5 ms·

While the refutations of this guy seem scientifically sound, they are tone deaf. He’s speaking to perceptions. There is a problem with how the issue is communic

While the refutations of this guy seem scientifically sound, they are tone deaf. He’s speaking to perceptions. There is a problem with how the issue is communicated in common parlance. How do we fix the communications?

supertrope 3y ago
It’s hard to keep up with the climate change denial propaganda noise machine without stooping to their level. In the end motivated reasoning means people will value cheap hydrocarbon energy over global benefits of less climate change. Just look at the French gilet jaunes protests.
- d-lisp 3y ago
  a. X claims he didn't have enough money to live well. and b. The only way for X to reach his workplace is to consume a more and more expensive resource. "Change job", " work more", "live somewhere else" are not good advices because X is often unqualified, works already a lot and cannot afford a place inside the town where he works. What should X do ? The necessity of consumption is a bigger problem than "we consume to much hydrocarbon energy". People don't value cheap hydrocarbon energy over the future of earth, but they value their own life, and no solution exists, for a lot of regions in france, to allow you to cease using your car. In some places solutions are implemented in a weird manner, I personally had to take the bus at 5 am to go to " Lycée", where most of my courses began around 9-10am (if there were courses the morning) and then at 8pm to go back home (I was home at 9h30pm approximately, depending on the traffic). Lycée was great, now if I had to do this before and after a day of work, it would highly resemble what I call "a boring life". But still, while 3 hours or more in my life were dedicated to " transit" and a lot of time in the morning was dedicated to "wait", other people living in the city were just sleeping in the morning and probably reading their lessons or socializing. Bus was taking a lot more time than cars to commute is these regions because there's a lot of villages to connect to the town. (My village was the last of the line). As of today, there is still only two bus that connects the village to the town, one in the morning at 5am, and one in the night, at 8pm.
  - supertrope 3y ago
    Right. When the society makes driving easy and alternatives hard people rationally choose to drive. Government sponsored roads and parking tip the scales heavily in favor of cars. The solution is to add infrastructure so less driving is necessary. More centrally located housing. Walkable distances between destinations thanks to a not spread out city layout. Sidewalks, safe ways to cross the street, safe bike lanes, frequently arriving buses and trains. This is exactly what 15 minute cities are about!
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    X could first of all stop voting for people who scream "This isn't real" and start voting for people who say "We can do something about this" But they won't do that, because X doesn't think the climate is actually changing from human actions because they have picked one of the several half-assed narratives that claim to "prove" it.
    - d-lisp 3y ago
      Only 27% of the population voted for the current president at the first phase of the elections in 2022, and 24% in 2017. That's wrong to imply that X voted for that person.

supertrope 3y ago

It’s hard to keep up with the climate change denial propaganda noise machine without stooping to their level. In the end motivated reasoning means people will value cheap hydrocarbon energy over global benefits of less climate change. Just look at the French gilet jaunes protests.

d-lisp 3y ago
a. X claims he didn't have enough money to live well. and b. The only way for X to reach his workplace is to consume a more and more expensive resource. "Change job", " work more", "live somewhere else" are not good advices because X is often unqualified, works already a lot and cannot afford a place inside the town where he works. What should X do ? The necessity of consumption is a bigger problem than "we consume to much hydrocarbon energy". People don't value cheap hydrocarbon energy over the future of earth, but they value their own life, and no solution exists, for a lot of regions in france, to allow you to cease using your car. In some places solutions are implemented in a weird manner, I personally had to take the bus at 5 am to go to " Lycée", where most of my courses began around 9-10am (if there were courses the morning) and then at 8pm to go back home (I was home at 9h30pm approximately, depending on the traffic). Lycée was great, now if I had to do this before and after a day of work, it would highly resemble what I call "a boring life". But still, while 3 hours or more in my life were dedicated to " transit" and a lot of time in the morning was dedicated to "wait", other people living in the city were just sleeping in the morning and probably reading their lessons or socializing. Bus was taking a lot more time than cars to commute is these regions because there's a lot of villages to connect to the town. (My village was the last of the line). As of today, there is still only two bus that connects the village to the town, one in the morning at 5am, and one in the night, at 8pm.
- supertrope 3y ago
  Right. When the society makes driving easy and alternatives hard people rationally choose to drive. Government sponsored roads and parking tip the scales heavily in favor of cars. The solution is to add infrastructure so less driving is necessary. More centrally located housing. Walkable distances between destinations thanks to a not spread out city layout. Sidewalks, safe ways to cross the street, safe bike lanes, frequently arriving buses and trains. This is exactly what 15 minute cities are about!
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  X could first of all stop voting for people who scream "This isn't real" and start voting for people who say "We can do something about this" But they won't do that, because X doesn't think the climate is actually changing from human actions because they have picked one of the several half-assed narratives that claim to "prove" it.
  - d-lisp 3y ago
    Only 27% of the population voted for the current president at the first phase of the elections in 2022, and 24% in 2017. That's wrong to imply that X voted for that person.