5 ms·

People "resist climate change" because most climate change rhetoric is transparently trying to get them to vote a different way or buy some different thing. If

People "resist climate change" because most climate change rhetoric is transparently trying to get them to vote a different way or buy some different thing. If it was stated just in terms of a causal relationship, like rising CO2 raises global temperature, fewer people would object. Put another way, one group conflates the fact of CO2 increases + greenhouse effect with suggested political acrions. Another group counters by conflating not agreeing with political actions with disputing the underlying physics.

veqz 4y ago
It was stated as a causal relationship and reported in the news since the 19th Century. It was still denied by some, and ignored by most. At some point we should probably start doing something – and enough – about it to maybe avoid the worst consequences?
- pojzon 4y ago
  Like locking ppl up at homes and make them stop driving cars, planes, boats? Make them buy less because production is hindered due to various reasons and make them pay more for petrol and energy?? Hmm, Im curious whether we could do that on global scale. Maybe if there was some convinient way to tell ppl to stay at home.
  - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
    The most meaningful step (that every politician manages to avoid) is to get rid of coal in energy production. Putting money into solving Renewable intermitency (either through large scale storage projects or nuclear) and decommisioning every single coal plant on earth (followed closely by gas plants) would be the single largest step change in emissions that has fuck all to do with 'consumer' behaviour.
gruez 4y ago
> People "resist climate change" because most climate change rhetoric is transparently trying to get them to vote a different way or buy some different thing. If it was stated just in terms of a causal relationship, like rising CO2 raises global temperature, fewer people would object. "resist climate change" could mean different things. It's true that something like "rising CO2 raises global temperature" is uncontroversial, but agreeing to that doesn't get you anywhere close to implementing climate policy, or to even acknowledge that humans are the leading cause. For instance, you can agree that "rising CO2 raises global temperature", but still think that the warming is totally natural (ie. not primarily caused by humans) and/or that it's impossible for humans to stop. Polling suggests a good chunk of republicans believe in the former[1]. I suspect that most people would characterize those people as "resisting climate change" even if they believe that co2 leads to atmospheric warming. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-09/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...
DangitBobby 4y ago
If you either you don't believe it's serious enough to take drastic action (dispute the phsyics) or you don't think it's worth the inconvenience (selfish) neither of those are defensible political positions.
- hedora 4y ago
  The inconvenience of atmospheric carbon capture (the most expensive approach to fixing climate change) is about $1 per gallon of gasoline. The individual inconvenience of not doing that far outweighs the individual cost. Calling that selfishness is being far too generous.
hedora 4y ago
One side has been running a coordinated disinformation campaign since the 1980’s in order to protect oil interests. Part of that strategy involved tying climate change to identity politics. The other side has been stating it as a causal relationship for over 40 years. Their projections have proven correct over that timespan. Also, your argument about rhetoric justifies voting immorally whenever one side is universally in the wrong. (Examples from history include women’s suffrage, slavery, locking ethnic groups in camps, etc.) I don’t find it to be a useful way of thinking about political issues.
- junofan 4y ago
  What do you mean by “voting immorally?” Like, I vote for somebody to represent me. How can I vote immorally by choosing my own representative?
  - version_five 4y ago
    Not the parent, but one can vote immorally - democracy reflects the will of the people, not what is morally right. Look at Justin Trudeau. The solution is a strong constitution and independent courts that enforce it, ie liberal democracy.

veqz 4y ago

It was stated as a causal relationship and reported in the news since the 19th Century. It was still denied by some, and ignored by most. At some point we should probably start doing something – and enough – about it to maybe avoid the worst consequences?

pojzon 4y ago
Like locking ppl up at homes and make them stop driving cars, planes, boats? Make them buy less because production is hindered due to various reasons and make them pay more for petrol and energy?? Hmm, Im curious whether we could do that on global scale. Maybe if there was some convinient way to tell ppl to stay at home.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  The most meaningful step (that every politician manages to avoid) is to get rid of coal in energy production. Putting money into solving Renewable intermitency (either through large scale storage projects or nuclear) and decommisioning every single coal plant on earth (followed closely by gas plants) would be the single largest step change in emissions that has fuck all to do with 'consumer' behaviour.

gruez 4y ago

> People "resist climate change" because most climate change rhetoric is transparently trying to get them to vote a different way or buy some different thing. If it was stated just in terms of a causal relationship, like rising CO2 raises global temperature, fewer people would object. "resist climate change" could mean different things. It's true that something like "rising CO2 raises global temperature" is uncontroversial, but agreeing to that doesn't get you anywhere close to implementing climate policy, or to even acknowledge that humans are the leading cause. For instance, you can agree that "rising CO2 raises global temperature", but still think that the warming is totally natural (ie. not primarily caused by humans) and/or that it's impossible for humans to stop. Polling suggests a good chunk of republicans believe in the former[1]. I suspect that most people would characterize those people as "resisting climate change" even if they believe that co2 leads to atmospheric warming. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ps_2020-06-23_government-and-climate_00-09/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...

DangitBobby 4y ago

If you either you don't believe it's serious enough to take drastic action (dispute the phsyics) or you don't think it's worth the inconvenience (selfish) neither of those are defensible political positions.

hedora 4y ago
The inconvenience of atmospheric carbon capture (the most expensive approach to fixing climate change) is about $1 per gallon of gasoline. The individual inconvenience of not doing that far outweighs the individual cost. Calling that selfishness is being far too generous.

hedora 4y ago

One side has been running a coordinated disinformation campaign since the 1980’s in order to protect oil interests. Part of that strategy involved tying climate change to identity politics. The other side has been stating it as a causal relationship for over 40 years. Their projections have proven correct over that timespan. Also, your argument about rhetoric justifies voting immorally whenever one side is universally in the wrong. (Examples from history include women’s suffrage, slavery, locking ethnic groups in camps, etc.) I don’t find it to be a useful way of thinking about political issues.

junofan 4y ago
What do you mean by “voting immorally?” Like, I vote for somebody to represent me. How can I vote immorally by choosing my own representative?
- version_five 4y ago
  Not the parent, but one can vote immorally - democracy reflects the will of the people, not what is morally right. Look at Justin Trudeau. The solution is a strong constitution and independent courts that enforce it, ie liberal democracy.