5 ms·

Why do you suppose that sentiment is so strong?

tantalor 4y ago
Probably because any "skepticism" about climate change (no matter how reasonable) is basically taboo (cancelable offense) which triggers knee-jerk opposition in reactionary/contrarian types. Happens with other topics, like transgender treatment for kids.
- toyg 4y ago
  Nah, it was already like that when "global warming" (as it was previously known in pop culture) was still being argued among scientists. Some people just hate change and being told how they should live.
- kmacdough 4y ago
  It's also amplified by the humiliation many kids experience when struggling in school systems. Causes a general distaste for reason and science because, in a very real way, it hurt them as a child. Not actually science and reason itself, but people pushing it and claiming to represent it.
moralestapia 4y ago
You have a valid question and I'm also interested in this. It's always a good first step to get to understand the opposing view.
ars 4y ago
Because environmentalists have a truly terrible track record. They keep advocating for things that won't really help the environment - or actively hurt it. As long as those things pass some kind of "purity test". For example: Being against nuclear power. Plastic straw ban (the replacements are way worse for the environment). Banning natural gas in homes (using electricity for your stove, water heater and dryer has greater emissions). Plastic bags vs others types - study after study has shown this helps litter, but is worse in every other possible way. Recycling plastic rather than burning it. Burning it is better for the environment, but "sounds bad".
- mrexroad 4y ago
  I’m left scratching my head at most of your examples. Got any citations?
  - ars 4y ago
    See my reply here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31949804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31949804 about burning plastic. Nuclear power should be obvious. Plastic straws take FAR FAR FAR less energy than metal ones - don't forget the hot water to wash the metal one. Paper straws are usually coated with stuff, the paper takes more energy that plastic, and the coating doesn't break down - so you don't even get the compost. So long as we are burning natural gas for energy, it's better to use it directly in your home, vs have someone else burn it, make electricity, then use that. Plastic bags are good for litter, but you would have to use reusable ones hundreds of times, and never wash them - ever, for them to be better. Not to mention people reuse around half of them for garbage bags, so if you ban them, people still need to buy them.
    - aesthesia 4y ago
      > So long as we are burning natural gas for energy, it's better to use it directly in your home, vs have someone else burn it, make electricity, then use that. Only if you're using resistive heating. Heat pumps run on natural-gas-produced electricity can be at least as efficient as direct natural gas combustion for heating, and they automatically transition to cleaner sources of energy as the grid does. > you would have to use reusable ones hundreds of times, and never wash them - ever, for them to be better I understand that this is the case for cotton bags, IIRC due to high water use in cotton production, but for other types of reusable bags the threshold is lower. > people reuse around half of them for garbage bags This estimate seems like it's significantly too high. I do most of my grocery shopping at places that don't provide free plastic bags, and yet I still end up with far more single-use plastic bags than I could ever use for garbage. I would guess that no more than 10% of single-use bags actually get reused for trash.
      - 4y ago

Probably because any "skepticism" about climate change (no matter how reasonable) is basically taboo (cancelable offense) which triggers knee-jerk opposition in reactionary/contrarian types. Happens with other topics, like transgender treatment for kids.

toyg 4y ago
Nah, it was already like that when "global warming" (as it was previously known in pop culture) was still being argued among scientists. Some people just hate change and being told how they should live.
kmacdough 4y ago
It's also amplified by the humiliation many kids experience when struggling in school systems. Causes a general distaste for reason and science because, in a very real way, it hurt them as a child. Not actually science and reason itself, but people pushing it and claiming to represent it.

moralestapia 4y ago

You have a valid question and I'm also interested in this. It's always a good first step to get to understand the opposing view.

ars 4y ago

Because environmentalists have a truly terrible track record. They keep advocating for things that won't really help the environment - or actively hurt it. As long as those things pass some kind of "purity test". For example: Being against nuclear power. Plastic straw ban (the replacements are way worse for the environment). Banning natural gas in homes (using electricity for your stove, water heater and dryer has greater emissions). Plastic bags vs others types - study after study has shown this helps litter, but is worse in every other possible way. Recycling plastic rather than burning it. Burning it is better for the environment, but "sounds bad".

mrexroad 4y ago
I’m left scratching my head at most of your examples. Got any citations?
- ars 4y ago
  See my reply here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31949804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31949804 about burning plastic. Nuclear power should be obvious. Plastic straws take FAR FAR FAR less energy than metal ones - don't forget the hot water to wash the metal one. Paper straws are usually coated with stuff, the paper takes more energy that plastic, and the coating doesn't break down - so you don't even get the compost. So long as we are burning natural gas for energy, it's better to use it directly in your home, vs have someone else burn it, make electricity, then use that. Plastic bags are good for litter, but you would have to use reusable ones hundreds of times, and never wash them - ever, for them to be better. Not to mention people reuse around half of them for garbage bags, so if you ban them, people still need to buy them.
  - aesthesia 4y ago
    > So long as we are burning natural gas for energy, it's better to use it directly in your home, vs have someone else burn it, make electricity, then use that. Only if you're using resistive heating. Heat pumps run on natural-gas-produced electricity can be at least as efficient as direct natural gas combustion for heating, and they automatically transition to cleaner sources of energy as the grid does. > you would have to use reusable ones hundreds of times, and never wash them - ever, for them to be better I understand that this is the case for cotton bags, IIRC due to high water use in cotton production, but for other types of reusable bags the threshold is lower. > people reuse around half of them for garbage bags This estimate seems like it's significantly too high. I do most of my grocery shopping at places that don't provide free plastic bags, and yet I still end up with far more single-use plastic bags than I could ever use for garbage. I would guess that no more than 10% of single-use bags actually get reused for trash.
    - 4y ago