6 ms·

The problem is that the American left has decided to make climate change "their issue", which leads the right wing to engage in denialist tactics. It's importan

by dubfan 12y ago

The problem is that the American left has decided to make climate change "their issue", which leads the right wing to engage in denialist tactics. It's important to note that both of these positions are not really based in solid scientific understanding, but because they play to their political ideologies. See how the left can simultaneously support climate science but oppose GMOs, which have a beneficial impact on greenhouse gas emissions. It's frustrating too, because despite owning the issue, the left doesn't seem interested in the economic factors that this article highlights are necessary to take into account. The anti-corporate contingent of the left finds it distasteful.

asgard1024 12y ago
I think main driver of why people deny climate change is that the market mechanism cannot deal with that situation. So if someone is a firm believer in market solutions to everything, the climate change reality is a tough attack on that personal belief.
- protomyth 12y ago
  Sure the market can deal with it: someone creates a cheaper, easy to transport, clean fuel ecosystem. Problem is people keep denying they need a market solution and instead look with glee on instituting new regulations.
  - jberryman 12y ago
    > Sure the market can deal with it Sorry, no. Much the costs of burning fossil fuels are externalized and with climate change this is taken to the extreme. This is what cap-and-trade was supposed to be about, but it seems that for the modern right "market solution" is whatever preserves the status quo.
    - protomyth 12y ago
      cap-and-trade will not fix the problem with up and coming economies. cap-and-trade is not a market solution, it just taxes the market. you either figure out a equivalent or better cost way - or we have to deal with war or climate engineering. I would prefer we get something that works before we get into "the kill my neighbor to preserve what I have" mentality. (given the voting, nope not going to respond further on this issue - no point in "debate" if silencing is the response)
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    You're assuming perfect competition and no switching costs, while ignoring network effects. I like markets but they don't inevitably produce rational outcomes.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    The market cannot take into account to cost of externalities, unless there is some mechanism to charge for them (meaning tax them). The other option would be to eliminate the concept of externalities by making everything owned by someone, but I don't see how that could work. You would have to come to an agreement with whomever owns air quality before you polluted and come to an agreement with whomever owns temperature before you caused warming...
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      ... and ten years later, when the new research comes up, you'd get sued by whoever owns local wildlife lifecycle which you inadvertently affected without permission.
  - asgard1024 12y ago
    First of all, I am basing that on this article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-te... Now, this article implies that we need to leave some coal and oil in the groud, even if it's economic to mine and use it up. My main concern is I don't think that markets can handle this task. Markets are great at exploiting all available resources; but how do you constrain them not to do that? You cannot set any price on a resource that you do not want to use at all. In a way though, yes, it's about externalities.
- vixen99 12y ago
  Just give me the convincing evidence and I will do what I can to protect the Earth that my children will inherit. By contrast, you don't need to convince me that there's a desperate world-wide problem with pollution for instance. Mercury, cadmium but the list is seemingly endless. Where is the international disquiet on this front? Meanwhile CO2, the plant food which if its level dropped below around 125ppm all life on this planet would begin to die irreversibly and has greened the planet very significantly in the last few decades, is regarded officially as a pollutant.
  - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
    With some attitudes, no amount of evidence would be convincing.
  - jinushaun 12y ago
    Exactly. Climate change is the wrong conversation to the environmental problem. It's diverts time, money and energy that could be directed at addressing real environmental problems like air and water quality.
  - asgard1024 12y ago
    What is convincing evidence? Many prominent environmentalists consider the climate change to be the biggest problem. Even Mr. Lomborg eventually accepted that conclusion.
yongjik 12y ago
Imagine that the American right decides to make, say, ISIS "their issue", which leads the left wing to engage in denialist tactics. That is, the American left denies ISIS. The refuse to accept such a group exists. Sure, some people make the claim, but it's all theory (and some Youtube videos), and there are alternative explanations. In such a case, would you say the problem begins with the American right making it "their" issue?
VLM 12y ago
"their issue" Agreed, and I extend your remarks with its a sign of pessimism and mistrust of government. Its well earned. In an ideal world if our leaders were angelic statespeople, I might trust them not to screw things up even worse or as a smokescreen for political corruption. I don't live in a country like that and I can sympathize with OPs quotation. His description is, unfortunately, the most likely outcome. In all honesty, if we can't fix it ourselves, we're doomed, because the government always causes more problems than it solves, makes things overall worse rather than better, for my entire life. And I'm no young kid and I can't stand the political party OP's quote likely comes from. I might hate what they stand for but I'm objective enough to see common ground when they are, in very small part, correct.
Florin_Andrei 12y ago
So, the right are a bunch of blible-thumping, big-business-loving, climate denialists, whereas the left are a bunch of GMO haters. Maybe this species is too dumb to survive after all.

