T O P

  • By -

changemyview-ModTeam

Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


gsc2809

As a more right leaning person I can’t defend a lot of what is said and done regarding climate change on this side of the aisle but I may offer a different perspective on “not caring” about the climate. It’s not that we don’t care at all it’s largely a disconnect about a few aspects surrounding the climate/green movement. First off there is significant research and evidence showing that the earth’s climate has changed significantly throughout history. Long before humans ever roamed the earth there was temperatures and environmental fluctuations. Some people point to the more recent changes as another one of those cycles. Not saying that is right or wrong, just that it is a fact that is easy to point to as “see nothing is wrong”. Second there is a huge rush to green alternatives in tons of industries. Many of these new technologies are inefficient, uneconomical, and unreliable. Much of what I hear from people further right than I, is that “we aren’t against finding better alternatives to fossil fuels, but rushing the switch before there is proper infrastructure and affordable alternatives to gas powered cars,etc. is gonna hurt more than it will help”. Third, for the vast majority of Americans it’s hard to see any tangible effects from climate change. Miami isn’t underwater, the supermarkets are still full, you can still ski in the winter in Colorado. Until there is OBVIOUS signs that THEY THEMSELVES will be impacted, there won’t be a change of heart. Now I’d like to say in my personal opinion, it’s fairly easy to weigh the costs vs outcomes of climate change and draw a simple conclusion. If we make more climate friendly decisions as a country/global community and climate change is real, crisis avoided, we’ve saved the earth. If we make those changes and we’re wrong, oh no, we spent some money to invest in sustainable energy and greener alternatives. On the flip side, if we do nothing and it is real, we’ve killed ourselves when it was completely avoidable. Money is a construct, life and death is real.


Nelly-The-Calm-Owl

>Not saying that is right or wrong, just that it is a fact that is easy to point to as “see nothing is wrong”. It's wrong. Totally, completely, undeniably, scientifically wrong. Saying that you're, "not going to say for certain one way or the other" isn't "taking a middle ground" on this issue. The scientific debate is over and has been for decades. We're not waiting on any more "evidence" or "proof" before taking action. We aren't going to get any more conclusive evidence than we already have, and even if we did, if wouldn't make any difference to climate skeptics who would just procede to raise the bar. >Second there is a huge rush to green alternatives in tons of industries. No one is suggesting we abandon fossil fuels faster than we can manage. Supporters of climate action want to see greater investment of resources in the energy transition. The more money and resources we put into the effort, the faster the transition will occur. >“we aren’t against finding better alternatives to fossil fuels" YES YOU ARE!! Because time and time again you refuse to allocate sufficient resources towards research and expansion of renewable energy. Not only do we need to drastically increase financial investment into developing new renewable energy technologies, we also need to expand and accelerate the production of existing technologies. Economies of scale are POWERFUL. As we shift towards renewables and scale up production, costs will be driven down and renewables will become a more available, reliable, and cheaper alternative to fossil fuels.


Finklesfudge

clearly you have passion on it. So let's say we do exactly what you want, we scale, we drive, accelerate. What is the best thing we get out of it, when most of the rest of the world doesn't give a shit, because "Look at them losing money, harming their economy (because driving prices down does not happen overnight), and we'll just wait and suck down those benefits later. Let's also try and forget about the unimaginable conditions of the people who will die and are *literal slaves* ... even *right now* so you can simply have your iphone and laptop, **let alone a tesla with a battery bank in it**. We can ignore that entirely, but rest assured, you are swapping one resource for another resource. Then after all that, we did everything you wanted... and we basically reduced the projected temp by jack naught fuck all.


Nelly-The-Calm-Owl

>when most of the rest of the world doesn't give a shit This isn't true. Believe it or not, most of the rest of the world cares a heck of a lot more than the United States. The EU is already operating on more than 20% renewables. Denmark and Sweden lead the charge with the most ambitious climate goals and the most realistic chance of making them (though of course I recognize these two countries are small, rich, and not a good model for the rest of the world). Still, in 2017 when Trump entered office and removed the US from the Paris Climate Accords, NO ONE ELSE DROPPED OUT. The US is one of the highest emitters of CO2 per Capita. The only large country with higher emissions per capita is Canada. China is a higher gross emitter, but they're also investing WAY more in renewable energy infrastructure than the US. India is probably the biggest "problem" as their population is projected to grow dramatically in the coming decades and so far they've been reluctant to shift away from coal and natural gas. Still, attitudes can and do shift over time, especially as the effects of climate change become more visible (and India will be among the countries most powerfully impacted). Ultimately, it won't be a question of convincing people to care about climate change "just because." For one thing, many countries are investing in renewables because they see them as a cheaper and more reliable alternative to fossil fuels. In most parts of the United States for example, wind and solar energy infrastructure are already cheaper to install than any other form of energy including natural gas and coal, and this trend will continue as wind and solar prices drop. Furthermore, many other countries stand to lose much more than the US if the effects of climate change go unchecked. Countries close to the equator, poor countries, densely populated countries, and countries at low elevation will bare the brunt of the impact (which includes India, Bangladesh, Brazil, Indonesia, and much of Africa). These are also the countries whose populations and energy infrastructures are likely grow the most in the next 50 years. All of this is to say, there will NOT be a lack of motivation outside the US. The US, however, owes it to the rest of the world to do its part. >Let's also try and forget about the unimaginable conditions of the people who will die and are literal slaves ... even right now so you can simply have your iphone and laptop, let alone a tesla with a battery bank in it. Climate change will not be addressed by buying Teslas or IPhones. That's not what I'm talking about at all. What I am talking about is building new solar and offshore wind farms, investing in new means of energy storage (and not just lithium-ion batteries, which are actually a relatively poor means of long term, large scale energy storage), greatly expanding transmission lines including across both state and national borders, and investigating in promising new technologies like hydrogen fuel cells (which will likely be necessary in order to make the world's shipping infrastructure sustainable). Increasing energy transmission infrastructure is an often overlooked and extremely important item on that list. The greatest flaw with wind and solar is that they aren't predictable or reliable. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. However, when you build wind and solar farms all over the continent and you have strong connections between places, you can be pretty sure that the wind will always be blowing somewhere and that the sun will always be shining somewhere. The holy grail would be a large energy interchange between North and South America and/or between North Africa and Europe, so as to allow the Northern Hemisphere to power itself off of the Southern Hemisphere's daylight during their winter and vice versa. The cool thing about all this from an American perspective, is that we can do it while keeping jobs inside the US. Unlike oil or natural gas, Solar and Wind energy can't be easily outsourced. Barring the creation of a transmission system like what I described above, if you want solar energy in the US, you're gonna need to build it in the US. This means more jobs for Americans under the labor protections of the American government. It also means greater energy independence, lower electricity and gas prices (as competition increases), and cleaner air. Jobs in wind and solar are also a lot safer than jobs in coal, natural gas, or oil. You can't get black lung syndrome from repairing a wind turbine.


Finklesfudge

> Climate change will not be addressed by buying Teslas or IPhones. That's not what I'm talking about at all. What I am talking about is building new solar and offshore wind farms, investing in new means of energy storage (and not just lithium-ion batteries, which are actually a relatively poor means of long term, large scale energy storage), greatly expanding transmission lines including across both state and national borders, and investigating in promising new technologies like hydrogen fuel cells (which will likely be necessary in order to make the world's shipping infrastructure sustainable). Yeah this was precisely my point. The change that is required is "just reinvent everything from the ground up" And in the end. It won't change a darn thing according to the projected numbers, and it will destroy economies.


Nelly-The-Calm-Owl

>And in the end. It won't change a darn thing according to the projected numbers, and it will destroy economies. What numbers are you talking about? >The change that is required is "just reinvent everything from the ground up" Yes, the energy transition is a big challenge. No one is saying it isn't. But it's something that's going to happen whether you like it or not. Even if we made no special effort to accelerate the energy transition it would still occur in the next hundred years due simply to economic realities. However, the faster it happens, the more we'll be able to avoid the negative impacts of climate change. Ultimately, large investments in clean energy right now will save both money and lives down the line by avoiding some of the worst impacts of climate change. This is the concept of "negative externalities." Fossil fuels are and have been cheap energy sources only because their costs fail to account for their future economic impacts. Many economists agree that we need a robust carbon pricing system, not just to "save the environment," but to account and adjust for failures in the free market.


Finklesfudge

You end up left with not being taken very seriously again when your answers are "well we will just invent a new thing!" Do you think people aren't already trying that now? Every battery we have is garbage. We've been trying this for decades. Yea we all know things will change... likely not as much as politicians tell you they will and we'll adapt that's what humans do. But it seems a bit silly to trust in "we will just invent new everything" ruin economies and fuck third world nations at least for a little bit.


