9 ms·

I think all the alarmist language is doing a massive disservice to environmental concerns for the reason the author is portraying but also a much different reas

I think all the alarmist language is doing a massive disservice to environmental concerns for the reason the author is portraying but also a much different reason where a lot of people tend to greet hysterics with absolute doubt and discern. When environmentalists decided instead of having a real public conversation and resorting to what a lot of people perceive as the people screaming on the corner about the end times - they began getting met with people who will disregard everything they say and then decided to double down by labeling people who disregarded them as heretics. If I was more cynical I'd honestly believe that the climate change activists are agit-prop by groups that would be subject to a lot of the more reasonable environmental changes by letting/getting very loud and passionate people to tell middle and lower class people they can't own cars, eat certain meats and have their right to travel impeded in order to get a portion of the population to disregard any environmental legislations. I guess, a large portion of climate change activists give the same effect as flat-earthers do with some legitimate conspiracy theories but to the people trying to enact straight forward environmental legislations. A sort of, shitting-in-the-pool effect.

crooked-v 3y ago
The attempts at "real public conversation" led to passive or active mockery anyway. Consider, for example, ManBearPig.
- boredumb 3y ago
  I don't think many people were under the impression Al Gore was having a real public conversation. His books and movies fall squarely into the "alarmist" category.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    In what sense?
    - JimtheCoder 3y ago
      Didn't he say we would all be underwater by 2010 or something? I didn't see the movie...
      - Timon3 3y ago
        If he did, would you mind sourcing it? Until then I don't see a reason to believe you, as you yourself say you didn't watch the movie.
      - dropofwill 3y ago
        He said sea levels could be 20 feet higher in the near future. Which could only be right if we’re talking hundreds of years…
        panarchy 3y ago
        Hundreds of years is kind of the near future with respect to the ~300,000 years we've existed (H. Sapiens, and tools) and the ~30,000 years since we started to 'civilize' (art, descriptive cave paintings) even relative to agriculture (12,000 BP)
jbu 3y ago
News people don't like is often dismissed as 'hysterics', 'alarmism', etc, which is a well known cognitive bias. Nearly all people trying to improve the future do so sensibly, following established processes and norms and trying to be nice, but you haven't heard of these people because that's not how change is made in the face of established power that doesn't want the change. Most of that good work gets sunk. Change in the face of vested interests is 'noisy, hysterical, disagreeable', at least to the vested interests.
- woooooo 3y ago
  Step 1: Nobody likes hysterics or alarmism Step 2: Hey no need to point fingers here or say "I told you so", we're all dealing with this.
  - Sakos 3y ago
    > Step 2: Hey no need to point fingers here or say "I told you so", we're all dealing with this. Are we? It looks like the vast majority of people are looking away and blaming climate change scientists and activists for not doing enough or doing it wrong or whatever else instead. Some of us are dealing with it, the rest don't realize we're all in the same sinking boat.
    - woooooo 3y ago
      Step 2 is the "find out" phase, the pattern is consistent for every fuckup I've been a part of. Noone wants to hear how obvious it was.
- FormerBandmate 3y ago
  What change are activists actually making? The only significant change I’ve seen in this field is from green tech
  - runarberg 3y ago
    Activist’s goal is to change policy from government, when an activist campaign is successful, the politician takes the credit. Here is an example of an actual climate activist reacting to an actual policy which he helped influence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw5zzrOpo2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw5zzrOpo2s
version_five 3y ago
A big problem is there's no vocal positive or optimistic environmental movement. What gets attention are doomsday prophesies and people using the environment to push their political beliefs. It's almost impossible to get everyone on board with negativity. You just get a base of true believers while alienating everyone else, as you say. We need to push positive solutions (nuclear power and carbon capture) that aren't thinly veiled religion and politics.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  There's solarpunk, at least. Also, I think there's optimism in people talking about how living a happier, more social life can also be one that happens to be lower in carbon intensity. I currently live in a very car-dependent detached house on an island (so reliant on planes to go anywhere) and am viewing flats now in a place where I can live car-free and go places via train. And on top of all that, every time I have lived in a place where I could walk, bike, or take public transit, I was happier, healthier, and saw my friends _much_ more. But people have been sold a lie that living near their friends and being able to take a train or bus places is a "downgrade".
  - ianai 3y ago
    There’s stuff people can do. Eat less/no meat. Buy an EV. Etc. But then commentators will refute that with all sorts of stuff “one person can’t make any sizable impact,” “EVs are powered from the grid which isn’t carbon neutral”, “EV tires spread particulate emissions.” Etc. Thing is, denialism and stopping progress makes people looking for solutions also more extreme. So who knows. Maybe part of the answer is partially ignoring or severely discounting certain Internet discourse. Edit-so the early replies to my comment highlight my point. On thinking further, people do need to talk. But the internet is clearly a noisy channel that props up voices that might not even exist outside of a special interest funding them (through bots and well funded campaigns). And people doing futile (because of bigger, larger problems an individual can’t directly stop) personal efforts might act as a pressure release. So what if they can’t turn off a big container ship or stop a wasteful airliner there’s at least doing what they can do. Especially if it’s relatively peacefully and part of normal process. Better than destroying a piece of art in the name of “awareness.” Edit2-Unless radicalism from the other side is what commentators against individual emissions choices want? Push down thise concerned about climate change so that they do something radical, point to it, and suggest people should just continue business as usual.
