4 ms·

I find it profoundly unsettling witnessing how many individuals, both within my immediate circles and across the digital landscape here in Germany, outright dis

I find it profoundly unsettling witnessing how many individuals, both within my immediate circles and across the digital landscape here in Germany, outright dismiss the implications of climate change. They label it a "leftist deception", expressing contempt for those striving to mitigate its effects, including figures such as Greta Thunberg who are often subjected to their derision. These individuals assert that the climate has always fluctuated, using this as a justification to make no alterations whatsoever in their lifestyle, including meat consumption and vehicle use. Their defiance even extends to hostility toward governmental efforts aiming to introduce legislation to combat climate change. This unwillingness to acknowledge and adapt to the reality of our changing environment has me genuinely worried about our collective future.

e40 3y ago
The campaign to dislodge the main stream media and replace it with propaganda has been very successful. It remains to be seen if we can recover from this. Personally, I think we do, but I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  I predict America goes through it's own version of The Troubles in the next couple decades.
macinjosh 3y ago
A reason the right is so against this is because aspects of their lifestyles are targeted by climate activists (who are largely on the left), while the left, especially left politicians, don't see much need to alter their lifestyles. They still fly (rich ones in private jets), use the AC, and get tax breaks on EVs that still run on energy generated by oil and gas, all while screaming that the world is ending, declaring themselves superior, and spewing derision like the above. Perhaps if we both sides had some self control and didn't make everything left vs. right we could solve problems.
- flooow 3y ago
  Alternatively - capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with the fight against climate change. It will take something more like a war-economy, with the free market reigned in, lots of command and control and lots of government rules. Both the left and the right realise this. It's just that the left are happy about this and the right are not (and would rather burn everything to the ground instead).
  - partiallypro 3y ago
    Capitalism and incentives for companies and private citizens are the only way we will defeat climate change. If you think we'd have no climate change if we were all state owned or communists, you're naive. Also, your framing that the only way to give defeat something is to give up essential freedoms and have a command-and-control economy creates more pushback to the idea of even fighting climate change. You're just feeding right into the narrative that the entire thing is about control. Humans have conquered tons of things with markets and incentives, and we will do it again, without falling into a totalitarian regime.
- user_7832 3y ago
  I don't think I fully agree with your reasoning. I feel it's more of a conservative vs progressive thing. Switching to EVs from fossil fuel cars needs someone to be at least slightly open to the idea. If anyone has a "They didn't do this in my pop's era, I'm not going to do it now!" attitude it's unlikely they'll be happy to switch. (There's also some folks on the conservative side who would rather go back to older tech saying stuff like "BPA is making the x gay" "Lithium mining is bad" which is another thing altogether. Not defending or attacking either side here.)
  - partiallypro 3y ago
    A lot of people that are "conservatives" live in areas where electric currently is just not feasible. The US is highly car dependent. Even in Nashville it can take an hour to get to the other side of the city sometimes. It's worse in more rural areas; not even mentioning that electric cars are far more expensive for people that are middle to lower class. So, their pushback sometime is because it just makes their life worse.
gettodachoppa 3y ago
There's various positions from the other side. Essentially people on your side of the divide spent the last decade burning their goodwill, so when they're asked to sacrifice even more "but this is for real", they're not convinced. People are noticing patterns, they are noticing who is always criticizing them and blaming them and asking them to sacrifice, and they're simply fatigued and shrugging. 1. Constant crying wolf about climate change. I've been told we're "10 years away from climate catostrophe" since I was a kid in the 90s. But this time it's really about to happen, right? 2. There's people who agree with you that global warming is a serious threat, but refuse to be "economical cuckolds" by sacrificing their economical safety, while countries that pollute far more are given breaks. The argument is why should they, as members of the western middle and working class, be the ones to sacrifice and suffer while the Chinese and Indians don't have to? All because decades ago the elites of their country profited off industrialisation? The same elites that keep screwing them over? "Oh but the Indians don't produce as much CO2 per capita" so? They would if they could. The average Indian makes almost zero conscious decisions to be environmentally-friendly compared to a westerner. As globalisation keeps making the western worker poorer and the rest of the world wealthier, so will the Indians' CO2 production rise. And the only reason CO2 per capita is lower is because those countries left their population growth completely unchecked. You're asking western people who can't even afford to have a kid to sacrifice while those on the other end of the world don't have to. 3. RE Greta, people see Greta Thunberg as the typical propaganda mascot of the elites: privileged, pretentious, attention-seeking Twitterati nepobaby who only seems to call out westerners, even though westerners make more conscious environmental choices than any other demographic. People have seen this playbook many times before, she's just a newer model on the assemblyline of insufferable leftists that the average person changes the channel as soon as their mug is on the screen.
- pstuart 3y ago
  Sorry, but every one of those reasons is stupid. None of them address the fact of: is this problem real? We're seeing evidence everywhere that it is. I understand the problem sacrifice and "fairness" in how to address the issue but making it all about personal resentment is pathetic.
- wongarsu 3y ago
ldehaan 3y ago
[dead]
tomjen3 3y ago
I am one of those who opposes government attempt to solve global warming, because all the attempts are the usual hairebrained moves of people completely out of their depth. GW will be solved by new technology, or not solved at all. It has to be a collective action across the world that will cause massive pain and decreased living stanards, which people aren't willing to do. Pissing in the pot by cutting down on meat or getting an electric car are not going to make enough of a change and they will cause people to think that they have done their part.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  It is impossible to solve climate change without government intervention. Capitalism is working, slowly, because solar and wind are cheaper. But we will hit wall where the carbon-free alternatives are more expensive. The government will need to ban gas cars at some point, or use carbon tax to make them unaffordable. Same with carbon-free concrete, big industry, natural gas appliances, and transportation. Also, we will need to do significant carbon capture, and that is pure cost. The government will need to pay for it with some kind of tax.
  - fouc 3y ago
    Uptake of EV cars will largely be an S-curve, and average length of car ownership is a bit less than a decade. As people get a new car they're increasingly more likely to get an EV. I would not be surprised if we hit 60-70% EV cars by 2030. and probably 80% by 2035
- submeta 3y ago
  Given our planet's population of over 8 billion humans, it's simply not viable to retain our current consumption rates, let alone increase them for those living below the prevailing standards. Humanity's collective impact on the environment is vast and ever-growing. While technological innovation is crucial and holds a significant potential in addressing climate change, it's also essential to reevaluate and adapt our lifestyles. Our approach to problem-solving can't solely rely on future technology; we must also integrate sustainable habits into our daily lives. Even seemingly small changes, when adopted on a global scale, can lead to considerable shifts. We must consider this a cooperative effort rather than simply an individual contribution.