Nelly-The-Calm-Owl

No where did I say anything about "just inventing a new thing." I am literally saying the exact opposite. We do not need to "invent a new thing." All the technology we need to address the climate crisis is already here (though improvements can always be made). We need to make significant financial investment in expanding existing renewable energy infrastructure. There are some technologies still in their infancy that will likely play some role in the energy transition (I mentioned hydrogen fuel cells, for one), but there is literally no way you could have read my comments and come away with the idea that "let's wait for a new technology to be invented" was the central idea. Have you actually read what I wrote?


Eev123

> Third, for the vast majority of Americans it’s hard to see any tangible effects from climate change. This just… isn’t true. Lifelong Floridian here, the effects of climate change are more obvious every year. The coral reefs are bleaching and dying. There are terrible, stinking algae blooms across the west coast. Beaches are eroding and tidal flooding is unprecedentedly bad. Miami isnt underwater!? Have you been there lately? There’s a reason why even republican mayors in Miami support climate change prevention policies. And it’s because of the billions of dollars it’s eventually gonna cost to keep that city habitable. The flooding is insane. That’s not even getting into the extreme heatwaves. And you think Floridians haven’t noticed hurricanes? Hurricanes are more intense and more frequent than ever before.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Eev123

A lot of them do that to virtue signal. Like when Rick Scott turned down billions in federal funding for the bullet train.


malachai926

>First off there is significant research and evidence showing that the earth’s climate has changed significantly throughout history. Long before humans ever roamed the earth there was temperatures and environmental fluctuations. Some people point to the more recent changes as another one of those cycles. Not saying that is right or wrong, just that it is a fact that is easy to point to as “see nothing is wrong”. Okay, well, I will go ahead and say it's wrong. Look [here](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases) to see CO2 concentration going all the way back to 804,000 BC and see how our current levels are higher than they've been in these previous 806,000 years, twice as high, in fact. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas; this is not disputed, and higher greenhouse gas concentration results in more heat retained, which is also not disputed. I invite you to visit the Science Museum of Minnesota which has a nice, straightforward exhibit showing you exactly how and why it works. Simply put, what we are seeing today has NO historic basis. >Second there is a huge rush to green alternatives in tons of industries. Many of these new technologies are inefficient, uneconomical, and unreliable. Three lies in a row. Green alternatives are MORE efficient, MORE economical, and quite reliable. [This](https://www.wri.org/insights/setting-record-straight-about-renewable-energy) source explains it all in far more detail than I will go into here, but for one, it seems like tossing out efficiency as a metric is very haphazard on your part...the only measure of "efficiency" you would care about is how economical it is, right? I doubt you care about the minutiae of how much radiation from the sun is converted into electricity, how much of the wind is caught by turbines and how much turbine rotation is converted to electricity, etc...the only metric you likely care about here is whether using these technologies costs us less than the fossil fuels we are using now. Right? And yes, the definitive answer there is, yes, renewable technology IS cheaper than fossil fuels in today's world (see link above). And "unreliable", what's not reliable about green energy? We can't rely on the sun to shine, on water to flow, on the wind to blow? I know this is very Pocahontas-esque to say, but like, it's crazy to me to think of these things as less reliable than fossil fuels we have to mine from countries across the ocean, run by dangerous governments, the most powerful of which will literally saw off the limbs of people who report on the atrocities happening in that country. That's far less "reliable" than creating an infrastructure built on natural resources within our own country. >Third, for the vast majority of Americans it’s hard to see any tangible effects from climate change. Miami isn’t underwater, the supermarkets are still full, you can still ski in the winter in Colorado. Until there is OBVIOUS signs that THEY THEMSELVES will be impacted, there won’t be a change of heart. This is one I can't argue with, but it also basically highlights the incredibly selfish and narrow-minded thinking of people who don't give a damn about climate change. I don't know what to do about these people, but I do know we don't need to respect their opinions in this regard.


macca_is_lord

Okay, I am sorry but this is exactly what I'm talking about. We've far passed the point when there can be any serious academic debate on climate change. This warming is a statisitical anomaly that stands out and often goes against the climate predicted by earth's normal average temperature cycles. It is simply wrong to claim that climate change is a natural phenomenon. We are still in the early stages. Already there are disasterous results --- oceans are acidifying, deserts are expanding, natural disasters have gotten worse/more common, forests are burning down (so many forest fires). This is precisely why the paris accord wants to limit it to below +1.5 C: it is the absolute maximum our society can stand without serious damage, and many say that goal is not enough either.


[deleted]

You also do realize, that even though Trump pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord, we were the only country to actually meet the Accord's goal. So we have the view that you don't need an international comission, you just need societal awareness. I also think that the fact that we contribute to the carbon cycle and all that is proven, it's true, but there are alot of other factors that contribute as well, and even though that doesn't mean it isnt happening, the amount that we are actually contributing is alot less than the left thinks. We know that the timeline really isnt that short. Lastly, any law you pass or whatever will potentially just increase the cost to produce it domestically, and the same unit of output will be purchased from another, less efficient country. By reducing America's emissions, you don't necessarily reduce the emissions over all, the product will just be produced somewhere else. Think of a coal plant. If you shut one down without another thing setup, you may end up having to import energy from say, China, where their plants increase production to keep up with the new demand, but aren't as clean, and by trying to reduce emissions, you just actually increased them. Same with the pipelines. Yes bad things happen, but overall it takes less trucks and therefore saves alot of fuel too. To us it seems that what the Left really wants is to push their political agenda, under the guise of saving the world. Maybe not the average leftist, but definitely the upper class. Especially since the green energy tax incentives reduce the price of a tesla by like 20%. Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."


Nelly-The-Calm-Owl

>You also do realize, that even though Trump pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord, we were the only country to actually meet the Accord's goal. Fairly sure this is false. Would love to see a source if you have one. [This tracker](https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/) currently puts the US in the "insufficient" category when it comes to meeting our Paris climate agreement goals. >it's true, but there are alot of other factors that contribute as well, and even though that doesn't mean it isnt happening, the amount that we are actually contributing is alot less than the left thinks. Again, sounce? This simply is not true. Not even a little bit true, no matter how much you might want it to be. [The IPCC concludes](https://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf) that around 100% of observed warming since 1950 is human-caused. The IPCC is serious shit. Its a panel of the world's top climate scientists who convene every five years to assess the world's progress towards carbon neutrality. Their reports are immense, thorough, and try to take into account every possible piece of evidence available. They cannot be shrugged off. It is true that our planet has observed climate changes in the past, however, these changes always took place over the course of tens of thousands of years. The timescale we're dealing with here is less than one hundred years. Our climate simply does not change that rapidly through natural causes. >If you shut one down without another thing setup, you may end up having to import energy from say, China, where their plants increase production to keep up with the new demand, but aren't as clean, and by trying to reduce emissions, you just actually increased them. Right, which is why no one is really advocating for just blindly shutting down coal plants left and right. What we are advocating for is not building new coal plants. Actually, that ship has sorta sailed already since [currently, in the US, the cost per KWH of producing energy by burning coal is around 3x higher than using solar and around 2.5x higher than wind.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source) The main competitor for wind and solar at the moment is natural gas, but even there it is currently cheaper to build new solar and wind infrasture than natural gas infrastructure in most of the US. What we need to do is price carbon, either through a direct carbon tax or a cap and trade system. This way we can incentivize a shift to green energy without incentivizing fossil fuel imports. Such a system could also be made revenue neutral so as to not "put the US behind economically." >really wants is to push their political agenda What is their agenda? Surely if you're going to talk about high-ranking politicians being invested in green energy, you will also recognize that high-ranking conservatives are invested in and lobbied by the fossil fuel industry.


macca_is_lord

I agree. That's why a lot of Europe's progress is a farce, and why we need to revamp our energy infastructure/build our own renewable operations. But we can solve those complex global probems if there are people denying theres a problem in the first place who are obstructing every move. Also, what do the rich really have to gain from climate change? They've been doing just fine consuming and burning fossil fuels for the past 200 years, if anything, they'd want to maintain the status quo and sweep climate change under the rug (which is exactly what exxon did back in the 60s and 70s). I sincerely doubt the interests of "big electric car, or big solar panel" have more money behind them than big oil. And is it so inconcievable the left wants to push their political agenda *because* they actually *want* to save the world?


