4 ms·

IMO, because admitting that climate change is reality would in consequence require massive, expensive, and hugely uncomfortable changes in one's lifestyle. Plus

by akavel 5y ago

IMO, because admitting that climate change is reality would in consequence require massive, expensive, and hugely uncomfortable changes in one's lifestyle. Plus, not uncommonly, becoming de facto socially ostracised in at least some (though possibly all) of one's social circles. Also, there's not even some concrete "ozone layer hole" you could point your finger at, but rather some vague: "Some, though not all [FUD works, sorry to say :(], scientists say it will be warmer! Like whopping 2 degrees! No, no, you heard me right, that's a lot, and you don't want to be warmer, though it's kinda hard to explain, involves some complex theory or something..."

Sebb767 5y ago
Exactly this. Plus some perceived unfairness because people who do not care about the environment have an advantage over you and also a better lifestyle.
- ziml77 5y ago
  People are afraid that this unfairness will leave them without money. There's a thought that if the US has laws to limit altering the climate, China (ever the bogeyman) will continue to pollute and have a crushing economic advantage because of it.
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    To be fair, it's not totally unfounded. It's just that going as-is will lead to a worse outcome for everyone in the long run. Perfect example of the tragedy of the commons.
sandworm101 5y ago
>> massive, expensive, and hugely uncomfortable changes in one's lifestyle. Why? The biggest climate change issue, carbon, doesn't require any lifestyle changes. Solar/wind/batteries + nuclear reactors can provide us with all the electricity we need. Cars/trucks can be electrified in the near term too, although there are non-electric green options too (fuel from captured carbon). Maybe if your precious "lifestyle" involves rolling coal as you drive to you private jet to then go shoot some endangered lions. Maybe if your lifestyle involves a love of smokestacks or indulging a hypochondriac fear of that windmills will give you cancer. Those people will see an impact. But us normals can still drive cars and have air conditioning in our apartments.
epistasis 5y ago
> admitting that climate change is reality would in consequence require massive, expensive, and hugely uncomfortable changes in one's lifestyle. I think you are right about people's thoughts on this. But it's important to counter that it won't be massively expensive to switch away from fossil fuels, and will likely be cheaper. Decarbonization while maintaining lifestyles, and increasing the energy consumption of developing countries, will not require sacrifice from everyone. No, it simply means disrupting the usual energy sources with new technology, and fossil fuel companies are hugely influential, and have situated themselves deeeeeply within the power structures, especially after the energy crisis of the 1970s. So because a very few investors have a lot of money at stake, and because they are so extremely influential, and so good at manipulating popular opinion, and even better at influencing power to act in favor of fossil fuels, we see very little action. The only tech missing from the decarbonization transition are some industrial processes like steel, ammonia, and concrete. We don't yet know if hydrogen or carbon capture will be better, or some other new chemistries. But it will be solvable and the worst case cost will not be drastic. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels currently. Batteries are on their way to be cheaper than gas powered cars. Batteries are already cheaper than natural gas peakers, and will soon be cheaper than coal. Christopher Clack's latest models, which model the electrical grid down to the distribution level along with weather patterns, show us a path to save lots of money while decarbonizing the electrical grid at the pace we need to. Yet nobody talks about this on the news, we only get paid PR to subtly tell us that we need fossil fuels. And in the Murdoch media empire, they are so far detached from scientific knowledge, and so deep in the pocket of narrow investment interests, that we have entire political tribes fighting against their own financial and survival interests, merely to help out fossil fuel investors.
- akavel 5y ago
  Thanks for the great reply, with some new thoughts, but also reminding me of some thoughts I kept before but apparently forgot recently, argh. In particular, that individual people are just a tiny percentage polluter, and the main offenders are various industries (where the oil ones in particular purposefully shifted the blame in people's minds to individuals via strong PR). In fact, I long didn't see point in changing my lifestyle, as my "carbon footprint" (with even this being creative PR to shift blame to individuals) and other individual pollution is not really relevant quantitively speaking. Only recently I switched my thinking, in that although individuals' waste is technically irrelevant, displaying caring-about-nature actions and attitude can hopefully influence other people and thus create a "political climate" where politicians, to try and please people, start caring more about nature and as a result hopefully start pushing industries to switch away from polluting energy sources etc. Argh, I wish it was all simpler to explain and rally people behind.