e40 3y ago

The campaign to dislodge the main stream media and replace it with propaganda has been very successful. It remains to be seen if we can recover from this. Personally, I think we do, but I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.

mrguyorama 3y ago
I predict America goes through it's own version of The Troubles in the next couple decades.

macinjosh 3y ago

A reason the right is so against this is because aspects of their lifestyles are targeted by climate activists (who are largely on the left), while the left, especially left politicians, don't see much need to alter their lifestyles. They still fly (rich ones in private jets), use the AC, and get tax breaks on EVs that still run on energy generated by oil and gas, all while screaming that the world is ending, declaring themselves superior, and spewing derision like the above. Perhaps if we both sides had some self control and didn't make everything left vs. right we could solve problems.

flooow 3y ago
Alternatively - capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with the fight against climate change. It will take something more like a war-economy, with the free market reigned in, lots of command and control and lots of government rules. Both the left and the right realise this. It's just that the left are happy about this and the right are not (and would rather burn everything to the ground instead).
- partiallypro 3y ago
  Capitalism and incentives for companies and private citizens are the only way we will defeat climate change. If you think we'd have no climate change if we were all state owned or communists, you're naive. Also, your framing that the only way to give defeat something is to give up essential freedoms and have a command-and-control economy creates more pushback to the idea of even fighting climate change. You're just feeding right into the narrative that the entire thing is about control. Humans have conquered tons of things with markets and incentives, and we will do it again, without falling into a totalitarian regime.
user_7832 3y ago
I don't think I fully agree with your reasoning. I feel it's more of a conservative vs progressive thing. Switching to EVs from fossil fuel cars needs someone to be at least slightly open to the idea. If anyone has a "They didn't do this in my pop's era, I'm not going to do it now!" attitude it's unlikely they'll be happy to switch. (There's also some folks on the conservative side who would rather go back to older tech saying stuff like "BPA is making the x gay" "Lithium mining is bad" which is another thing altogether. Not defending or attacking either side here.)
- partiallypro 3y ago
  A lot of people that are "conservatives" live in areas where electric currently is just not feasible. The US is highly car dependent. Even in Nashville it can take an hour to get to the other side of the city sometimes. It's worse in more rural areas; not even mentioning that electric cars are far more expensive for people that are middle to lower class. So, their pushback sometime is because it just makes their life worse.