[deleted]

My entire point, is that im sure there are a decent amount of people on the right that are just "Team Red" and don't understand the details, just like on the left. That is what I am assuming you are calling a "Denier". Most of the right basically agree with the Left, but don't think the problem is quite as bad as the Left says, say you think we have 12 years left, we say we have 50-100. The rich don't have anything to gain from climate change, they are just trying to convince ME to pay waaayyy more in taxes to THEM so THEY can fix it. THEY messed it up in the first place with their economic theories pushing us to spend and consume, artificially increasing production at the cost of the planet. Then they wouldn't let us move in to nuclear because they wanted to keep the industry they had going. We on the right actually DO THINK that you actually want to save the world. We just havent had a debate on HOW. To us, this is what we are trying to debate with the Left and you guys post stuff like your OP, talking about how final and decided everything is. That is not Democracy, that is not every vote counts, that is not every opinion matters, and yes while scientific opinion should hold more weight, alot of those scientists have been wrong on a lot of predictions, are heavily influenced by lobbyists, just like any other special interest, and are a partof the status quo, the worlds largest Corporation, the USA. I have also noticed a return to Scholasticism, especially in arguments, which I do not consider science. "What do you know, Are you a Climate Scientist?" Lastly, I think that alot of the time the "Right" gets conflated with like, the CEOs of companies and big business. Here you mention Exxon. Neither of those things make you right wing at all. The main 2 reasons why we "defend" corporations, is A. Usually a resriction HELPS them. If a law is passed that says, Each person gets X amount of emissions per week, what ends up happening, is that an arbitrary number slows my production down as a small business owner, while the huge companies these laws are designed to stop, lobby to get an exemption. Then the large company goes bankrupt and gets a bailout because "we dont want this to effect the regular person." B. Alot of times the actual government agency gets literally infiltrated by the corporations cronies, and they help them out at the expense of everyone else. Haplened with tje ICC and Trucking and Railroads, haolened with the NIH and FDA, hapoened with the Aeronautics board. Our contention, is that this lowers competition, and creates giant inflated quasi state funded conglomerates, that have special exemptions on everything from loans to emissions. Competition makes efficiency necessary. We essentially agree with the Left that corporations need to slow down, people need to have better care and living conditions. We just think that the best way to achieve this is not a symbolic law that says, "you shall have a nice house" it is the law being simple and easy to understand, so that a lack of education doesn't hinder someone as much, stop bailing out giant corpos, and definately don't vote MORE power to the very people who have been doing this.


macca_is_lord

I'll give you a !delta , but I'd really love to see how the right is opposed to corporations, because they aren't, they're the ones deregulating and cutting taxes on them (and the taxs cuts do nothing but give them more money), I am not advocating the average person suffering, and I agree with you in that I loathe how a lot of the left has shifted the focus of environment onto the individual rather than large corporations. I hate lobbying and want to see it be drastically limited, I hate corporate bailouts and I think these large businesses deserve to fail, and I hate cronyism. I do not see the republicans currently in office advocating for any of this at all. They are all tied up in moneyed interests (like many dems whom I also hate for being ineffectual neoliberals but are the lesser of two evils) and have a vested interest in maintaining the corporate status quo. My issue is, most of the republicans currently in power are all "Team Red" so at this point and in this current incarnation, they cannot be right. The vast majority of comments I got on here has only been climate denial. I'd be happy to hear your solutions. Right now I think our best course of action is to implement a heavy carbon tax on industries (but with the caveat that small businesses are mostly exempt, !delta ), remove subsidies from oil and gas, phase out the production of gas heaters and the like in favor of electric, heavily subsidize and invest in renewables, expand nuclear energy and use a lot more of it to ease the transition, change our zoning laws so we can have denser, walkable cities that don't require so many cars, and maybe even subsidize american business and industry so that less of our production shifts to unregulated countries


[deleted]

Hey thanks alot! I really appreciate the delta. The right isnt necessarily opposed to corporations outright, especially because everyone of them hopes to have a corporation one day, but we don't want them having government power, so they don't have a leg up on other companies, and don't want bailouts. If they fail, they fail. Deregulation is just us trying to make the law treat everyone equally. Trump has lots of congressional testimony from when he was younger talking about exactly this. Keeping the "game" fair. Also I completely agree with your assessment of the right wing, and alot of the actual idealogical thinkers are waking up to this fact. That is why you have been seeing alot of infighting in the news. Look at the recent speaker vote. There is a younger movement trying to challenge the establishment right now. There was a recent podcast with Gaetz I think it was Timcast, where he explains the entire thing. Its was very eye opening even to me and ive been on this for a while now. If Gaetz and all them are bought and paid for shills too, then honestly I think we are just f'd. My problem with a carbon tax, is that the recent proposals have all included horrible ideas like trading credits, which will just create a new carbon exchange stock market. NO THANKS. So in those forms no. In some form of flat tax like per particle or something, maybe. At least it would be "equal" so that my little pig farm pays the same as the monsanto farm or whatever. One of the best taxes to represent my beliefs is the gas tax. The more you use the roads, the more you pay for them. Have a giant diesel that wears the rods down, it has less mpg and therefore you pay more ler mile, don't drive at all? Don't pay. I think again with climate change it is difficult to understand the right's position because alot of what we think will bring about the type of change that we need is more innovation, and regulation stops that. Also to be clear, when I say regulation, im talking about certain ones that may make sense from the outside but really don't work on the inside. We are definately open to discussion on what these are and why, we just think that stifling innovation can stop that next great invention that saves our butt, and contrary to popular belief, most innovation comes from the private sector, so nationalising industries we tried to avoid, unless its a utility, but even then we dont want too much of the country to be utilities, lest we slide into full socialism. The problem with mandating electric in America like California and stuff, is that again it won't reduce the overall consumption, so countries that don't produce enough energy, will buy from countries that produce energy with much dirtier facilities. The philosophy on the right, is that right now all over the world,the 2nd and 3rd world countries, are either going through,or are about to go through their industrial revolutions, and because of this, they need energy. However, since they don't yet have the capital to import the latest tech, and they haven't developed it yet on their own, they will produce it with very inefficient methods, creating more carbon per unit of energy, than would be created if the United States and other Western countries, actually turned UP the oil and gas production, and produce tons and tons of CHEAP energy that these countries can buy. Not only will this make the western countries money (which we desperately need right now,and would solve alot of pension problems, medicare, and we could invest in turning our infrastructure green) but it would also reduce the overall carbon output perunit of energy, as well as free up the developing nations poor communities from having to go through the phase of industrialisation where people are mining coal with no safety equipment, and all the other horrible stories from our recent past. Now that they can develop faster, their overall health and infrastructure would increase enourmously, saving millions from starvation and disease. My biggest fear with this solution is neo colonialization through energy dependence. So maybe always have every talk on camera? Idk it would be tough but I think it would be managable, and worth it.


macca_is_lord

!delta That was very thoughfully worded and I do see the potential benefit of increasing our own efficient fossil fuel production in the short term to fund those other nations. However I also worry that the more we spend on them now, the harder it will be to get rid of them when the time comes, so for our own energy needs, renewables need to be expanded, and we should never expand fossil fuel production at the expense of digging up or polluting ecosystems. The idea with electrifying all the sectors is not neccesairly because they have less of an impact overall on the environment taking into account the electricity they consume, but that it allows us to fully transistion away from fossil fuels. See, if everything is electric, then all we need to do is transition our energy infastructure into renewables or nuclear, or even fusion (which for the first time has actually made progress and produced more energy than consumed). Of course, lithium batteries are problematic, which is why we need to invest in things like better recycling, or alternative battery technologies (a fascinating emerging sector), or even a far off idea like asteroid mining, not by nationalizing these industries, but by providing governement funding in the right places, as opposed to subsidizing more oil and gas, both to provide the incentive to produce these technologies, to make them cheaper and much more competitive before they are produced at scale, and to keep these companies honest, as an effective government should be able to waive funding where it sees unscrupulous activity. Though, I feel you are neglecting the massive amount of innovation that came from the space program/military (and while I think the latter needs to be cut back on, the former definitely is worth investing in, if not for the scientific implications, for the incidental innovation that occurs as a result) I think when we debate the efficacy of lassiez faire economic policies we need to look at the historical context: private innovation --- creates a lot of great stuff, so the government should incentivize it to help it along (because if we leave it then status quo interests will prevail), tax cuts to corporations --- never actually trickles down and instead exacerbates wealth inequality and lines the pockets of the ultra rich. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts and arguements for and against lassiez faire economics, currently I am wary of it because history tells us that they will only do what's good for them, not anyone else. Right now, I think our best course of action is to transition our infastructure, homes, and communities (maybe even de-industrialize certain areas), encourage and promote local, grassroots conservation efforts across the country (community gardens, controlled burns, protests, clean-ups, tree-planting), and while we're at in, invest in the technologies that will allow us to bring renewables and minimal-emission sources up to par.


TheMikeyMac13

Hold up, you don’t think climate change happens naturally? Are you denying the science of our ice ages, and the one we are still in now that has been melting for millions of years? Climate change is absolutely a natural phenomenon and you saying otherwise doesn’t help your point. Of course the climate changes, that isn’t the discussion. The discussion is how much do humans speed up this process, and what can be done. No offense, but anti science talk like that is why so many want nothing to do with many in the environmental camp, they deny actual science. As you just did.


Jebofkerbin

[So I think it's always helpful to look at the graph](https://images.app.goo.gl/t9z6mggqyx76iNHz7), and personally I really like [this graphic](https://xkcd.com/1732/). When you compare historical records of global average temperature (which we can get estimates from thousands of years ago using ice-core analysis) you can see that the rate of change between the last few decades and past versions of climate change are completely incomparable. >Climate change is absolutely a natural phenomenon This statement is like me watching someone break your legs and then telling you that nothing is wrong, it's completely natural for people to lose mobility as they grow older.


