3 ms·

I believe environmentalists could shift their focus from solely emphasizing climate change to broader environmental degradation that’s visible to everyone. Thi

by tlogan 3y ago

I believe environmentalists could shift their focus from solely emphasizing climate change to broader environmental degradation that’s visible to everyone. This way, we can frame the issue in a manner that garners widespread support. It’s unfortunate that some discussions around climate change are politically charged, detracting from the core message of environmental preservation.

__loam 3y ago
There's huge lobbies opposing environmentalist messaging so I don't think it's quite right to lay all the blame on them. The fossil fuel industry spends am obscene amount of money on online shit stirring.
- tlogan 3y ago
  And instead instead of countering solely with scientific data (graphs bla bla), we should use visual evidence: show photos and videos of pollution around coal plants.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    There’s regularly news about people’s tap water being flammable, or city-cized pile of fast fashion garbage in the developing world, or whale carcass filled with plastics. And the reaction is to go purchase a new giant-ass truck and get the engine detuned to roll coal on a cyclist.
    - tlogan 3y ago
      We shouldn't push other side away with statements like yours. It's vital to foster collaboration rather than dismiss their choices or views.
      - masklinn 3y ago
        Ah, you were just concern trolling. Carry on then, sorry for taking your comment seriously.
      - spiralx 3y ago
        Why is it anyone's job to coddle and cajole people who have no logical basis for their beliefs, no interest in changing them and will in fact double-down on them any time they feel the slightest bit challenged, such as when merely presented with an alternate view? They've pushed everyone else away as part of falling down the rabbit hole of denialism, they're the ones who have to want to change their beliefs.
  - UncleMeat 3y ago
    That is only marginally effective when a large portion of the voting public is motivated by "fuck you" and a conservative court is happy to intervene when regulations do get put in place because they'll make their friends' companies earn smaller profits.
nonameiguess 3y ago
They have. Most of the motivation for there being an EPA and things like the Clean Air and Water act had nothing to do with climate. They were motivated by things like smog days in major cities because of unbreathable air or entire generations of children in some places having cognitive deficits thanks to lead poisoning and toxic waste being dumped in water sources, or fears of cancer rising thanks to industrial contaminants. Even with respect to fears of biodiversity collapse, factors like farming monoculture, overfarming, overfishing, and overhunting, encroachment of human habitats, roads blocking migration paths, have all been and remain larger factors than anything climate-related, and environmentalists have historically raised and continue now to raise concerns about all of these things. The largely successful global effort in the 80s to put an end to commercial whaling was because the largest threat to whales continuing to exist was humans killing them on purpose, not oceans getting warmer. To the extent that all of these efforts were resisted anyway, it had nothing to do with general population climate alarmism fatigue. It's that people resist any restrictions whatsoever on freedom of commercial activity and think of everything in nature as either a resource that can't be exhausted or a resource that doesn't matter if it gets exhausted because it can either be replaced with something else or they'll have gotten rich enough by the time it's gone that it won't affect their personal ability to profit and the portion of future generations they care about (their own descendants) can simply inherit their wealth and not need to continue the activity that generated it.

by tlogan 3y ago

__loam 3y ago

There's huge lobbies opposing environmentalist messaging so I don't think it's quite right to lay all the blame on them. The fossil fuel industry spends am obscene amount of money on online shit stirring.

tlogan 3y ago
And instead instead of countering solely with scientific data (graphs bla bla), we should use visual evidence: show photos and videos of pollution around coal plants.
- masklinn 3y ago
  There’s regularly news about people’s tap water being flammable, or city-cized pile of fast fashion garbage in the developing world, or whale carcass filled with plastics. And the reaction is to go purchase a new giant-ass truck and get the engine detuned to roll coal on a cyclist.
  - tlogan 3y ago
    We shouldn't push other side away with statements like yours. It's vital to foster collaboration rather than dismiss their choices or views.
    - masklinn 3y ago
      Ah, you were just concern trolling. Carry on then, sorry for taking your comment seriously.
    - spiralx 3y ago
      Why is it anyone's job to coddle and cajole people who have no logical basis for their beliefs, no interest in changing them and will in fact double-down on them any time they feel the slightest bit challenged, such as when merely presented with an alternate view? They've pushed everyone else away as part of falling down the rabbit hole of denialism, they're the ones who have to want to change their beliefs.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  That is only marginally effective when a large portion of the voting public is motivated by "fuck you" and a conservative court is happy to intervene when regulations do get put in place because they'll make their friends' companies earn smaller profits.

nonameiguess 3y ago

They have. Most of the motivation for there being an EPA and things like the Clean Air and Water act had nothing to do with climate. They were motivated by things like smog days in major cities because of unbreathable air or entire generations of children in some places having cognitive deficits thanks to lead poisoning and toxic waste being dumped in water sources, or fears of cancer rising thanks to industrial contaminants. Even with respect to fears of biodiversity collapse, factors like farming monoculture, overfarming, overfishing, and overhunting, encroachment of human habitats, roads blocking migration paths, have all been and remain larger factors than anything climate-related, and environmentalists have historically raised and continue now to raise concerns about all of these things. The largely successful global effort in the 80s to put an end to commercial whaling was because the largest threat to whales continuing to exist was humans killing them on purpose, not oceans getting warmer. To the extent that all of these efforts were resisted anyway, it had nothing to do with general population climate alarmism fatigue. It's that people resist any restrictions whatsoever on freedom of commercial activity and think of everything in nature as either a resource that can't be exhausted or a resource that doesn't matter if it gets exhausted because it can either be replaced with something else or they'll have gotten rich enough by the time it's gone that it won't affect their personal ability to profit and the portion of future generations they care about (their own descendants) can simply inherit their wealth and not need to continue the activity that generated it.