3 ms·

I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily. The facts are essentially indisputably in the side of climate disaster as likely. This shouldn't be t

I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily. The facts are essentially indisputably in the side of climate disaster as likely. This shouldn't be the cause of 'progressives' (although maybe it should be the cause of 'environmentalists' -- even though I'm not sure who the heck should be an 'anti-environmentalist' in right mind), this should be just something we have to do as a species living on the planet. If 'progressives' picked it up and (some) 'conservatives' did not, I think it's an unfortunate failure of conservatives (and science communicators, and society as a whole, etc.). I support Nuclear Energy too, but I can see it has difficulty gaining traction for a huge list of reasons, and this is across the political, social and economic spectrum. But basically the need for Nuclear is largely obsolete -- it was the only attractive option when Solar (and Wind to an extent) wasn't so cheap. Solar costs about the same or less, is available more or less everywhere, and has no contamination issues. Also of very worthy note IMO is that the (electrical) energy supply isn't the whole picture. A good chunk of emissions are from transportation sector and some from industrial processes. There is also advocacy in those sectors (which comes off as 'progressive') simply because of consistency and necessity to achieve a reasonable climate plan. Note that nuclear energy, or solar energy, can't solely avoid incoming disasters.

daxorid 7y ago
Let me preface this by saying I believe in AGW, and that it's an existential risk. > I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily One huge reason is that the coincident ideologies of the left can't be taken seriously by those on the right. Or, put another way, they don't believe them. Specifically, if one was truly serious about the urgency of solving climate change, they would not simultaneously advocate for raising the standard of living of non-Western populations to Western levels, before the carbon footprint required of said standard of living was dramatically reduced first. Carbon emission reduction right now, with the urgency required to prevent collapse, is fundamentally incompatible with open borders. So when someone on the right sees an open-borders advocate clamoring for immediate carbon emissions reductions, the conclusion is not necessarily that they don't believe the science, it's that they don't believe you do. And the only valid conclusion is that you're motivated by politics, not by legitimate concern for the species.
- yostrovs 7y ago
  Also, considering that the advocates don't seem to change their behaviors or lifestyles even marginally, the folks listening feel like the burden is being put on them. Why would I not take my family to Disneyland when I see private jets taking off ever more frequently from the private airport nearby? Cars are getting bigger, houses too, and apart from buying a Tesla, using LED lights, and a few other simple things, even the advocates don't seem to take global warming seriously. Why would average Joe panic when the celebrities, politicians, and even Gretta are traversing the world and attending fun events? Nobody seems to be sacrificing at all.

daxorid 7y ago

Let me preface this by saying I believe in AGW, and that it's an existential risk. > I don't see why this needs to be politicized this heavily One huge reason is that the coincident ideologies of the left can't be taken seriously by those on the right. Or, put another way, they don't believe them. Specifically, if one was truly serious about the urgency of solving climate change, they would not simultaneously advocate for raising the standard of living of non-Western populations to Western levels, before the carbon footprint required of said standard of living was dramatically reduced first. Carbon emission reduction right now, with the urgency required to prevent collapse, is fundamentally incompatible with open borders. So when someone on the right sees an open-borders advocate clamoring for immediate carbon emissions reductions, the conclusion is not necessarily that they don't believe the science, it's that they don't believe you do. And the only valid conclusion is that you're motivated by politics, not by legitimate concern for the species.

yostrovs 7y ago
Also, considering that the advocates don't seem to change their behaviors or lifestyles even marginally, the folks listening feel like the burden is being put on them. Why would I not take my family to Disneyland when I see private jets taking off ever more frequently from the private airport nearby? Cars are getting bigger, houses too, and apart from buying a Tesla, using LED lights, and a few other simple things, even the advocates don't seem to take global warming seriously. Why would average Joe panic when the celebrities, politicians, and even Gretta are traversing the world and attending fun events? Nobody seems to be sacrificing at all.