3 ms·

Just saying: Al Gore was up for election 23 years ago, and climate change was basically his entire platform. The inconvenient truth is that the average voter w

Just saying: Al Gore was up for election 23 years ago, and climate change was basically his entire platform. The inconvenient truth is that the average voter wasn't and still isn't willing to sacrifice ANYTHING significant to combat climate change. Blaming corporations is unhelpful and reeks of hypocrisy.

mistermann 3y ago
Another Inconvenient Truth is that the very structure of our political systems may make it literally impossible to fix this problem. And unfortunately, our culture is not able to discuss reforming institutions, perhaps due to an excess of faith (kill religion and it has to go somewhere maybe).
- myrmidon 3y ago
  > Another Inconvenient Truth is that the very structure of our political systems may make it literally impossible to fix this problem. Can you expand on this? Because I disagree-- in my view, climate change in the US does not get tackled "appropriately" because of lack of will in the population-- everything else is mostly just shifting blame IMO.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    The public may have the will, but if the political system or those who are within it (which is a function of the system) aren't willing to exercise the will of the people, it ain't getting done. Take Medicare For All as an example: bipartisan support among the public, never gonna happen. How people continue to fall for "Democracy" being our most sacred institution would be puzzling if one didn't realize that the world runs on stories, and those who write such stories are professionals at it, whereas those who consume them are rank amateurs....like taking candy from babies. If you ask me, if the public really cared about climate change, they'd be willing to surrender their memes....and maybe they are, but they are not able - some things require training, and such things are not taught in school, which is rather convenient.
red-iron-pine 3y ago
The average voter barely knows how their own income tax works, let alone a carbon tax. Voter perception is shaped by marketing, and large energy companies lobbied hard, very hard, to shape public opinion about global warming, to include, famously, hiring Oglivy to launch a campaign about individual responsibility instead of the systemic, constant push by industry. Example: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/blog/big-oil-distracts-their-carbon-footprint-tricking-you-focus-yours https://clear.ucdavis.edu/blog/big-oil-distracts-their-carbo... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...
matthewdgreen 3y ago
Al Gore won the US popular vote and lost the electoral college vote by a whisker (and a recount.) The average voter was not opposed to his pro-climate agenda. If anything, the narrow nature of Bush’s win was due to his very pro-business agenda (which was huge on benefits for fossil fuel drillers). The idea of a candidate winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college may not seem surprising today, as politicians have optimized their pitch to appeal to the narrowest slice of the electorate they can win with — but it was extremely unusual back then (in fact Gore was the first Presidential candidate since the 1800s to lose this way.) The partisan Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision that decided the recount is also one of the most shameful partisan episodes in our country’s history.
- myrmidon 3y ago
  My point is, Al Gore ran on climate change first and foremost and he did NOT win by a landslide. If the US population actually cared, and and was willing to pay the price for taking action, then the nextbest presidential candidate could just run with it; voters would simply disregard how that candidate would interpret the second amendment, or his faith, or his view on gender/race representation, or healthcare or police-- he could simply win on a climate preservation platform. But you very obviously can't, not 20 years ago and not now, because people care about other things more.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    In 2000 climate change was mainly a theoretical issue, one that seemed mostly cost and little (immediate) upside. I remember viewing this as a problem that would mostly affect our children and grandchildren (a view that looks increasingly stupid in hindsight.) And despite all of this a majority of the US electorate still voted for Gore in 2000. Something that is completely at odds with the same party's platform during the entire 20th century. While the US screwed around in the Middle East, European politicans went ahead and created a cap-and-trade regime in 2003. With a different election outcome the US might have done the same. Instead, one side of the US political landscape fought like goblins to prevent this -- and one result of this strategy is a platform that has failed to win the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections. The view that climate action isn't possible is a manufactured opinion, one that isn't supported by the 2000 election.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Al Gore won the popular vote by half a million. There's a whole lot of wild assumptions built into your comment, but that seems like a basic flaw.
- myrmidon 3y ago
  > Al Gore won the popular vote by half a million. Sure. But if people actually cared about climate change, he would have won by a long shot, because Bush was not even competing on that front... Swap out his "mitigate climate change now" platform for <some generic 10 year old democrat talking points> and he would have probably not done much worse, and thats exactly my point. Things have not changed too much in that regard.
breakyerself 3y ago
If the average voter hadn't been the target of PR campaigns by fossil fuels companies to make them doubt the science I might agree with you.

