5 ms·

69% of Americans believe climate change is real. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-underestimate-how-many-others-in-the-u-s-think-gl

by sprafa 5y ago

69% of Americans believe climate change is real. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-underestimate-how-many-others-in-the-u-s-think-global-warming-is-happening/ https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans... That's an overwhelming majority. The 'doubt' is media-created FUD being replicated to pretend to be an issue. The issue is not the population, who overwhelmingly agree this is a problem. The problem is the ruling class does not want anything sudden to be done that would endanger their investments, and rapid change away from fossil fuels and other climate-change causing investments is a danger to their interests. A huge amount of issues in the world are manipulated to look like issues by the media. Don't fall for it!

runlevel1 5y ago
But only 55% of Americans believe it to be human-caused. From the actual report [^1]: > A majority of Americans (55%) understand that global warming is mostly human-caused. By contrast, only about one in three (32%) think it is due mostly to natural changes in the environment. The remaining 13% presumably answered "don't know" -- so there's at least some hope of reaching up to 68%. However, even if that 13% is won over, there's still another big barrier to meaningful legislation: Anthropogenic skepticism is over-represented in congress.[^2] Every state gets 2 senators regardless of population, and the more populous states tend to already have senators that believe it is caused by humans. [1]: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Climate_Change_American_Mind_April_2019c.pdf https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/201... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/us-senate-man-climate-change-global-warming-hoax https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/us-senat...
- sprafa 5y ago
  That's the evidence that the climate change "doubters" are really concentrated on the decision-making/ruling elite. But the reason for that is simple - if you don't support climate-change legislation you get more funding. This is what I meant about the ruling class protecting its interests. It's not hard to see.
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
Before there was Climate Change, there was Global Warming. Why was there a name change, a rebranding if you will? In some cases, there is conflation, but they mean very different things. When it comes to Climate, scientists say that climate is in 30 year intervals. Day to day that is just weather. > The problem is the ruling class I would be much more inclined to believe that there was an actual problem if the ruling class was not gallivanting around on private jets to nonstop events to preach to us plebes about the evils of our fairly tame lifestyles in comparison. Strangely, COVID has been great for driving down wanton energy use > that would endanger their investments, and rapid change away from fossil fuels and other climate-change causing investments is a danger to their interests. That sounds like one of the prevailing narratives in the media. However, I think the truth may be complex than that. After all, it is Exxon that did invent the ubiquitous Lithium-ion battery. https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/energy-innovation/rd/the-history-of-batteries-lithium-ion-batteries-energy-factor/ https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/energy-innovation/rd/the... If we are going to replace our oil-based economy I have little doubt that the innovation behind it will come from either Academia or BigEnergy, and market reasons will drive this change.
- sprafa 5y ago
  The market won't be able to adapt fast enough, I think. I don't think all prevailing narratives in the media are false. The idea that most of our industry benefits from climate change being considered an "externality" is true. Anyone who benefits from this unpriced "externality" has full interest in keeping it that way. And that's probably 90% of economic activity. I have little doubt that the innovation will come from industry, but the issue is that as long as we consider all of this an externality the market has no forcing function to change. On the Davos crowd who goes around talking about climate change while jetting around, that is a PR effort that's to be expected. In the end it doesn't matter. Since it's an economic externality to heat up the planet, we all benefit and get destroyed by it at the same time. A billionaire can be making great talks about climate change but it is impossible for him to achieve net-zero when so much of our economic activity relies on pricing climate change at 0$. The exception to this is literally 1 billionaire, who's invested humongous amounts of net worth into Tesla. Either way, there is 0 ways for the market to solve climate change when it is obvious that climate change is not priced into economic activity at all.

by sprafa 5y ago

runlevel1 5y ago

But only 55% of Americans believe it to be human-caused. From the actual report [^1]: > A majority of Americans (55%) understand that global warming is mostly human-caused. By contrast, only about one in three (32%) think it is due mostly to natural changes in the environment. The remaining 13% presumably answered "don't know" -- so there's at least some hope of reaching up to 68%. However, even if that 13% is won over, there's still another big barrier to meaningful legislation: Anthropogenic skepticism is over-represented in congress.[^2] Every state gets 2 senators regardless of population, and the more populous states tend to already have senators that believe it is caused by humans. [1]: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Climate_Change_American_Mind_April_2019c.pdf https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/201... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/us-senate-man-climate-change-global-warming-hoax https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/us-senat...

sprafa 5y ago
That's the evidence that the climate change "doubters" are really concentrated on the decision-making/ruling elite. But the reason for that is simple - if you don't support climate-change legislation you get more funding. This is what I meant about the ruling class protecting its interests. It's not hard to see.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

Before there was Climate Change, there was Global Warming. Why was there a name change, a rebranding if you will? In some cases, there is conflation, but they mean very different things. When it comes to Climate, scientists say that climate is in 30 year intervals. Day to day that is just weather. > The problem is the ruling class I would be much more inclined to believe that there was an actual problem if the ruling class was not gallivanting around on private jets to nonstop events to preach to us plebes about the evils of our fairly tame lifestyles in comparison. Strangely, COVID has been great for driving down wanton energy use > that would endanger their investments, and rapid change away from fossil fuels and other climate-change causing investments is a danger to their interests. That sounds like one of the prevailing narratives in the media. However, I think the truth may be complex than that. After all, it is Exxon that did invent the ubiquitous Lithium-ion battery. https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/energy-innovation/rd/the-history-of-batteries-lithium-ion-batteries-energy-factor/ https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/energy-innovation/rd/the... If we are going to replace our oil-based economy I have little doubt that the innovation behind it will come from either Academia or BigEnergy, and market reasons will drive this change.

sprafa 5y ago
The market won't be able to adapt fast enough, I think. I don't think all prevailing narratives in the media are false. The idea that most of our industry benefits from climate change being considered an "externality" is true. Anyone who benefits from this unpriced "externality" has full interest in keeping it that way. And that's probably 90% of economic activity. I have little doubt that the innovation will come from industry, but the issue is that as long as we consider all of this an externality the market has no forcing function to change. On the Davos crowd who goes around talking about climate change while jetting around, that is a PR effort that's to be expected. In the end it doesn't matter. Since it's an economic externality to heat up the planet, we all benefit and get destroyed by it at the same time. A billionaire can be making great talks about climate change but it is impossible for him to achieve net-zero when so much of our economic activity relies on pricing climate change at 0$. The exception to this is literally 1 billionaire, who's invested humongous amounts of net worth into Tesla. Either way, there is 0 ways for the market to solve climate change when it is obvious that climate change is not priced into economic activity at all.