hotpotamus 3y ago
I'd have to imagine for any issue, I can nut pick someone (thanks social media for making this ever easier) and portray anyone who agrees with them as lunatics who are unwilling to have a real public conversation, but I wouldn't consider that honest.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  I too enjoy “nut” picking individuals from social media.
CalRobert 3y ago
Of course, the predicament is what to do when the end times (at least for our civilisation) is one of the plausible outcomes of our current actions.
awestroke 3y ago
Communicating the impending doom of man-made climate change had been done in all possible shapes and forms since the 1970s. The approach does not matter, because the truth is too uncomfortable no matter how it's worded. If non-alarmist language is used, then nobody cares. If alarmist langauage is used, people like you compare scientists to flat earthers. Don't criticise the messengers if you don't like the message.
- boredumb 3y ago
  If you use alarmist language you can rile up and entice a lot of agreeable people but rarely effective people.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    So are we going to ignore the exx-lephant in the room? This isn't just a debate between normal people and 'eco-fanatics' or whatever you want to call them. On the other side you have multi-billion dollar industries that want to maintain status quo until the rivers are on fire and have learned from the tobacco industry on how to spend millions in 'doubt-seeding' to keep making billions in profits.
    - boredumb 3y ago
      I literally alluded to the fact that I could see alarmists being funded by people with interests of seeding doubts. As long as we're ignoring, there is a trillion dollar "green" industry that has just as much skin in the game mining cobalt and lithium as energy companies that pump oil or lfg. This isn't a debate between the "good guys" vs "bad guys", it's trillion of dollars being fought over to dictate how you get your energy.
- letsawaytoday 3y ago
  You're whitewashing the past eco movements. They've been alarmist since the beginning with claims that everyone would be starving by the late 70s or that the air would be unbreathable due to smog or that the global temperature would drop drastically and on and on. It was the same alarmist bullshit that got us into this mess by advocating against nuclear power.
throwaway22032 3y ago
I agree with this. I don't believe that guys like e.g. Just Stop Oil in the UK are genuine people. There might be some who got taken in by the movement and have good intentions, but the actual antics that go on just turn off literally everyone I know, to the extent that the entire environmental movement is now seen in a bad light.
- unmole 3y ago
  > I don't believe that guys like e.g. Just Stop Oil in the UK are genuine people. The people on the ground are genuine alright. But genuinely useful idiots for the likes of Dale Vince.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  They are funded by oil baroness to discredit environmental movements as bunch of crazy freaks and they are not even aware of it. So far it works wonders against environmentalism in the mind of common folk.
2023throwawayy 3y ago
I agree. But we really should be eating less red meat.
- holbrad 3y ago
  Americans really should be eating more grass fed beef.
- hermannj314 3y ago
  I agree. But we should limit crop yields by restricting human manufacture of ammonia and return to 1890 levels of population.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    I think the problem comes to 'return to. Your method sounds rather violent.
    - hermannj314 3y ago
      We can do it gradually or nature will do it violently. Every species needs population control. If we want air conditioning, commercial jets, and bottled water, then we need to get global population under a billion people.
      - jl6 3y ago
        The #1 method of population reduction is to increase education and opportunity for girls and women in developing countries.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        >We can do it gradually Good news, we already are. Most countries now are below population replacement level. Many countries like Japan are near panic because the population is going to drop very quickly in the next 20 to 40 years.
        3y ago
scotty79 3y ago
Too bad that people don't dismiss, as hysterics, the ones who cry that any kind of new green deal will undoubtedly tank the economy. I feel like it's not about the form of the message, but who has the money to have it framed in his preferred way in the media.
inconceivable 3y ago
okay so don't eat meat, take public transit, don't live in a suburb, never run AC or use gas stoves, and never fly in an airplane. is that about right? this is such a bad pitch that it makes me wonder if it's actually a conspiracy funded by the energy incumbents.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Eat less meat (especially beef) live in a well designed suburb (like Houten, NL, for instance https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/may/16/welcome-cycle-heaven-moved-family-netherlands-houten-utrecht https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/may/16/welcome-cycle...) use AC powered by solar or wind or nuclear use an induction stove (they're way better) build enough excellent rail that flying is unappealing for most options aside from transoceanic journey. Doesn't sound like a bad life to me. It's the one I'm trying to achieve.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

crooked-v 3y ago

The attempts at "real public conversation" led to passive or active mockery anyway. Consider, for example, ManBearPig.

