16 ms·

Climate change yes, but climate change is a bipartisan issue, despite what corrupt politicians and media corporations would have you think. The majority of all

Climate change yes, but climate change is a bipartisan issue, despite what corrupt politicians and media corporations would have you think. The majority of all voters want more action on climate change. It is presented as a partisan issue to give politicians an excuse for their inaction on behalf of their owners, while laying the blame on the common people -- privatize profit and socialize responsibility, as usual. Now what would be great is if he had proactively spoken out against war, coups, etc., and admitted he was wrong and those wars were failures. Who knows, he may even have got a few people across the aisle to reconsider their pro intervention stance and prevented much horror and tragedy and further destruction of the west's moral standing caused by subsequent administrations. Although I guess he's just as deep in it with the war industry too.

danans 4y ago
> Climate change yes, but climate change is a bipartisan issue, despite what corrupt politicians and media corporations would have you think. If this were the case, most Republican politicians would be running on a carbon emissions reduction platform, but that's manifestly not the case. The vast majority are either silent on the issue or openly mock the idea of its existence. The only other explanation is that there is a tacit understanding between them and their voters that they privately take climate change seriously but just don't want to discuss it openly, which is an extremely far fetched explanation. It's not impossible for conservatives to take climate change seriously and confront it openly - look at the current UK government for example. Likewise, it's not a given that a far-left leader takes climate change seriously - look at Venezuela. It matters where the bread is buttered. > Now what would be great is if he had proactively spoken out against war, coups, etc., and admitted he was wrong and those wars were failures Agreed, but as the Ukraine war has again shown us, fossil fuels are the glue that binds climate change and wars of aggression, so I'm not so sure that we can separate the two so easily.
- ars 4y ago
  Republicans are happy to reduce emissions as long as the energy is not more expensive, while Democrats are willing to allows prices to rise to accomplish that goal. This has second order effects: Republicans will say if your new energy source is cheaper, people will automatically use it, no need for government to do anything. While Democrats want the government to mandate it, because that's the only way it will work if it's more expensive. You might also consider if I've reversed 1st order and 2nd order here, that's up to you to decide.
  - danans 4y ago
    > Republicans are happy to reduce emissions as long as the energy is not more expensive, while Democrats are willing to allows prices to rise to accomplish that goal. Fossil fuels are only less expensive when you ignore the real health and climate change costs, which is precisely what politicians aligned with fossil fuel interests do on both sides of the political aisle.
    - lazide 4y ago
      Near as I can tell, at least right now the real health and climate costs are hard to quantity and very diffuse across a huge number of people. Also prone to exaggeration or undercounting. Price at the pump/wellhead is easy, and impossible to ignore.
  - stonogo 4y ago
    This comparison completely ignores a glaring counterpoint: corn. It's not the Democrats shoving through corn subsidies, then cramming ethanol requirements into the system. It's not Republicans either. It's universally bipartisan, despite ethanol being a terrible fuel source.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      One small thing corn-sourced ethanol has going for it is that it’s using current carbon rather than ancient carbon.
      - adrianN 4y ago
        AFAIK making the ethanol involves more fossil fuel use than you save by burning the ethanol instead of using petrol directly.
        sokoloff 4y ago
        Bottom of page 2 suggests that’s not the case: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/news/archives/documents/Myths_and_Facts.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/news/archives/do... As someone who has changed or disassembled and cleaned many a carb from crappy ethanol-polluted gasoline, I’m not pro-ethanol, but I think there’s a slice of science in favor of it on lifecycle emissions basis.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > If this were the case, most Republican politicians would be running on a carbon emissions reduction platform, but that's manifestly not the case. The vast majority are either silent on the issue or openly mock the idea of its existence. It is the case. Look at the numbers, the data doesn't lie. I'm not talking about corrupt politicians, I'm talking about the people. Look up the numbers. Far worse policies, laws, wars, etc have been rammed through on negative popularity. Far slimmer margins are hailed as a "mandate" and "bipartisan" when it suits them. It's not the people who need convincing at this point, it's the politicians. What the people need convincing of is something else, which is that it's now up to the politicians. They are the ones responsible, not some lunatic fringe or imaginary boogyman they've invented. Politicians. All politicians, and especially their politicians. Don't let them keep fooling you into believing it's the unemployed coal miner in West Virginia who is to blame for them not taking action on climate change. It's the politicians. Both sides -- what are the Democrats doing about it right now that they control the executive and congress and have a decent position in the senate? The gravest and most important problem ever to have faced humanity. Must be that all-powerful hillbilly somehow stopping them from doing anything about it, eh? EDIT: Take a look at this for example, https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of... Not only are the vast majority of Americans in favor of more climate action, actually the majority of Republican voters are in favor of significant policies. 55% in favor of taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions!! So please stop spreading misinformation about this and don't let your corrupt politicians continue to fool you, continue to divide people, and continue to get away with their inaction on climate change. It's not some lunatic fringe of hated "others" who are preventing action, it's your damn lying, divisive, hatemongering, corrupt politicians.
  - Someone 4y ago
    > It's not the people who need convincing at this point, it's the politicians. I don’t think it’s that simple. “The people” want action on climate change, but they also want to get better of, or at least not get worse of. They want to keep their big cars, holidays far away, cheap electronics, they want to keep eating lots of meat, etc. Nobody can give them all they want, so I don’t think it’s fair to blame the politicians for that.
- adrianN 4y ago
  If republican voters think other issues are more important that their representative's opinion on climate change, then there is no need for the politician to reflect the popular opinion. You only have two parties in the US. If one party does something you absolutely can not stand whatever the other guys say is not very important.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    And it's usually cheaper, if you have no morals, to invent something they're doing that is terrible, to win their vote than actually govern.
Cd00d 4y ago
If climate change were a bipartisan issue, I'd expect more diversity in the sorts of bumper stickers I see on trucks coal rolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  It is, regardless of what you expect about bumper stickers.

