone knows that, and this is just an aside about the trouble we have dealing with long term environmental problems as societies?
- mixedbit 7y agoWe shouldn't use "believe" and "don't believe" terminology when we talk about scientific facts. It is more proper to say that people refuse to accept the climate change.
- ekianjo 7y agoEven if you accept it, it does not mean you have much power to act on it. The largest emitters of CO2 in the world are by far India and China and Australia is a tiny country with a tiny footprint in comparison.
- anoncake 7y agoYou can apply that argument to every person or group. I'm just one person, my individual carbon footprint is neglible – let the other 7 billion deal with it!
- fennecfoxen 7y agoI'm not sure that deliberate ideological message-control efforts of this sort actually meaningfully contribute to understanding. They seem unlikely to actually change what anyone thinks, somewhat reinforce the perception that climate change is a lie spread as part of a political conspiracy to control people.
- pdonis 7y agoThe observation that the climate is changing is a scientific fact. The hypothesis that draconian reduction or even elimination of CO2 emissions by humans will stop the climate from changing is not a scientific fact. It's the opposite: it's a hypothesis based on computer models that have been falsified by the data.
- jbattle 7y agoI'd prefer language like "I [am/am not] persuaded by the evidence I've seen" Small difference but I think it properly orients the discussion around evidence
- gonational 7y agoThe IPCC gave models to scientists that are necessarily missing part of the picture (namely, all energy from the sun that is not part of a specific EMR spectrum)[1], and then said "we have a consensus" when the scientists came back with an inevitable conclusion. This resulted in the inevitable false attribution of human activity being the cause of [strike: global warming] climate change. To fully appreciate the gravity of the IPCC's misadventures in "climate science", here is a seemingly hyperbolic, but actually quite accurate analogy of the situation: A group of 100 people have been consuming candy, water, and Raid®. Among those 100 people, 20 have died within a 1 month period. A committee is formed to solve this crisis. The committee tasks a group of scientists with determining the cause of death, and they are told, "Here is a group of 100 people, 20 of whom have died, all of which have been consuming candy and water." A consensus is formed among the scientists; obviously the candy is causing the deaths, since water is known to be safe. When some of the scientists discovered that the subjects had been consuming Raid®, they reached out to the committee to ask why the Raid® consumption had not been in the data, and the committee decided that, since the first ingredient in Raid® was water, and since water was known not to be a health risk, it was of little significance in the study. Now, imagine knowing all of the above, and then trying to be patient while listening to everyone you know become a "candy science" expert over the ensuing decade, and seeing your favorite news show, movie actor, musician, etc. calling for a candy tax, and constantly berating you as a "candy denier" when you question the consensus... then, those same people begin calling for candy-related fines, fees, and taxes that will affect your livelihood, and then facing the irony of those same people berating you as ignorant swill living in a fly-over state that's simply "voting based on ideology"; imagine that. 1. https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-014-0024-3 https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186...
- vkou 7y agoPlease provide reproduced, peer-reviewed sources for these extraordinary claims. While you're at it, please explain, with reproduced, peer-reviewed sources why you think the greenhouse effect, which directly ties CO2 to warming doesn't exist.
- 7y ago
- collyw 7y agoEven those that believe in climate change seem to have a problem with naming overpopulation as a principle cause of the problem.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoBecause you can't reduce your population by any acceptable method and birth rates are below replacement levels in most parts of the world anyway.
- vidarh 7y agoAnd indeed addressing birth rates takes too long to have a large enough effect on the population to resolve the climate crisis even if we could at this point.
- collyw 7y agoDoesn't stop you naming the problem. If everyone thinks that cutting a straw out is going to solve the problem, then the problem will go unsolved. Regarding below replacement birth rates - the world population is still growing. The fact this is happening suggests that "most parts of the world" as you say do not have below replacement birth levels.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoYour comment seems as much of a distraction as the demands to cut out straws. Most of the population growth is through ageing, you can have a below replacement level birth rate and expanding population if people live longer. Not only this but the places that are still growing their population have negligible emissions compared to the developed world.
- collyw 7y agoMost of the population growth is from less developed countries breeding like rabbits for want of a better term. And these low emissions countries all want to live like more developed countries. China and India don't have "negligible" emissions.