by dubfan 12y ago

asgard1024 12y ago

I think main driver of why people deny climate change is that the market mechanism cannot deal with that situation. So if someone is a firm believer in market solutions to everything, the climate change reality is a tough attack on that personal belief.

protomyth 12y ago
Sure the market can deal with it: someone creates a cheaper, easy to transport, clean fuel ecosystem. Problem is people keep denying they need a market solution and instead look with glee on instituting new regulations.
- jberryman 12y ago
  > Sure the market can deal with it Sorry, no. Much the costs of burning fossil fuels are externalized and with climate change this is taken to the extreme. This is what cap-and-trade was supposed to be about, but it seems that for the modern right "market solution" is whatever preserves the status quo.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    cap-and-trade will not fix the problem with up and coming economies. cap-and-trade is not a market solution, it just taxes the market. you either figure out a equivalent or better cost way - or we have to deal with war or climate engineering. I would prefer we get something that works before we get into "the kill my neighbor to preserve what I have" mentality. (given the voting, nope not going to respond further on this issue - no point in "debate" if silencing is the response)
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  You're assuming perfect competition and no switching costs, while ignoring network effects. I like markets but they don't inevitably produce rational outcomes.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  The market cannot take into account to cost of externalities, unless there is some mechanism to charge for them (meaning tax them). The other option would be to eliminate the concept of externalities by making everything owned by someone, but I don't see how that could work. You would have to come to an agreement with whomever owns air quality before you polluted and come to an agreement with whomever owns temperature before you caused warming...
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    ... and ten years later, when the new research comes up, you'd get sued by whoever owns local wildlife lifecycle which you inadvertently affected without permission.
- asgard1024 12y ago
  First of all, I am basing that on this article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-te... Now, this article implies that we need to leave some coal and oil in the groud, even if it's economic to mine and use it up. My main concern is I don't think that markets can handle this task. Markets are great at exploiting all available resources; but how do you constrain them not to do that? You cannot set any price on a resource that you do not want to use at all. In a way though, yes, it's about externalities.
vixen99 12y ago
Just give me the convincing evidence and I will do what I can to protect the Earth that my children will inherit. By contrast, you don't need to convince me that there's a desperate world-wide problem with pollution for instance. Mercury, cadmium but the list is seemingly endless. Where is the international disquiet on this front? Meanwhile CO2, the plant food which if its level dropped below around 125ppm all life on this planet would begin to die irreversibly and has greened the planet very significantly in the last few decades, is regarded officially as a pollutant.
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  With some attitudes, no amount of evidence would be convincing.
- jinushaun 12y ago
  Exactly. Climate change is the wrong conversation to the environmental problem. It's diverts time, money and energy that could be directed at addressing real environmental problems like air and water quality.
- asgard1024 12y ago
  What is convincing evidence? Many prominent environmentalists consider the climate change to be the biggest problem. Even Mr. Lomborg eventually accepted that conclusion.

yongjik 12y ago

Imagine that the American right decides to make, say, ISIS "their issue", which leads the left wing to engage in denialist tactics. That is, the American left denies ISIS. The refuse to accept such a group exists. Sure, some people make the claim, but it's all theory (and some Youtube videos), and there are alternative explanations. In such a case, would you say the problem begins with the American right making it "their" issue?

VLM 12y ago

"their issue" Agreed, and I extend your remarks with its a sign of pessimism and mistrust of government. Its well earned. In an ideal world if our leaders were angelic statespeople, I might trust them not to screw things up even worse or as a smokescreen for political corruption. I don't live in a country like that and I can sympathize with OPs quotation. His description is, unfortunately, the most likely outcome. In all honesty, if we can't fix it ourselves, we're doomed, because the government always causes more problems than it solves, makes things overall worse rather than better, for my entire life. And I'm no young kid and I can't stand the political party OP's quote likely comes from. I might hate what they stand for but I'm objective enough to see common ground when they are, in very small part, correct.

Florin_Andrei 12y ago

So, the right are a bunch of blible-thumping, big-business-loving, climate denialists, whereas the left are a bunch of GMO haters. Maybe this species is too dumb to survive after all.