boredumb 3y ago
I don't think many people were under the impression Al Gore was having a real public conversation. His books and movies fall squarely into the "alarmist" category.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  In what sense?
  - JimtheCoder 3y ago
    Didn't he say we would all be underwater by 2010 or something? I didn't see the movie...
    - Timon3 3y ago
      If he did, would you mind sourcing it? Until then I don't see a reason to believe you, as you yourself say you didn't watch the movie.
    - dropofwill 3y ago
      He said sea levels could be 20 feet higher in the near future. Which could only be right if we’re talking hundreds of years…
      - panarchy 3y ago
        Hundreds of years is kind of the near future with respect to the ~300,000 years we've existed (H. Sapiens, and tools) and the ~30,000 years since we started to 'civilize' (art, descriptive cave paintings) even relative to agriculture (12,000 BP)

jbu 3y ago

News people don't like is often dismissed as 'hysterics', 'alarmism', etc, which is a well known cognitive bias. Nearly all people trying to improve the future do so sensibly, following established processes and norms and trying to be nice, but you haven't heard of these people because that's not how change is made in the face of established power that doesn't want the change. Most of that good work gets sunk. Change in the face of vested interests is 'noisy, hysterical, disagreeable', at least to the vested interests.

woooooo 3y ago
Step 1: Nobody likes hysterics or alarmism Step 2: Hey no need to point fingers here or say "I told you so", we're all dealing with this.
- Sakos 3y ago
  > Step 2: Hey no need to point fingers here or say "I told you so", we're all dealing with this. Are we? It looks like the vast majority of people are looking away and blaming climate change scientists and activists for not doing enough or doing it wrong or whatever else instead. Some of us are dealing with it, the rest don't realize we're all in the same sinking boat.
  - woooooo 3y ago
    Step 2 is the "find out" phase, the pattern is consistent for every fuckup I've been a part of. Noone wants to hear how obvious it was.
FormerBandmate 3y ago
What change are activists actually making? The only significant change I’ve seen in this field is from green tech
- runarberg 3y ago
  Activist’s goal is to change policy from government, when an activist campaign is successful, the politician takes the credit. Here is an example of an actual climate activist reacting to an actual policy which he helped influence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw5zzrOpo2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw5zzrOpo2s

version_five 3y ago

A big problem is there's no vocal positive or optimistic environmental movement. What gets attention are doomsday prophesies and people using the environment to push their political beliefs. It's almost impossible to get everyone on board with negativity. You just get a base of true believers while alienating everyone else, as you say. We need to push positive solutions (nuclear power and carbon capture) that aren't thinly veiled religion and politics.

CalRobert 3y ago
There's solarpunk, at least. Also, I think there's optimism in people talking about how living a happier, more social life can also be one that happens to be lower in carbon intensity. I currently live in a very car-dependent detached house on an island (so reliant on planes to go anywhere) and am viewing flats now in a place where I can live car-free and go places via train. And on top of all that, every time I have lived in a place where I could walk, bike, or take public transit, I was happier, healthier, and saw my friends _much_ more. But people have been sold a lie that living near their friends and being able to take a train or bus places is a "downgrade".
- ianai 3y ago
  There’s stuff people can do. Eat less/no meat. Buy an EV. Etc. But then commentators will refute that with all sorts of stuff “one person can’t make any sizable impact,” “EVs are powered from the grid which isn’t carbon neutral”, “EV tires spread particulate emissions.” Etc. Thing is, denialism and stopping progress makes people looking for solutions also more extreme. So who knows. Maybe part of the answer is partially ignoring or severely discounting certain Internet discourse. Edit-so the early replies to my comment highlight my point. On thinking further, people do need to talk. But the internet is clearly a noisy channel that props up voices that might not even exist outside of a special interest funding them (through bots and well funded campaigns). And people doing futile (because of bigger, larger problems an individual can’t directly stop) personal efforts might act as a pressure release. So what if they can’t turn off a big container ship or stop a wasteful airliner there’s at least doing what they can do. Especially if it’s relatively peacefully and part of normal process. Better than destroying a piece of art in the name of “awareness.” Edit2-Unless radicalism from the other side is what commentators against individual emissions choices want? Push down thise concerned about climate change so that they do something radical, point to it, and suggest people should just continue business as usual.

hotpotamus 3y ago

I'd have to imagine for any issue, I can nut pick someone (thanks social media for making this ever easier) and portray anyone who agrees with them as lunatics who are unwilling to have a real public conversation, but I wouldn't consider that honest.

tourmalinetaco 3y ago
I too enjoy “nut” picking individuals from social media.