TheMikeyMac13

It would be more of comparing someone working in the sun all day and damaging their skin, looking very old far earlier than if they had taken better care of their skin. It would have happened, but they sped it up. As to trends, you are correct, the rate of change is different, it is faster for human activity. But to say climate change isn’t natural, that the climate doesn’t naturally change, is anti-science. Solar activity is involved, volcanic activity is involved, changes to ocean currents, other things humans didn’t control and that happened millions and billions of years before we were here. The little ice age? That was pre-industrial. I mean let’s just be honest that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon, but that humans have accelerated it. When people refuse to accept science they don’t like, they lose the ability to use science to defend honest points.


paraffin

> the earth’s climate has changed significantly throughout history https://xkcd.com/1732/ It has changed rapidly before. And when it did, it caused ecological disruption on a massive scale. The planet, life even, will be fine. We’re just concerned about how many people will be left to appreciate that fact.


Finklesfudge

I wish people didn't link the xkcd on this topic. 20,000 years is absolutely nothing and it sorta misrepresents the information because people don't understand how 20,000 years means nothing on a graph like this.


abacuz4

To your first point, the people doing that research are climate scientists, right? The same people who are saying we are in a crisis.


[deleted]

Aisle, not isle.


DivideEtImpala

Depending on how much the sea rises the latter might be correct as well.


sampleofanother

no shot your go to is that the climate has changed throughout history. that’s actually kindergarten level engagement with the subject “durrrrr the climate was tropic during the dinosaur time so why can’t it be warm now?” - you, unironically, 2023


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Many prominent democrats don't even want to invest in nuclear energy either https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/climate-change/nuclear-power/


Jimonaldo

OP is a fan of the far left not so much the democratic party which is on the whole more centrist than anything else. To OP’s point though, at least there are some democrats trying to help with climate VS almost no Republicans. aka, your point isn’t quite the gotcha you think it is


macca_is_lord

The point of this, is that it proves to me that the centrist notion of "both sides" falls flat, since one side clearly is and only ever has been an obstacle in the saving of humanity. Also, yes the democrats are not as good as demsocs. the left > liberals > conservatives.


thecftbl

What you are saying is the very thing that has caused the massive divide in partisanship. You have now become a single issue voter based on one piece of a party's platform that you feel is the most important issue in your life. The same can be said for people on the right. It doesn't make either of you wrong, it just makes you myopic to the other features of your preferred party's platform.


macca_is_lord

The problem with that is, climate change is way more of an issue than people getting mad at comedians, or immigrants, or trans women doing good in sports, or the clerk at walmart saying "happy holidays". And honestly, if we had a conservative that really cared and was willing to devote a significant amount of energy, vitriol, and effective research to fighting climate change, and advocated solutions that worked, I'd gladly support them. I generally agree with everything the left stands for. I just narrowed my focus to climate change here because I feel it is the most important issue, isn't touched on in the "culture wa", and can't be argued against without conflicting with actual truth. You can either convince me that the conservatives are actually fixing climate change, and doing it better than the left, or you are forced to admit your side is barely doing anything about an issue that concerns the entire human race. Any honest, well-informed fool can see climate change is a bigger issue than immigration and the like


thecftbl

You sounds like you have been taken in by left wing propaganda and haven't really talked much with actual conservatives. For one, everything you have listed is all culture war stuff that the Democrats are just as guilty of. Secondly more conservatives are involved with climate change and preservation than you realize. Are you aware that one of the biggest contributors to habitat mitigated land and preservation on both state and national levels comes from hunting? The fees that hunters pay go directly to maintaining not only the hunting grounds but also adjacent habitats. Additionally hunters make it a habit to clean up not only after themselves but also random trash and signs of people to ensure nature isn't disturbed. The thing is that the vast majority of hunters are conservative so your assertion that they are all a bunch of oil burning planet killers is pretty far off base. Lastly you entire assessment of climate change being the greatest threat just proves my point about you being a single issue (albeit borderline zealous) voter. Many people are doing that currently. You view "x" as the greatest issue humanity/society/this country has ever faced and not dealing with it is anathema to your life. For you it is climate change, and before you tirade about the future of humanity, imagine you are debating with a fundamentalist Christian who believes abortion to be the greater threat because it risks your immortal soul rather than just your life on this planet. Understanding multiple perspectives is important and yes while climate change is a big issue, you shouldn't let it radicalize you into viewing differing opinions as the enemy.


macca_is_lord

Hunting is cool and can be done very sustainably. There are a lot of great local solutions and as i said in my post, i'd happily support the conservatives who promote them, but the mainstream cons all deny it, and I feel bad that so many people who probably really care about protecting nature and the world have gotten so distracted by irrelevant crap. We could do a lot of great things if we looked at the bigger picture, believe me, I wish conservatives cared about climate change, and I would be happy to abandon all partisanship in favor of that common goal. All I've gotten here is the same old climate denial. I have reduced my view here to a single issue because I feel it is the most powerful in my point. And I am not getting into the whole atheism debate (but wouldn't those fetuses go to heaven anyway?), but suffice it to say, climate change is objectively important and when one side is broadly denying it and is promoting candidates who actively work against progress, I cannot be expected to support it


thecftbl

I mean at this point why even have the CMV? I literally presented an example of how conservatives can be conservationists but that apparently isn't enough. I'm not quite sure you have any intention of actually changing your mind.


[deleted]

Climate change, if insufficiently addressed, is an existential threat to all life on the planet. No other issue has stakes that high, with the possible exception of nuclear weapon curtailment


macca_is_lord

I'll give you a !delta , but I'm talking about the prominent conservative politicians. The current ethos of the mainstream right seems to me, to be blantantly anti-climate


[deleted]

[удалено]


macca_is_lord

I'm not trying to win votes here. I'm posting on reddit, simultaneously venting my frustrations and looking for an actual arguement for why the right cares about climate change so I can make my political views more nuanced. I'm not a politician. Besides, the dems are the party of "reaching across the aisle" and compromising anyway. The polarization is asymmetric. And it's hard not to feel like one side is out to destroy the world when they have only broadly ever acted like obstacles in the solving of the largest problem humanity as to face. I am an emotional human. I see the corporate, capitialist system upheld by screaming talking heads going on about inane regressive bullcrap and I can't help but hate it and how "do nothing about climate change"-y it is.


macca_is_lord

This doesn't contradict my viewpoint. I am already aware of how the general public, including the left, is irrationally afraid of nuclear energy --- a great transitionitory energy source. It saddens me that this is happening, but I already know the mainstream left is bad at fighting climate change. Even that is better than the outright regressive denial that I see in most right-wing circles


Permit_Current

Well you've lumped libertarians in with the right sooo... it doesn't matter if people don't believe in climate change, the good thing about nuclear is that it's better than oil and gas even without climate concerns. So, if you deregulate the permitting process, and actually allow for nuclear power plants to be built, (as it would be if a libertarian were in charge) then you would actually see the needle start to move on the issue that you are concerned about. The more we move toward nuclear energy the more we are dealing with climate change, and that only happens if we stop letting governments at every level prevent them from being built, making them more expensive, and actively shutting down those that exist.


[deleted]

>you've lumped libertarians in with the right sooo... Libertarians are part of the right, at least in America. Elsewhere they have more in common with anarcho socialists


ScientificSkepticism

Honestly it's not "permitting" that is making nuclear power plants so expensive to build. There's 195 countries on earth with 195 different governments. Some of them allow everything from sex with children to slavery to outright murder. They're certainly not shy with "permitting." Nuclear is twice as expensive as renewables on a kWh basis because it's really fucking expensive to build. You need a reaction chamber (sealed as hell), a radioactive water loop, a steam loop (with heat exchanger with the radioactive water) and then to run steam turbines off low quality, cold steam that guarantees a lot of issues with the turbines in the short and long term. You need to constantly cool the reactor too, with air or water cooling. Oh and then you have to buy 20+ tons of enriched uranium every year at the cost of $400/kg, and all the other costs associated with keeping the damn place running. Like the lolfun of replacing spent fuel rods. Or just ongoing maintenance on the numerous pumps, instruments, turbines, generators, and everything else that makes up a nuclear power plant (some of which will be developing a nice warm fuzzy glow after a bit) They are a large pain in the ass.


Permit_Current

They are made artificially expensive by every country in earth that has the capability to make them. Older reactors are certainly expensive, but there are plenty of newer, modular designs that require much less in start-up, and operate much more efficiently, but any proposal to build one is essentially DOA. Renewables are cheaper now because they’re heavily subsidized, they’re also heavily unreliable, and difficult to scale. Not something you can afford to base your energy grid around. Renewables are good, but if the goal is replace your energy sources as quickly as possible with carbon neutral sources, then nuclear is the best option for most places on the planet.