gettodachoppa 3y ago

There's various positions from the other side. Essentially people on your side of the divide spent the last decade burning their goodwill, so when they're asked to sacrifice even more "but this is for real", they're not convinced. People are noticing patterns, they are noticing who is always criticizing them and blaming them and asking them to sacrifice, and they're simply fatigued and shrugging. 1. Constant crying wolf about climate change. I've been told we're "10 years away from climate catostrophe" since I was a kid in the 90s. But this time it's really about to happen, right? 2. There's people who agree with you that global warming is a serious threat, but refuse to be "economical cuckolds" by sacrificing their economical safety, while countries that pollute far more are given breaks. The argument is why should they, as members of the western middle and working class, be the ones to sacrifice and suffer while the Chinese and Indians don't have to? All because decades ago the elites of their country profited off industrialisation? The same elites that keep screwing them over? "Oh but the Indians don't produce as much CO2 per capita" so? They would if they could. The average Indian makes almost zero conscious decisions to be environmentally-friendly compared to a westerner. As globalisation keeps making the western worker poorer and the rest of the world wealthier, so will the Indians' CO2 production rise. And the only reason CO2 per capita is lower is because those countries left their population growth completely unchecked. You're asking western people who can't even afford to have a kid to sacrifice while those on the other end of the world don't have to. 3. RE Greta, people see Greta Thunberg as the typical propaganda mascot of the elites: privileged, pretentious, attention-seeking Twitterati nepobaby who only seems to call out westerners, even though westerners make more conscious environmental choices than any other demographic. People have seen this playbook many times before, she's just a newer model on the assemblyline of insufferable leftists that the average person changes the channel as soon as their mug is on the screen.

pstuart 3y ago
Sorry, but every one of those reasons is stupid. None of them address the fact of: is this problem real? We're seeing evidence everywhere that it is. I understand the problem sacrifice and "fairness" in how to address the issue but making it all about personal resentment is pathetic.
wongarsu 3y ago

ldehaan 3y ago

[dead]

tomjen3 3y ago

I am one of those who opposes government attempt to solve global warming, because all the attempts are the usual hairebrained moves of people completely out of their depth. GW will be solved by new technology, or not solved at all. It has to be a collective action across the world that will cause massive pain and decreased living stanards, which people aren't willing to do. Pissing in the pot by cutting down on meat or getting an electric car are not going to make enough of a change and they will cause people to think that they have done their part.

ianburrell 3y ago
It is impossible to solve climate change without government intervention. Capitalism is working, slowly, because solar and wind are cheaper. But we will hit wall where the carbon-free alternatives are more expensive. The government will need to ban gas cars at some point, or use carbon tax to make them unaffordable. Same with carbon-free concrete, big industry, natural gas appliances, and transportation. Also, we will need to do significant carbon capture, and that is pure cost. The government will need to pay for it with some kind of tax.
- fouc 3y ago
  Uptake of EV cars will largely be an S-curve, and average length of car ownership is a bit less than a decade. As people get a new car they're increasingly more likely to get an EV. I would not be surprised if we hit 60-70% EV cars by 2030. and probably 80% by 2035
submeta 3y ago
Given our planet's population of over 8 billion humans, it's simply not viable to retain our current consumption rates, let alone increase them for those living below the prevailing standards. Humanity's collective impact on the environment is vast and ever-growing. While technological innovation is crucial and holds a significant potential in addressing climate change, it's also essential to reevaluate and adapt our lifestyles. Our approach to problem-solving can't solely rely on future technology; we must also integrate sustainable habits into our daily lives. Even seemingly small changes, when adopted on a global scale, can lead to considerable shifts. We must consider this a cooperative effort rather than simply an individual contribution.