4 ms·

I never see those objections, instead I see the objections "I literally cannot afford the cheapest electric car and will be homeless and starving without a vehi

I never see those objections, instead I see the objections "I literally cannot afford the cheapest electric car and will be homeless and starving without a vehicle", "I need to heat my home to keep it habitable in sub zero temperatures in the winter", "I want to eat and not starve to death", "I want to cook food", etc. i.e. people still need energy, and the renewable options have only very recently been viable for an individual to use, and only in some places, and often at great cost. The objection to global warming isn't that it isn't real, it's that without fossil fuels most of us will die sooner than the worst case climate change effects ever will and so we have no choice.

nitwit005 5y ago
> The objection to global warming isn't that it isn't real No, that's usually the objection. There's a reason "climate denier" is a phrase. I don't think anyone would mind a purely technical discussion of how to provide power, mitigate impact to the poor, etc. Instead you get claims the scientists are part of some global conspiracy.
jacobolus 5y ago
“Global warming is real but I cannot personally afford to be carbon-neutral in the society as it is set up” is a fine position to take, but folks making that objection should be aiming to see large-scale structural changes to the society so their descendants don’t end up living through the end of civilization. The problematic part is “... but I like how things are going and nothing should change even though it is grossly unsustainable.” Personally I have not heard this per se. Everyone I know who is opposed to climate science / energy policy changes is a wealthy person living in material excess, largely for social signaling purposes (e.g. buying more and larger houses and cars than they need for any practical purpose), and their denials are fed by right-wing propaganda and self-serving delusion.
- throwawaynumber 5y ago
  I don't know those people. I would like to own a car and maybe a house one day so perhaps that influences my own perspective. I would rather my descendants were able to inherit property in an industrial society with a severe climate crisis, than have them be property-less peasants with no prospects and utterly dependant on their socioeconomic "betters" for handouts in a world with diminishing global warming.
wk_end 5y ago
I see or hear all of those objections regularly. Facebook, Twitter, Conservative or Republican politicians. Literally on this very thread there are people claiming global warming isn't real.
barbazoo 5y ago
> "I literally cannot afford the cheapest electric car and will be homeless and starving without a vehicle", "I need to heat my home to keep it habitable in sub zero temperatures in the winter", "I want to eat and not starve to death", "I want to cook food", etc. Obviously we talk to different people but I've actually never heard anyone use this as a justification for our behavior. It's either non-acceptance of environment-scientific facts or acceptance. > The objection to global warming isn't that it isn't real, it's that without fossil fuels most of us will die sooner than the worst case climate change effects ever will and so we have no choice. The political debates I'm following, North America and Europe make me believe that actual climate change denial is very much a real thing. More so the more rural and/or the more dependent on the oil and gas industry you get.
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  >> Obviously we talk to different people but I've actually never heard anyone use this as a justification for our behavior. It's either non-acceptance of environment-scientific facts or acceptance. There was a poll done recently that asked people about whether they though climate change was a problem, and also how much they would be willing to spend to help solve it: "A strong majority of respondents said they were somewhat or very concerned about the issue of climate change. However, one of the most interesting follow-up questions was this: “How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?” The vast majority of voters were only willing to make very minimal financial sacrifices. About 35 percent said they wouldn’t be willing to spend anything, with another 15 percent saying they’d only sacrifice $1-$10. Another 6 percent were willing to give up $11-$20, while 5 percent said they’d sacrifice $21-$30. In all, a whopping 75 percent of respondents were not willing to pay more than $50 a month." -- https://fee.org/articles/new-poll-americans-aren-t-willing-to-pay-for-the-green-new-deal-and-it-s-not-even-close/ https://fee.org/articles/new-poll-americans-aren-t-willing-t... That doesn't sound at all like "non-acceptance of environment-scientific facts or acceptance". That sounds like people think it is real but have other priorities for their money, which is what the parent poster was saying (a bit histrionically).
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
faefox 5y ago
The objection was absolutely "global warming isn't real" for literally decades. Only more recently, now that that the evidence is too overwhelming for those with even the slightest shred of integrity to ignore, has the argument shifted to "okay fine, it's real, but it's too late and/or we can't afford to do anything about it anyway."