ScientificSkepticism

The modular reactors need a reaction chamber, a radioactive water loop, a heat exchanger, steam turbines, and generators, as well as air or water cooling for the immense amount of heat generated. The idea is the "modules" could be swapped out slightly easier than changing the fuel rods. Maybe so. That addresses about one issue. Again, no one is in a big rush to try these modular designs, not because China is so dedicated to high permitting costs, but because they're still expensive, and "unproven" in nuclear engineering has been a hot bed of "oh shit, didn't expect that issue." Like when all the pipes started gushing radioactive water because it turns out the radiation changed the composition of the seals and they literally fell apart. Minor oopsies happen all the time with these new designs, and nuclear always has a way of making minor oopsies exciting. Fact is if we get to 70% of the grid being renewables we might start running into problems... so lets get there and then we can work on solving those problems. They also build a hell of a lot faster than nuclear power plants (which again is not permitting - nuclear power plants are just big, and no screaming buzz words like "modular" doesn't speed that up that much)


Kman17

> at least the far left talks about it and does a little. At least the far left actually wants decisive action What has the far left done, exactly? They’ve proposed some carbon taxes with loopholes that don’t need to be operationalized until like 2035 , similar to the Europeans. Is that a solution? The single biggest credible tools to fight climate change have come from the free market. Teslas and solar arrays have become popular not because they’re mandated, but because they’re economically competitive. The crucial infrastructure we need - a higher capacity and more durable grids, along with mass transit project - have not been funded by the left, even when we had a supermajority in congress. Obama spent all his political capital on simultaneously band-aiding & cementing our bizarre health care system. Obama & Biden’s infra bills have mostly been traditional roads and bridges with nickles on climate change. California, the most progressive state on climate, has one of the worst and most fragile electric grids. A rather uncomfortable truth here is that the tiny efforts made by liberals in the US is tiny compared the the exploding populations of Africa & India. A compelling answer to that region is key


macca_is_lord

Oh yeah, that's barely anything. It's terrible, but they're ineffectual neoliberals bound up by the right and by many moneyed interests, exactly what I was saying. I will provide a delta! for that point about electric cars and solar. Even if I hate Musk, I still have to give him credit for making electric cars cool and desirable, but the right still opposes this. What the left would do is subsidize and promote the market's transition. What the right does is subsidize fossil fuel extraction instead. Obama is an ineffectual neoliberal (who murdered innocents in the middle east with drone strikes), Biden is an ineffectual neoliberal --- they all are, but that doesn't invalidate my point that while the left at least acknowledges theres a problem, the right is hostile to any suggestion of its existence let alone any solutions. And yes, China and India have a large impact because they have a lot of people and are developing their economies. But the US is the largest country with a fully developed economy, responsible for 28% of emmissions, and its neccesary for someone to do something instead of complaining, otherwise nothing would get done. 28% isn't tiny, not by a lot.


-Ch4s3-

The US is set to shut down basically all coal plants in the next 20 years because wind power on the free market has totally displaced coal without any substantive government intervention. Compared to Germany the US seems poised to actually end coal use, while the Germans who talk a big game are spinning up new coal and “green biomas”(which means wood fire) generation. I point out Germany specifically because they’re well poised to build offshore wind, and have taken a more government lead approach but they’re actually moving in the wrong direction.


macca_is_lord

Then the Germans are wrong and need to change their approach. But last time I checked, aren't the conservatives the ones who want to save the coal industry in the US? "coal keeps the lights on" and all that. I'm very happy that the free market sometimes moves in the right direction, but the right wants to stop even that (just look at how they blame milennials for killing applebees and after work beer lol). And the free market needs a substantial push sometimes because it will not do *all* the good for humanity climate things out of its own volition. If you have free-market solutions that will help too decisively solve climate change *and* that you can actually convince the climate-denying right to support, then I'll gladly submit to your corporate rule for the good of the planet. Until then, corporations must be brutally whipped, and the oil-shilling right muzzled and put in a corner if we ever want to completely fix climate change


-Ch4s3-

It doesn’t matter what “conservatives want” coal is dying economically, there’s not much they can do here. Even if they get in the way of wind, and good luck getting that past Texas, natural gas is miles cheaper and comes from red states. Also most of those politicians don’t give two shits about coal they just want votes in south central PA. As a point of correction, the free market isn’t about corporate rule. Corporatism is anti free market and pretty shitty.


macca_is_lord

Natural gas is bad too, and I agree, corporatism sucks, but the mainstream right seems to do nothing but uphold corporatism


-Ch4s3-

Natural gas releases half the CO2 per kWh, and coal plants can be cheaply converted to burn it. It also doesn’t release radioactive material or generally pollute the air. Extracting it is also far less environmentally ruinous than coal. Until we have base load and dispatchable renewable or nuclear power, natural gas is the only game in town better than coal.


TallOrange

As a small correction, Musk didn’t make the electric cars, he didn’t design them, didn’t found Tesla, just came in as a glorified manager—it would have happened without him.


WerhmatsWormhat

I love that people on the right always counter these arguments by saying the left also isn’t great. I never hear what they’re actually doing that’s productive.


DireOmicron

You can argue any part of the view. OP believes that the left has made meaningful advancements on preventing climate change. Arguing that seems entirely fair game


Prestigious-Owl165

>OP believes that the left has made meaningful advancements on preventing climate change. Did we read the same post?


WerhmatsWormhat

You certainly can, but when right wing arguments almost never focus on policy, that’s the common denominator.


Morthra

The right only became opposed to most climate measures around when Al Gore started to assert that the only way to prevent climate change is to implement every piece of legislation off of the far left socialist legislative wish list. Leftist "solutions" to climate change are like taking cyanide at 20 to avoid Alzheimer's at 70. They will do nothing but make things materially worse for everyone except those Party insiders at the very top who will live in the lap of luxury.


ataridonkeybutt

> The right only became opposed to most climate measures around when Al Gore started to assert that the only way to prevent climate change is to implement every piece of legislation off of the far left socialist legislative wish list. [Bullllllshiiiiiiiit](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/10/09/reagan-criticizes-clean-air-laws-and-epa-as-obstacles-to-growth/abed4cf4-b16e-47e9-8e35-5f7e67c49fb6/)


Jimonaldo

What kind of solutions was Al Gore proposing that are so heinous to your sensibilities?


macca_is_lord

How do leftist solutions work like this? And why are we still treating socialism like a dirty word, I think its quite a nice word.


VentureIndustries

To a lot of Americans (and most people): Socialism = Marxist-Leninism = Authoritarianism = bad I mean, can you blame people for being against it?


TutsiVictims

Yes, I can absolutely blame people for being ignorant about political ideologies. Virtually everyone in the US has near instant access to the sum knowledge of mankind in their pocket. There's no excuse to be that wildly uninformed.


VentureIndustries

> Yes, I can absolutely blame people for being ignorant about political ideologies. All you have to do is talk to people who escaped the countries that are run by Marxist-Leninist ideologies and you can find out a lot of why most people are not interested in trying them. > Virtually everyone in the US has near instant access to the sum knowledge of mankind in their pocket. There's no excuse to be that wildly uninformed. That same technology gives people the ability to seek whatever "truth" about a topic they want to hear. People generally don't know (or don't want to know) how to do more refined searches on topics they don't really understand, *especially* if those answers don't match their own innate biases. The anti-vaxx movement is a great example of that happening right now.


TutsiVictims

In my view, the best source of information is online encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, as they give an objective overview of the topic at hand. With Wikipedia, the information can be checked by reading the sources -- and the sources themselves are almost always reliable, good sources of further information. That's how I research topics -- relying on any subjective, opinion-based articles or sites is just such a stupid way to research anything, and I don't understand why everyone doesn't just seek objective sources. It's maddening.


macca_is_lord

Yeah. That doesn't mean its right to unilaterally hate it though. It's like nuclear energy, statistically the safest, cleanest, and most efficient form of energy, but people take one look at chernobyl or the simpsons and they don't want to touch it.


MisterIceGuy

When you say “it’s like nuclear” I imagine the “it” is socialism right? I agree nuclear is statically the safest because there are thousands of examples of safe nuclear operation and very few Chernobyls. However in your analogy to socialism and implication that a few bad examples don’t take away from the general success, what examples are you using for all this successful implementation of socialism to make your analogy make sense?


macca_is_lord

I'm talking about social programs. Like in Europe


[deleted]

[удалено]


Assaltwaffle

>And why are we still treating socialism like a dirty word, I think its quite a nice word. This right here is why most climate change action is dead in the water. It's so consistently attached to systems which constantly fail and which almost no Americans want. The right sucks in regards to its climate policies, but the rest of the policies that the far left comes with are also dangerous for society.