mistermann 3y ago

Another Inconvenient Truth is that the very structure of our political systems may make it literally impossible to fix this problem. And unfortunately, our culture is not able to discuss reforming institutions, perhaps due to an excess of faith (kill religion and it has to go somewhere maybe).

myrmidon 3y ago
> Another Inconvenient Truth is that the very structure of our political systems may make it literally impossible to fix this problem. Can you expand on this? Because I disagree-- in my view, climate change in the US does not get tackled "appropriately" because of lack of will in the population-- everything else is mostly just shifting blame IMO.
- mistermann 3y ago
  The public may have the will, but if the political system or those who are within it (which is a function of the system) aren't willing to exercise the will of the people, it ain't getting done. Take Medicare For All as an example: bipartisan support among the public, never gonna happen. How people continue to fall for "Democracy" being our most sacred institution would be puzzling if one didn't realize that the world runs on stories, and those who write such stories are professionals at it, whereas those who consume them are rank amateurs....like taking candy from babies. If you ask me, if the public really cared about climate change, they'd be willing to surrender their memes....and maybe they are, but they are not able - some things require training, and such things are not taught in school, which is rather convenient.

red-iron-pine 3y ago

The average voter barely knows how their own income tax works, let alone a carbon tax. Voter perception is shaped by marketing, and large energy companies lobbied hard, very hard, to shape public opinion about global warming, to include, famously, hiring Oglivy to launch a campaign about individual responsibility instead of the systemic, constant push by industry. Example: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/blog/big-oil-distracts-their-carbon-footprint-tricking-you-focus-yours https://clear.ucdavis.edu/blog/big-oil-distracts-their-carbo... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...

matthewdgreen 3y ago

Al Gore won the US popular vote and lost the electoral college vote by a whisker (and a recount.) The average voter was not opposed to his pro-climate agenda. If anything, the narrow nature of Bush’s win was due to his very pro-business agenda (which was huge on benefits for fossil fuel drillers). The idea of a candidate winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college may not seem surprising today, as politicians have optimized their pitch to appeal to the narrowest slice of the electorate they can win with — but it was extremely unusual back then (in fact Gore was the first Presidential candidate since the 1800s to lose this way.) The partisan Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision that decided the recount is also one of the most shameful partisan episodes in our country’s history.

myrmidon 3y ago
My point is, Al Gore ran on climate change first and foremost and he did NOT win by a landslide. If the US population actually cared, and and was willing to pay the price for taking action, then the nextbest presidential candidate could just run with it; voters would simply disregard how that candidate would interpret the second amendment, or his faith, or his view on gender/race representation, or healthcare or police-- he could simply win on a climate preservation platform. But you very obviously can't, not 20 years ago and not now, because people care about other things more.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  In 2000 climate change was mainly a theoretical issue, one that seemed mostly cost and little (immediate) upside. I remember viewing this as a problem that would mostly affect our children and grandchildren (a view that looks increasingly stupid in hindsight.) And despite all of this a majority of the US electorate still voted for Gore in 2000. Something that is completely at odds with the same party's platform during the entire 20th century. While the US screwed around in the Middle East, European politicans went ahead and created a cap-and-trade regime in 2003. With a different election outcome the US might have done the same. Instead, one side of the US political landscape fought like goblins to prevent this -- and one result of this strategy is a platform that has failed to win the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections. The view that climate action isn't possible is a manufactured opinion, one that isn't supported by the 2000 election.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

Al Gore won the popular vote by half a million. There's a whole lot of wild assumptions built into your comment, but that seems like a basic flaw.

myrmidon 3y ago
> Al Gore won the popular vote by half a million. Sure. But if people actually cared about climate change, he would have won by a long shot, because Bush was not even competing on that front... Swap out his "mitigate climate change now" platform for <some generic 10 year old democrat talking points> and he would have probably not done much worse, and thats exactly my point. Things have not changed too much in that regard.

breakyerself 3y ago

If the average voter hadn't been the target of PR campaigns by fossil fuels companies to make them doubt the science I might agree with you.