by akavel 5y ago

Sebb767 5y ago

Exactly this. Plus some perceived unfairness because people who do not care about the environment have an advantage over you and also a better lifestyle.

ziml77 5y ago
People are afraid that this unfairness will leave them without money. There's a thought that if the US has laws to limit altering the climate, China (ever the bogeyman) will continue to pollute and have a crushing economic advantage because of it.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  To be fair, it's not totally unfounded. It's just that going as-is will lead to a worse outcome for everyone in the long run. Perfect example of the tragedy of the commons.

sandworm101 5y ago

>> massive, expensive, and hugely uncomfortable changes in one's lifestyle. Why? The biggest climate change issue, carbon, doesn't require any lifestyle changes. Solar/wind/batteries + nuclear reactors can provide us with all the electricity we need. Cars/trucks can be electrified in the near term too, although there are non-electric green options too (fuel from captured carbon). Maybe if your precious "lifestyle" involves rolling coal as you drive to you private jet to then go shoot some endangered lions. Maybe if your lifestyle involves a love of smokestacks or indulging a hypochondriac fear of that windmills will give you cancer. Those people will see an impact. But us normals can still drive cars and have air conditioning in our apartments.

epistasis 5y ago

> admitting that climate change is reality would in consequence require massive, expensive, and hugely uncomfortable changes in one's lifestyle. I think you are right about people's thoughts on this. But it's important to counter that it won't be massively expensive to switch away from fossil fuels, and will likely be cheaper. Decarbonization while maintaining lifestyles, and increasing the energy consumption of developing countries, will not require sacrifice from everyone. No, it simply means disrupting the usual energy sources with new technology, and fossil fuel companies are hugely influential, and have situated themselves deeeeeply within the power structures, especially after the energy crisis of the 1970s. So because a very few investors have a lot of money at stake, and because they are so extremely influential, and so good at manipulating popular opinion, and even better at influencing power to act in favor of fossil fuels, we see very little action. The only tech missing from the decarbonization transition are some industrial processes like steel, ammonia, and concrete. We don't yet know if hydrogen or carbon capture will be better, or some other new chemistries. But it will be solvable and the worst case cost will not be drastic. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels currently. Batteries are on their way to be cheaper than gas powered cars. Batteries are already cheaper than natural gas peakers, and will soon be cheaper than coal. Christopher Clack's latest models, which model the electrical grid down to the distribution level along with weather patterns, show us a path to save lots of money while decarbonizing the electrical grid at the pace we need to. Yet nobody talks about this on the news, we only get paid PR to subtly tell us that we need fossil fuels. And in the Murdoch media empire, they are so far detached from scientific knowledge, and so deep in the pocket of narrow investment interests, that we have entire political tribes fighting against their own financial and survival interests, merely to help out fossil fuel investors.

akavel 5y ago
Thanks for the great reply, with some new thoughts, but also reminding me of some thoughts I kept before but apparently forgot recently, argh. In particular, that individual people are just a tiny percentage polluter, and the main offenders are various industries (where the oil ones in particular purposefully shifted the blame in people's minds to individuals via strong PR). In fact, I long didn't see point in changing my lifestyle, as my "carbon footprint" (with even this being creative PR to shift blame to individuals) and other individual pollution is not really relevant quantitively speaking. Only recently I switched my thinking, in that although individuals' waste is technically irrelevant, displaying caring-about-nature actions and attitude can hopefully influence other people and thus create a "political climate" where politicians, to try and please people, start caring more about nature and as a result hopefully start pushing industries to switch away from polluting energy sources etc. Argh, I wish it was all simpler to explain and rally people behind.