CalRobert 3y ago

Of course, the predicament is what to do when the end times (at least for our civilisation) is one of the plausible outcomes of our current actions.

awestroke 3y ago

Communicating the impending doom of man-made climate change had been done in all possible shapes and forms since the 1970s. The approach does not matter, because the truth is too uncomfortable no matter how it's worded. If non-alarmist language is used, then nobody cares. If alarmist langauage is used, people like you compare scientists to flat earthers. Don't criticise the messengers if you don't like the message.

boredumb 3y ago
If you use alarmist language you can rile up and entice a lot of agreeable people but rarely effective people.
- pixl97 3y ago
  So are we going to ignore the exx-lephant in the room? This isn't just a debate between normal people and 'eco-fanatics' or whatever you want to call them. On the other side you have multi-billion dollar industries that want to maintain status quo until the rivers are on fire and have learned from the tobacco industry on how to spend millions in 'doubt-seeding' to keep making billions in profits.
  - boredumb 3y ago
    I literally alluded to the fact that I could see alarmists being funded by people with interests of seeding doubts. As long as we're ignoring, there is a trillion dollar "green" industry that has just as much skin in the game mining cobalt and lithium as energy companies that pump oil or lfg. This isn't a debate between the "good guys" vs "bad guys", it's trillion of dollars being fought over to dictate how you get your energy.
letsawaytoday 3y ago
You're whitewashing the past eco movements. They've been alarmist since the beginning with claims that everyone would be starving by the late 70s or that the air would be unbreathable due to smog or that the global temperature would drop drastically and on and on. It was the same alarmist bullshit that got us into this mess by advocating against nuclear power.

throwaway22032 3y ago

I agree with this. I don't believe that guys like e.g. Just Stop Oil in the UK are genuine people. There might be some who got taken in by the movement and have good intentions, but the actual antics that go on just turn off literally everyone I know, to the extent that the entire environmental movement is now seen in a bad light.

unmole 3y ago
> I don't believe that guys like e.g. Just Stop Oil in the UK are genuine people. The people on the ground are genuine alright. But genuinely useful idiots for the likes of Dale Vince.
TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
They are funded by oil baroness to discredit environmental movements as bunch of crazy freaks and they are not even aware of it. So far it works wonders against environmentalism in the mind of common folk.

2023throwawayy 3y ago

I agree. But we really should be eating less red meat.

holbrad 3y ago
Americans really should be eating more grass fed beef.
hermannj314 3y ago
I agree. But we should limit crop yields by restricting human manufacture of ammonia and return to 1890 levels of population.
- pixl97 3y ago
  I think the problem comes to 'return to. Your method sounds rather violent.
  - hermannj314 3y ago
    We can do it gradually or nature will do it violently. Every species needs population control. If we want air conditioning, commercial jets, and bottled water, then we need to get global population under a billion people.
    - jl6 3y ago
      The #1 method of population reduction is to increase education and opportunity for girls and women in developing countries.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      >We can do it gradually Good news, we already are. Most countries now are below population replacement level. Many countries like Japan are near panic because the population is going to drop very quickly in the next 20 to 40 years.
      - 3y ago

scotty79 3y ago

Too bad that people don't dismiss, as hysterics, the ones who cry that any kind of new green deal will undoubtedly tank the economy. I feel like it's not about the form of the message, but who has the money to have it framed in his preferred way in the media.

inconceivable 3y ago

okay so don't eat meat, take public transit, don't live in a suburb, never run AC or use gas stoves, and never fly in an airplane. is that about right? this is such a bad pitch that it makes me wonder if it's actually a conspiracy funded by the energy incumbents.

CalRobert 3y ago
Eat less meat (especially beef) live in a well designed suburb (like Houten, NL, for instance https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/may/16/welcome-cycle-heaven-moved-family-netherlands-houten-utrecht https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/may/16/welcome-cycle...) use AC powered by solar or wind or nuclear use an induction stove (they're way better) build enough excellent rail that flying is unappealing for most options aside from transoceanic journey. Doesn't sound like a bad life to me. It's the one I'm trying to achieve.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]