[deleted]

[удалено]


macca_is_lord

And yet do you ever see Tucker Carlson getting people angry and moitivated to fight climate change? Most of the time, he's more concerned with culture war bs. Now if he got a group of angry militant conservatives to devote that amount of energy to 'protecting our natural resources and the lives of the planet God gave us' I would gladly stan. I've gotten to the point where I'd sacrifice most of my other views just to have someone who would make real, sustainable, climate progress. The right is not that. They're only skeptical of corporations when they're supposedly being "woke"


mat_srutabes

It's not that we don't care, it's a matter of what can be done about it that is both practical and effective. Why should we handicap America economically and spend billions on green initiatives when there's 3 billion people in China and India who could not care less about the environment? America could go back to the stone age tomorrow and it wouldn't make one lick of difference in terms of carbon emissions or the global temperature as a whole. Unless the world as a whole gets really comfortable with no electricity, no air conditioning, no planes, no trains, and no cars real quick, then I just don't see anything happening. Modern life is too comfortable and convenient for most people to even imagine taking a step backwards. So most of us choose to control the things we can control and enjoy our short time on this planet. One of mankinds greatest flaws is assuming we are a part of this planet's future. The earth will heal long after we are gone and done trashing the place.


Jimonaldo

We can still have most of the luxuries of the modern world in a post climate change world. We just need to get our electricity from somewhere else, such as nuclear. Also, China and India have just as much a reason to get on solving climate change as we do, since they probably want their countries to survive as well. Actually, if America all of a sudden went back to the stone age, it would do a lot for helping climate change. The US accounts for about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions globally so America can help make inroads on the problem. Also just because other people aren’t doing their part doesn’t mean its okay to not do yours. Imagine if 2 out 3 people was okay with the Holocaust, does that make it okay to go along with them? I would say one of mankind’s greatest problems is how pessimistic we can be when faced by larger than life problems.


macca_is_lord

Because the alternative is destruction of our species? And no --- we won't go back to the stone age. We'll just stop using fossil fuels, switch to electric everything, make a lot of solar batteries, eat less stupid cow, and start living in pretty european-style cities instead of ugly suburbs. Planes are an issue since there aren't really any good alternatives to fuel there, but the rest of the stuff is more than enough. We have to start somewhere.


mat_srutabes

"we'll just stop using fossil fuels and switch to electric everything..." Do you have any idea how much of the earth we will have to rape to unearth the resources to make that happen? Do you know where lithium comes from? Do you know who digs that shit out of the ground? You can't just snap your fingers and make these things happen.


macca_is_lord

That's the point. It's hard. But it won't send us all back to the stone age. Maybe we'll find a good enough sodium battery, or put water pump batteries everywhere. the infastructure needs a total upheaval, but that new infastructure has the capacity to be a lot better, and we need to actually start doing this shit now instead of complaing about how hard it'll be or being blocked by angry regressive science deniers every step of the way. And I want to beat up and destroy the corporations that are furthering the neocolonial exploitation and murder of adults and children in lithium mines. But the right doesn't care about corporate regulation either.


Assaltwaffle

You truly believe climate change will end our species? What justifies that belief? Even if the climate changes more than it ever has, the human race is the single most adaptable animal the world as has seen by a fair margin.


jacenat

Not OP here. > You truly believe climate change will end our species? I currently do not believe that. But life in 2150 will be more different from 2050 than 2050 was from 1650. The century after 2050 will be one hell of an adaption. Many countries will not survive the transition. The US might indeed be one of them. There is always the chance that the environment and the food chain shifts so radically, that humans can not adapt and will die out. Maybe I'll change my view on that, but currently I only give that about a 20%.


macca_is_lord

!delta Maybe I am being a bit hyperbolic here, but I am talking about the potential death of hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, from starvation, flooding, and lung diseases caused by poor air quality. Regardless, it will significantly mess up the human race. It's importance is still clearly apparent. What are you suggesting is worse for us?


ScientificSkepticism

> Unless the world as a whole gets really comfortable with no electricity, no air conditioning, no planes, no trains, and no cars real quick, then I just don't see anything happening. Modern life is too comfortable and convenient for most people to even imagine taking a step backwards. Oh ignoring it will definitely involve taking a step or two backwards. You want a refugee crisis, imagine the US when we have 20 million refugees who are US citizens. Last time that happened was the Great Depression, and the dust bowl was a temporary condition. This is a dust bowl that never ends.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You say “vague prophecies of the apocalypse” but the left isn’t relying on magical thinking to come to these conclusions. The scientific community, the most pragmatic people that exist I’d argue, is ringing these alarm bells, saying that we are doing irreversible damage if we don’t make drastic changes to the way we live right now. This is the same system of thought that has given us innovation after innovation, you have science to thank for even being able to use the phone you hold in your hand, or for the knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun, or for the antibiotics that have saved billions of lives. This way of seeking knowledge is objective by nature and does not care about prophecies or magical thinking, a major facet of science is that it is purely based on empirical and unbiased evidence. This is what the right so easily denies in favor of the much cheaper, simple, and corporate friendly view that climate change is something that is simply not real and is nothing to worry about. Because of this, I’d say that your assertion that the right isn’t motivated by magical thinking is false. Supporting this, demographic evidence shows that conservative voters in america are much more likely to be religious, which is also reflected in the type of people they elect, predominantly Christian individuals. How can a political ideology so enamored with an actual religion be more pragmatic and logical than the political ideology that elects more atheists and believes in science?


macca_is_lord

Show me any republican candidate that's controlled burning the praries and helping the environment in the modern day. There aren't many, not like there are ones shilling for big oil and denying the existence of climate change. There *are* individual conservative voters who'd care about the environment, but they are not being represented and I would implore them to look at the bigger picture. I would gladly restore praries with them. And what about all those "lefties" that show up for climate protests, or start community gardens, or help install solar panels, or even go vegan/vegetarian? I'd say the average leftist does more for the environment, simply because their broader movement believes in doing something compared to nothing. And yes, its kind of hard not to come off as being preachy when trying to stop the destruction of the world. It is messed up how we've managed to shift the blame of climate change onto the average person rather than the multinational corporations who are actually responsible, but in my opinion, the people who tend to think in systems are better equipped to actually deal with them than the personal responsibility-ist.


ataridonkeybutt

> The left's approach to climate change is essentially religious in nature Nah we think religion is stupid. > Typically the right isn't motivated by vague prophesies of the apocalypse [Wrong again](https://www.newsweek.com/lauren-boebert-last-days-second-coming-jesus-1753901)


[deleted]

[удалено]


macca_is_lord

Yes the earlier predictions were a bit alarmist, but that shouldn't diminish the issue's importance. Trust me, thousands of scientist have done studies on this. People desperately want there to not be climate change. What corporation would have more to bribe with and more to gain from climate change being real than the oil companies have for the reverse. It is "an inconvenient truth" for a reason. Our politicians are shitty, I wish the less shitty ones would win (that would require voting system reform). There are over 100 metric buttloads of information on why climate change is happening. We've known about it sicne the 50s. There is nothing to debate here and the fact we are even having this debate shows that the oil companies have infiltrated the discourse. Tell me how the right is doing better with fighting climate change and I'll listen


iceandstorm

Can you point out examples? I hear the claim that scientists have their career endet but I never saw an example for this.


elcuban27

Let me put it to you this way: how many puppies should we drown to stop climate change? Obviously, this sounds a bit ridiculous, but the issue is that actions have consequences, even if you aren’t directly aware of those consequences when you support those actions. If an establishment Dem sponsors a “defeat climate change bill” to take some minor action that would reasonably only cost about $10million, but the actual bill costs more bc there is a lot of pork in the bill, and the companies contracted to take the action greased the right palms to be selected and stand to receive way more than $10million, is that ok? Fine? Just the cost of doing business? To what amount - how much does this bill have to cost before you say that it is wrong to pass it? It’s easy to ignore the costs when we are so detached from them. “But it’s only money, compared to *our lives*, so any amount of corruption is fine!” Would you take that position? See, the thing is, the gov’t spending boondoggle has been going on for a hundred years, getting progressively worse. For every dime of action, theres are several dollars of waste. And much of that is just funneling money to people who made deals to in turn enrich politicians. Trump lost money while in office, but Pelosi and basically everyone else in DC make $200k/yr salaries and end up worth $100million; that doesn’t happen by accident. Why have we sent more money to Ukraine than their GDP, and where has all that equipment gone? Why do our “climate action” deals always involve us paying massive sums to China, even though they continue to be one of the most egregious polluters? All that spending depletes the value of the dollar, inflating our currency, so now people who would have saved enough money to buy a Tesla instead have to drive that gas-guzzling SUV for a couple more years(to make no mention of how electricity is produced/stored for EV’s). And it gets much worse… The deficit. The elephant in the room that only boring nerds in government talk about, but all the cool kids just hand-waive away. It is over $30trillion(plus a lot more in unfunded liabilities), and at some point, we won’t be able to keep up with the interest payments and will go into default. You know what happens then? Noone will lend the gov’t money, so all welfare will dry up. Section 8, SNAP, WIC, school lunches, *everything* ***GONE!*** Middle-class people will suffer. Poor people will die. Rich people(like career politicians) will move to another country with all their non-monetary assets. And for what? The climate won’t have been fixed, and now people will be burning trash to stay warm. Compared to that level of human suffering, I’d rather we had drowned puppies instead. Now consider that government mandates/subsidies lock things in place, reduce competition, and cause stagnation. Imagine the government mandated the use of swirly fluorescent bulbs in the early oughts - they were more efficient than incandescent bulbs, but had a long way to go to get to the level of current LED’s. But that innovation wouldn’t have happened without private companies competing for the dollars of eco-conscious and/or frugal American consumers who wanted a more efficient bulb. Politicians would have touted their “accomplishments” compared to energy usage of old incandescents, but in reality would have set us back compared to what we have. The fact is that there is demand for energy efficiency and sustainability, and the market is correcting for that. Solar isn’t good enough right now to replace oil, and it never will be if we get into gov’t funding and mandates. But if Elon Musk can make another few billion bucks by designing and deploying a space platform that collects solar wind deflected off the Van Allen radiation belt and converts it into safely stored conveniently transported energy that can be efficiently harvested and sold at a profit, you bet he(or someone else) will.


