5 ms·

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 pa

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.
- myrmidon 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.) That is interesting to hear, because this sounds like an accurate classification to me (even if it is a bit mercenary). How did your view on this change, and why? > The view that climate action isn't possible is a manufactured opinion, one that isn't supported by the 2000 election. That is NOT my view: my view is that the electorate is mostly still unwilling to make sacrifices in favor of climate action, and all "free" climate change mitigations are slow and inconsequential. Thought experiment: Biden takes drastic action to bring US Co2 emissions in line with Europe/China within a decade or less-- prices for gas and electricity rise by, say, 80%. Taxes are also additionally increased to subsidise green energy in India/other developing nations. Do you honestly think he gets re-elected? Note how that is still insufficient, 8tons Co2/person/year are not sustainable globally... I also think the problems are the exact same in Europe, emissions are just lower there because less fossil fuels availability and wealth (compare select rich countries like Luxembourg which are even significantly worse than the US in Co2/capita).
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    > How did your view on this change, and why? A huge turning point for me was when climate scientists brought forward their estimates for ice-free arctic summers by 1-2 decades. That's a huge revision, and it made me realize that consensus climate science predictions (as terrifying as they are) are probably weighted toward being much too optimistic. > my view is that the electorate is mostly still unwilling to make sacrifices in favor of climate action The electorate has made huge sacrifices in favor of climate change. We just passed a 1/2 trillion dollars worth of climate incentives in the IRA, and a majority of voters say they support the incentives. Polling also supports that most Americans think climate change is a problem, and want the government to do something about it. The important thing to remember here is that this doesn't get cheaper or better as we get farther out. Right now we're experiencing an exponential decrease in the LCOE of renewable energy, mainly stimulated by industrial policy in the US, Europe and China. If we'd pursued those policies earlier (either explicitly, or via a tiny carbon tax in the 2000s) we would now be a decade deeper into an exponential process. Meanwhile politicians spent enormous amounts of money on both an invasion of Iraq and a healthcare bill, neither of which ever consistently polled higher than plans to address climate change. We should never pretend that our mistakes are the only choice, they're just the choice we made.

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.

myrmidon 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.) That is interesting to hear, because this sounds like an accurate classification to me (even if it is a bit mercenary). How did your view on this change, and why? > The view that climate action isn't possible is a manufactured opinion, one that isn't supported by the 2000 election. That is NOT my view: my view is that the electorate is mostly still unwilling to make sacrifices in favor of climate action, and all "free" climate change mitigations are slow and inconsequential. Thought experiment: Biden takes drastic action to bring US Co2 emissions in line with Europe/China within a decade or less-- prices for gas and electricity rise by, say, 80%. Taxes are also additionally increased to subsidise green energy in India/other developing nations. Do you honestly think he gets re-elected? Note how that is still insufficient, 8tons Co2/person/year are not sustainable globally... I also think the problems are the exact same in Europe, emissions are just lower there because less fossil fuels availability and wealth (compare select rich countries like Luxembourg which are even significantly worse than the US in Co2/capita).
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  > How did your view on this change, and why? A huge turning point for me was when climate scientists brought forward their estimates for ice-free arctic summers by 1-2 decades. That's a huge revision, and it made me realize that consensus climate science predictions (as terrifying as they are) are probably weighted toward being much too optimistic. > my view is that the electorate is mostly still unwilling to make sacrifices in favor of climate action The electorate has made huge sacrifices in favor of climate change. We just passed a 1/2 trillion dollars worth of climate incentives in the IRA, and a majority of voters say they support the incentives. Polling also supports that most Americans think climate change is a problem, and want the government to do something about it. The important thing to remember here is that this doesn't get cheaper or better as we get farther out. Right now we're experiencing an exponential decrease in the LCOE of renewable energy, mainly stimulated by industrial policy in the US, Europe and China. If we'd pursued those policies earlier (either explicitly, or via a tiny carbon tax in the 2000s) we would now be a decade deeper into an exponential process. Meanwhile politicians spent enormous amounts of money on both an invasion of Iraq and a healthcare bill, neither of which ever consistently polled higher than plans to address climate change. We should never pretend that our mistakes are the only choice, they're just the choice we made.