8 ms·

To me, the people who need convincing don’t handle/care about the abstract threat like climate change as well as one where a nation invades another. I’m not sur

To me, the people who need convincing don’t handle/care about the abstract threat like climate change as well as one where a nation invades another. I’m not sure how to convince those people either (or where ‘blame’ should be had here, education systems?). Do you? Also, per your argument about BP wrt other rivals for most environmentally damaging activities exist - perhaps you should reorient the argument ( for the sake of better conversation) towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff - rather than thinking a corporation and it’s shareholders will change their ways.

_8j50 5y ago
> I’m not sure how to convince those people either (or where ‘blame’ should be had here, education systems?). Do you? Depends. In the US at least, the underlying issue is socio-political alliances resulting from the two-party rule. The people trying to do the convincing also lump in a bunch of other things to the point where unless the otherside had the interest and motivation to study climate science first hand, taking their word for it is impossible. Like, you wouldn't take climate change advice from say... the CCP or the Taliban either unless you know enough to independently berify their claims. The people that can independently verify need no convincing, for the people that can't well.. you're also telling them their beliefs are a joke, their history is shame and they have to accept a whole lot of other things (not that I agree with any) they find utterly repulsive. Not only is there no trust, there is open hostility. Maybe don't make climate change an us vs them thing? This is the price of politicizing everything. You want the Bible-belt to get onboard with climate change? Get preachers on board not scientists. You want texas and alaska onboard? Also get the NRA onboard. Blue collar workers? Get them unions for green jobs that pay better (price in better pay to workers). You want china and EU onboard? Convince people nuclear power is safe. These are just my ideas but the point you need consensus not a majority. > towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff That sounds great and I agree but try convincing people that use scooters at walmart to bike to work. Most post-war cities are designed to consume fossil fuel. They are anti public transport and pedestrians. All that can change, but even if it did, takes too long and it will not be enough by itself anyways.
lanevorockz 5y ago
The biggest issue of Climate Change is that it doesn’t really mean anything. We need to be precise if we want action done. Our worst enemy is lack of information and the mistakes done when selling Global Warming, think Al Gore in the 1990s. Let’s not be fooled to think CO2 is such a magical evil molecule, we need to tackle much bigger problems than a chemical that earth is naturally trained to tackle.

_8j50 5y ago

> I’m not sure how to convince those people either (or where ‘blame’ should be had here, education systems?). Do you? Depends. In the US at least, the underlying issue is socio-political alliances resulting from the two-party rule. The people trying to do the convincing also lump in a bunch of other things to the point where unless the otherside had the interest and motivation to study climate science first hand, taking their word for it is impossible. Like, you wouldn't take climate change advice from say... the CCP or the Taliban either unless you know enough to independently berify their claims. The people that can independently verify need no convincing, for the people that can't well.. you're also telling them their beliefs are a joke, their history is shame and they have to accept a whole lot of other things (not that I agree with any) they find utterly repulsive. Not only is there no trust, there is open hostility. Maybe don't make climate change an us vs them thing? This is the price of politicizing everything. You want the Bible-belt to get onboard with climate change? Get preachers on board not scientists. You want texas and alaska onboard? Also get the NRA onboard. Blue collar workers? Get them unions for green jobs that pay better (price in better pay to workers). You want china and EU onboard? Convince people nuclear power is safe. These are just my ideas but the point you need consensus not a majority. > towards the pros/cons of having people consume less fossil fuel a time where the majority of people driving (in developed nations) also sit for hours on end (with obesity rates as high as they are too). Perhaps we should give up the need for fossil fuel and pick up the need to bicycle, walk around, and purchase less stuff That sounds great and I agree but try convincing people that use scooters at walmart to bike to work. Most post-war cities are designed to consume fossil fuel. They are anti public transport and pedestrians. All that can change, but even if it did, takes too long and it will not be enough by itself anyways.

lanevorockz 5y ago

The biggest issue of Climate Change is that it doesn’t really mean anything. We need to be precise if we want action done. Our worst enemy is lack of information and the mistakes done when selling Global Warming, think Al Gore in the 1990s. Let’s not be fooled to think CO2 is such a magical evil molecule, we need to tackle much bigger problems than a chemical that earth is naturally trained to tackle.