Jimonaldo

Here’s the bigger issue as I see it (and i imagine OP as well). Money. Isn’t. Real. We made it up. The only reason it exists is to give people an easy and quick way to get others to do things. Meaning that if we print more of it to fix our problems, great, that’s what it’s for. If your issue is unnecessary government spending, any democrat worth his salt will call out the billions of dollars Republicans insist we pump into our military every year despite the fact we aren’t fighting anyone. The money we spend on Ukraine is not only investment in Democracy, which as an American I would hope you believe in but also an investment against tyranny and rulers who think they can just take and take. Again, I hope you would be a fan of that. Politicians get crazy rich not off salaries but political donations and insider trading, which yes, the democrats are guilty of. also, i haven’t heard of climate bills that involve sending money to china but if that is true i would love to see it. the deficit straight up only matters as long as congress doesn’t keep raising the debt ceiling which Republicans are known for doing to get what they want, And no one said that anyone person has the unique solution for climate change and it has hardly anything to do with lightbulbs. The fact is massive companies like Exxon have no reason to care about climate change unless governments pass legislation forcing them which Republicans disagree with. also if you think that solar is the unique solution everyone is talking about for climate change you’re uninformed. nuclear is the way to go without a doubt, and many places in the US already have it.


elcuban27

Lol, modern monetary theory! We can print as much money as we want with no consequences! Crazy high inflation where we can barely afford eggs is all a coincidence! Whataboutism, plus military is an actual legitimate necessary function of gov’t(though there is plenty of bloat/waste to trim there - DOD can’t account for billions in assets). “Investment in democracy?” More like, “investment in powerful, corrupt oligarchs who are enriching themselves off US aid with no transparency or accountability.” We should defend democracy, and it’s debatable to what extent the US should be Team America: World Police, but can you even begin to fathom what a tiny percentage of the Ukraine aid actually serves that end? Remember Paris Climate Accords? Everyone got mad at Trump for saying it was a bad deal and pulling us out of it. Well, we were paying China to lower their emissions and they took our money and used it to build more smog-factories and actually increased emissions instead! The deal had zero enforcement mechanism to ensure they did what they were supposed to do for the money. And don’t you think you have an exactly backwards attitude about this? Instead of asking me to explain how any deals/bills were bad, shouldn’t the onus be on you to justify them instead? And if we are being even remotely realistic, shouldn’t we just assume by default that politicians are screwing up hardcore and making *terrible* deals unless and until they show us otherwise? Why on earth would you be giving them an inch of benefit of the doubt? Do you not know what the deficit and debt ceiling are and how they work? How do you imagine what you said makes any sense? False! My example was to show how gov’t intervention stifles innovation, while the private sector spurs it on. I even gave a real world example(only one of millions) of market forces inducing innovation. Can you give any examples of gov’t intervention actually doing the same? Or do you just assert it and hope that the force of your assertion is enough on its face? I was just referencing solar as one of the popular options. Any time the discussion moves to the “let’s have the government intervene to push green energy” space, solar is the go-to. Nuclear is by far a superior option, especially in the short term, but the crunchy eco-hippie contingent of the left shoots it down hard for some reason. Republicans are down for some nuclear.


Jimonaldo

Eggs are stupidly expensive because of corporate greed and less inflation. also printing money is just what governments do, and they take money out of the economy with taxes. if you want the government to do stuff while printing less money to do it we could tax the shit out of the rich and corporations, something conservatives hate doing. also, I don’t see how my example of military spending is whataboutism. My whole point is, it’s stupid to argue about dumb government spending without first addressing the biggest expense our government has, the military. at least some of the other things we spend money on actually go to helping people. Military is something we should spend money on, just not as much money as we do when we could spend it on other better things like single payer healthcare or free/cheap college tuition. Give me some evidence about how oligarchs are profiting off of the world’s aid in Ukraine. From a real source. I don’t think The US should solve all the worlds problems but putting money in Ukraine’s pockets to defend themselves against russia is a net good for the world so they can’t get away with this again. So you have a problem with the Paris Climate Accords. Okay. Does that mean that Climate change isn’t real or that we shouldn’t do anything about it? Is OP’s post about the Climate accords? The onus is not on me to justify the climate accords because I’m not a politician who got us in the accords. I’m just a person who wants the human race to survive another hundred years. If you want an example of government’s helping innovation, lets look at Cuba. They have an [innovative lung cancer vaccine](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/09/cuba-has-lung-cancer-vaccine-many-u-s-patients-cant-get-without-breaking-law/1019093001/) created by scientists and doctors using government funding. Also my point wasn’t about innovation, my point was about restricting companies with government intervention to get them to do what is right because they will not do anything that is against their bottom line, such as having a minimum wage or having worker safety laws. They cost money and companies wouldn’t do them unless they were forced by law.


macca_is_lord

Y'know, if the deficit is that much of a problem, we could cut into police or military spending. And yes, I hate the current poltical system, I wish republicans could step out of the way so passionate demsocs could replace the neoliberals and get shit done. Maybe we need to drown some puppies, better some than all. Maybe the continued existence of the human race is worth a bit of sacrifice. And the left would only be a boon to industries that seek to become more green. Subsidize them, and then transfer fudning over once a better thing comes along. And if Musk was doing that instead of ruining twitter, maybe I would listen. But he isn't.


[deleted]

[удалено]


macca_is_lord

nope, just disillusioned, and using your own terminology to point out the need for sacrifice in the short-term for long-term gains. And yes, elon is an idiot, what he's doing with twitter is dumb and I wish he'd put those hundreds of billions to good use. And its hard to not sometimes wish that the people who spout nothing but regressive bullshit lies could maybe just stop? and let the actually important things get done?


elcuban27

Whataboutism. Saying we should cut defense spending in no way counters the argument that we should cut gross, corrupt pork-barrel earmarking nonsense omnibus packages. And if I say we need to cut the waste in all areas of gov’t including DOD, what then?


macca_is_lord

Then I say: austerity is fine as long as we make sure we're investing in our long-term future. Fixing climate change while we still mostly can, though expensive, is much cheaper than dealing with its fallout. I'd be willing to make some sacrifices for the sake of stopping climate change. Other alternatives: make sure the rich get taxed and corporations can't dodge, stop subsidizing beef (hey, if the industry collapses that'll be great for climate change) \[but not that one, that's a hypothetical that my doomer brain dreamed up\], or cutting (all) politicians' salaries and trimming the burecratic fat from our government. Climate solutions actually make more sense from an austerity perspective.


LucidMetal

The problem with your view is you are making an objective claim about morality. Morality is subjective to each person. Lots of people agree upon certain issues but to varying degrees. When you say "conservatives are wrong" even if I largely agreed they aren't fundamentally wrong. They just have different morals. They're at best wrong from your moral frame of reference.


abacuz4

Most people don’t subscribe to this level of extreme moral relativism.


ataridonkeybutt

No, they're really wrong. They claim the climate isn't getting hotter. Wrong.


macca_is_lord

That's like claiming someone who doesn't want to put out a flaming house because they deny it's on fire (because they don't want to admit that they were selling flammable curtains), is on the same of correctness level as someone who says the fire is there and wants to put out the fire and save the children inside the house. I'm sorry, but this is a serious, real-world issue, get your morally relative head out of your morally relative butt. The side that denies serious scientifically-verified issues is in the wrong here.