danans 4y ago

> Climate change yes, but climate change is a bipartisan issue, despite what corrupt politicians and media corporations would have you think. If this were the case, most Republican politicians would be running on a carbon emissions reduction platform, but that's manifestly not the case. The vast majority are either silent on the issue or openly mock the idea of its existence. The only other explanation is that there is a tacit understanding between them and their voters that they privately take climate change seriously but just don't want to discuss it openly, which is an extremely far fetched explanation. It's not impossible for conservatives to take climate change seriously and confront it openly - look at the current UK government for example. Likewise, it's not a given that a far-left leader takes climate change seriously - look at Venezuela. It matters where the bread is buttered. > Now what would be great is if he had proactively spoken out against war, coups, etc., and admitted he was wrong and those wars were failures Agreed, but as the Ukraine war has again shown us, fossil fuels are the glue that binds climate change and wars of aggression, so I'm not so sure that we can separate the two so easily.

ars 4y ago
Republicans are happy to reduce emissions as long as the energy is not more expensive, while Democrats are willing to allows prices to rise to accomplish that goal. This has second order effects: Republicans will say if your new energy source is cheaper, people will automatically use it, no need for government to do anything. While Democrats want the government to mandate it, because that's the only way it will work if it's more expensive. You might also consider if I've reversed 1st order and 2nd order here, that's up to you to decide.
- danans 4y ago
  > Republicans are happy to reduce emissions as long as the energy is not more expensive, while Democrats are willing to allows prices to rise to accomplish that goal. Fossil fuels are only less expensive when you ignore the real health and climate change costs, which is precisely what politicians aligned with fossil fuel interests do on both sides of the political aisle.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Near as I can tell, at least right now the real health and climate costs are hard to quantity and very diffuse across a huge number of people. Also prone to exaggeration or undercounting. Price at the pump/wellhead is easy, and impossible to ignore.
- stonogo 4y ago
  This comparison completely ignores a glaring counterpoint: corn. It's not the Democrats shoving through corn subsidies, then cramming ethanol requirements into the system. It's not Republicans either. It's universally bipartisan, despite ethanol being a terrible fuel source.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    One small thing corn-sourced ethanol has going for it is that it’s using current carbon rather than ancient carbon.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      AFAIK making the ethanol involves more fossil fuel use than you save by burning the ethanol instead of using petrol directly.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        Bottom of page 2 suggests that’s not the case: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/news/archives/documents/Myths_and_Facts.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/news/archives/do... As someone who has changed or disassembled and cleaned many a carb from crappy ethanol-polluted gasoline, I’m not pro-ethanol, but I think there’s a slice of science in favor of it on lifecycle emissions basis.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
> If this were the case, most Republican politicians would be running on a carbon emissions reduction platform, but that's manifestly not the case. The vast majority are either silent on the issue or openly mock the idea of its existence. It is the case. Look at the numbers, the data doesn't lie. I'm not talking about corrupt politicians, I'm talking about the people. Look up the numbers. Far worse policies, laws, wars, etc have been rammed through on negative popularity. Far slimmer margins are hailed as a "mandate" and "bipartisan" when it suits them. It's not the people who need convincing at this point, it's the politicians. What the people need convincing of is something else, which is that it's now up to the politicians. They are the ones responsible, not some lunatic fringe or imaginary boogyman they've invented. Politicians. All politicians, and especially their politicians. Don't let them keep fooling you into believing it's the unemployed coal miner in West Virginia who is to blame for them not taking action on climate change. It's the politicians. Both sides -- what are the Democrats doing about it right now that they control the executive and congress and have a decent position in the senate? The gravest and most important problem ever to have faced humanity. Must be that all-powerful hillbilly somehow stopping them from doing anything about it, eh? EDIT: Take a look at this for example, https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of... Not only are the vast majority of Americans in favor of more climate action, actually the majority of Republican voters are in favor of significant policies. 55% in favor of taxing corporations based on their carbon emissions!! So please stop spreading misinformation about this and don't let your corrupt politicians continue to fool you, continue to divide people, and continue to get away with their inaction on climate change. It's not some lunatic fringe of hated "others" who are preventing action, it's your damn lying, divisive, hatemongering, corrupt politicians.
- Someone 4y ago
  > It's not the people who need convincing at this point, it's the politicians. I don’t think it’s that simple. “The people” want action on climate change, but they also want to get better of, or at least not get worse of. They want to keep their big cars, holidays far away, cheap electronics, they want to keep eating lots of meat, etc. Nobody can give them all they want, so I don’t think it’s fair to blame the politicians for that.
adrianN 4y ago
If republican voters think other issues are more important that their representative's opinion on climate change, then there is no need for the politician to reflect the popular opinion. You only have two parties in the US. If one party does something you absolutely can not stand whatever the other guys say is not very important.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  And it's usually cheaper, if you have no morals, to invent something they're doing that is terrible, to win their vote than actually govern.

Cd00d 4y ago

If climate change were a bipartisan issue, I'd expect more diversity in the sorts of bumper stickers I see on trucks coal rolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

throwawaylinux 4y ago
It is, regardless of what you expect about bumper stickers.