nitwit005 5y ago

> The objection to global warming isn't that it isn't real No, that's usually the objection. There's a reason "climate denier" is a phrase. I don't think anyone would mind a purely technical discussion of how to provide power, mitigate impact to the poor, etc. Instead you get claims the scientists are part of some global conspiracy.

jacobolus 5y ago

“Global warming is real but I cannot personally afford to be carbon-neutral in the society as it is set up” is a fine position to take, but folks making that objection should be aiming to see large-scale structural changes to the society so their descendants don’t end up living through the end of civilization. The problematic part is “... but I like how things are going and nothing should change even though it is grossly unsustainable.” Personally I have not heard this per se. Everyone I know who is opposed to climate science / energy policy changes is a wealthy person living in material excess, largely for social signaling purposes (e.g. buying more and larger houses and cars than they need for any practical purpose), and their denials are fed by right-wing propaganda and self-serving delusion.

throwawaynumber 5y ago
I don't know those people. I would like to own a car and maybe a house one day so perhaps that influences my own perspective. I would rather my descendants were able to inherit property in an industrial society with a severe climate crisis, than have them be property-less peasants with no prospects and utterly dependant on their socioeconomic "betters" for handouts in a world with diminishing global warming.

wk_end 5y ago

I see or hear all of those objections regularly. Facebook, Twitter, Conservative or Republican politicians. Literally on this very thread there are people claiming global warming isn't real.

barbazoo 5y ago

> "I literally cannot afford the cheapest electric car and will be homeless and starving without a vehicle", "I need to heat my home to keep it habitable in sub zero temperatures in the winter", "I want to eat and not starve to death", "I want to cook food", etc. Obviously we talk to different people but I've actually never heard anyone use this as a justification for our behavior. It's either non-acceptance of environment-scientific facts or acceptance. > The objection to global warming isn't that it isn't real, it's that without fossil fuels most of us will die sooner than the worst case climate change effects ever will and so we have no choice. The political debates I'm following, North America and Europe make me believe that actual climate change denial is very much a real thing. More so the more rural and/or the more dependent on the oil and gas industry you get.

rufus_foreman 5y ago
>> Obviously we talk to different people but I've actually never heard anyone use this as a justification for our behavior. It's either non-acceptance of environment-scientific facts or acceptance. There was a poll done recently that asked people about whether they though climate change was a problem, and also how much they would be willing to spend to help solve it: "A strong majority of respondents said they were somewhat or very concerned about the issue of climate change. However, one of the most interesting follow-up questions was this: “How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?” The vast majority of voters were only willing to make very minimal financial sacrifices. About 35 percent said they wouldn’t be willing to spend anything, with another 15 percent saying they’d only sacrifice $1-$10. Another 6 percent were willing to give up $11-$20, while 5 percent said they’d sacrifice $21-$30. In all, a whopping 75 percent of respondents were not willing to pay more than $50 a month." -- https://fee.org/articles/new-poll-americans-aren-t-willing-to-pay-for-the-green-new-deal-and-it-s-not-even-close/ https://fee.org/articles/new-poll-americans-aren-t-willing-t... That doesn't sound at all like "non-acceptance of environment-scientific facts or acceptance". That sounds like people think it is real but have other priorities for their money, which is what the parent poster was saying (a bit histrionically).
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago

faefox 5y ago

The objection was absolutely "global warming isn't real" for literally decades. Only more recently, now that that the evidence is too overwhelming for those with even the slightest shred of integrity to ignore, has the argument shifted to "okay fine, it's real, but it's too late and/or we can't afford to do anything about it anyway."