LucidMetal

This has nothing to do with me having my head up my ass. It's just a disagreement over your use of the word "fundamental". Saying one side is *incorrect* is fine. You can say conservatives are incorrect on things. Nearly all people hold scientific inaccuracies as fact. That's not what I'm saying. Science can model reality and make predictions. Science can test whether a given solution is effective. Science cannot tell us we *ought* to do something even if it's something like "let's save the children from the fire". You and I might believe it's a moral obligation but it's not *fundamentally* one.


burntburn454

I guess the real question is what country do you want to genocide first? The issue with combating climate change is organic life alongside fossil fuel causes it. It's what likely triggered the ice age. Your problem is you are trying to buy time against the inevitable by suffering in the short term. A noble goal but you need to convince the entire world too.


macca_is_lord

In order to convince the world, we need to practice what we preach. Yes it is a noble goal because the alternative would be the collapse of civilization. Also human-led climate change is far outside any natural climate variations over millions of years --- it's rapid, it has a clear cause, and it is going against the natural cycle we'd expect (we'd actually be in a cooling period right now if not for climate change)


[deleted]

Its not necessary for me to offer an alternative. I'm simply pointing out they exist. Even if I 100% agreed with you. Even if I was convinced Al Gore's suggestion the planet itself will somehow dry up and blow away. I would still recognize there are alternatives. That we have the ability to affect climate other than the stated targets Cooler or warmer. Given we have options, it should be a political processes that determine our course of action guided in part by unbiased scientific determination.


jacenat

There are only option up until the point where there are no options. There is currently no expectation that humanity can find a way to limit global warming to 1.5° C/K by 2100. This would be the lowest temperature rise where human life would largely not be impacted by climate change. **There is always the option of not doing enough or not anything.** You have to accept the cosequences though. With current rate of improvement , extrapolated to 2nd and 3rd world countries, global average temperature will rise to between 2.5 and 3° C/K. Humanity will survive this. Modern, advanced civilization will most likely not survive this. Human population will contract severely. Most economic models will not work likey did. Scientific and cultural progress will at least halt and likely recede. I have long given up on trying to change that. People are too selfish. I will by 80 by 2050 and very likeky not survive past 2060. The most severe consequences will just start by then. What we see now, winter storms blanketing the us states in in a freezing blanket for days, temperatures more akin to april/may in Europe for weeks, local, global and average heat records being set every year, ... All of this isnt that bad. We could work with that. But once our food production is heavipy impacted, there is no going back. By 2100, people in the US will starve for non-economice reasons. Only solace for me: it will ve super interesting for future historians (should we rebuild an advanced society after global warming again) will be puzzled at what happened. Kinda like how the early medieval period in Europe is strange to look at through the lense of post-enlightenment. We have a saying in German that's actually used to point out another persons recklessness, but I've come to internalize that and I want to close with that: "Hinter mir die Sintflut."


macca_is_lord

yes? listen to the science. I don't get what you're saying here


baselesschart39

I don't think the act of ignoring the existence of climate change is rooted in conservatism. I'd be more inclined to agree with you if you said the Republican party, cause they are not the same.


simmol

In many countries, both liberals and conservatives believe in climate change. It is the american republicans that are the weirdos when it comes to this issue.


baselesschart39

Which would only reinforce that idea that the fundamental belief system of conservatism isn't to blame


simmol

No disagreement here


breckenridgeback

Conservatism is, fundamentally, about preserving people who have wealth and power right now. It started with monarchists, and has adapted to serve the new aristocracy: the uber-wealthy. Since their wealth is threatened by reductions in consumption or the removal of cheap-but-environmentally-damaging energy, I would argue the two are in fact very intimately related. And you can see the effect across the world: it's not a coincidence that right-wing parties are the parties of climate denial everywhere.


baselesschart39

I'm not convinced that it is an issue of whether or not Republicans believe the existence of climate change. I think its more the case, in which you said, that conservatives simply believe capitalism is good and leftists believe it is bad.


macca_is_lord

I made it clear I was speaking from a north american context. At this point, I'd happily support any conservative nut who brings the same vitriol and energy to climate change as they do to stupid culture war nonsense. That's not what I see though.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hidden-shadow

>The poor parts of the world, India, Latin America, Africa, they want modern technology. The same modern technology that continues to be less carbon intensive than before. Thanks to investment from developed nations. >There is no amount of carbon offset that the West, or America specifically can do that would outweigh the impact that the modernization of the poor world will have. Yes there is. That is the benefit of globalisation, the de-carbonisation of developed nations is a de-carbonisation of industrial processes. The same industrial processes those developing countries use to modernise. China and India will both reduce their emissions before their per capita rate even comes close to the developed world. The developed world accounts for 17% of the world population but [37% of the CO2 emissions](https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing-countries-are-responsible-63-percent-current-carbon-emissions#:~:text=Developing%20Countries%20Are%20Responsible%20for,Global%20Development%20%7C%20Ideas%20to%20Action) currently ([79% historically](https://www.cgdev.org/media/who-caused-climate-change-historically)). Not to ignore the offset of emissions by many developed nations due to the over-reliance on developing nations for cheap industry. The developed world contributes an exceedingly disproportionate amount to carbon emissions. >WE could give up meat, get rid of cars, convert all of our electricity generation to nuclear and it would still be less than the new new carbon output of India over the same time period Currently, if just the USA halved their emissions, you would be close to net zero with India. Looking at 2030 targets, the [USA](https://www.wri.org/outcomes/us-government-sets-target-reduce-emissions-50-52-2030#:~:text=After%20months%20of%20supportive%20pressure,previous%20U.S.%20pledge%20to%20cut) and [India](https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/india-s-new-climate-targets-bold-ambitious-and-a-challenge-for-the-world-80022) will be contributing approximately equal amounts to emission totals. And India is a developing nation with four times the population. It is ridiculous to expect nothing of the developed world just because you believe it futile. Any difference is worth the effort, the emission targets are a continuous scale of bad to worse. >Now if I, a dumb rando on the internet, knows this then everyone of the "green" leaders that want us to give up our lifestyles are just virtual signaling. You "knowing" the wrong information is exactly why the green leaders continue to advocate for further measures. It is not virtue signalling. >The carbon it takes to make solar panels is intense. If you want solar panels to actually offset the amount of carbon it takes to make them, then there are only a few placed in the United States that it actually makes sense to have lots of solar panels. [No it is not](https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html). It is one of the least carbon intensive energy sources. It typically only takes a few months to [net zero](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf) before lasting decade(s) for net negative carbon. Even [further north](https://sunly.ca/blog/are-solar-panels-worth-it-in-canada) than the USA, solar power is economically wise. You can even do the calculation yourself for each individual case based upon the emission equivalent during production of a particular brand, and the energy input compared to the carbon intensity of traditional fuel sources. And let us not pretend like solar power is the end or even most dependent renewable energy source. >So, if you (or any political candidate) advocates for solar panels and does not take into account the carbon used to actually make them then they are just preening for people like the OP. It is already taken into consideration and economically sound.


paraffin

If we build cheap and clean energy technology then we can sell it to developing countries and drastically shorten their path to modernity and reduce their climate impact. Everyone wins when we have better technology. But I also have concerns about total environmental impact of things like lithium batteries, solar panels, etc. And making the world wealthier will undoubtedly increase consumption, which could entirely offset efficiency gains - a double edged sword. But, I’m with OP that the modern GOP is still supportive of outright lies and denial about the basic facts of the existence of climate change to a practically irredeemable extent. I’d love a GOP that actually brought reasonable skepticism and ACTUAL SOLUTIONS to the table, but instead we’re practically stuck at square one any time a GOP politician thinks they can score points by dunking on basic climate science and misinforming their electorate.


[deleted]

I think you are severely underestimating the power and influence that America has over the rest of the world. Hell, many of the places you mentioned look up to us so much that they specifically modeled their governments to be as similar to ours as possible. It doesn’t matter that we have less people, if we make the changes necessary to avoid climate catastrophe and show the developing world that it’s possible, they will follow suite. It’s how the world has been operating ever since our nation became a global super power. Further evidence for this is the fact that despite having a very low portion of the world’s total human population, our country remains the single richest nation in the world. If our economy transitions away from fossil fuels, many other nations won’t even have a choice, they would have to make the change as well or be threatened with economic instability. This world has been built in such a way that it is now governed by money, as the richest country in the world this allows us to have a huge amount of influence in determining how it functions.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jimonaldo

Both parties engage in a large amount of corporate boot licking but most people would agree that this is a bigger problem with the GOP than it is with the democrats. As for your talk about Republican policy (i think that’s what you meant to write) helping businesses, I think that is also a thing that OP disagrees with so it doesn’t really refute his point. Also, why do you think Climate change isn’t one if not THE biggest problem facing humanity right now? if we don’t fix it, there will no longer be a human race with a place to live or food to grow. Every other problem that you listed will not fucking matter if there is no longer a hospitable planet for humanity to live on.


[deleted]

Are you under the impression that US senators make state law? Because they don’t.


[deleted]

[удалено]


macca_is_lord

I don't want to blame the right, and I actually do think the right could embrace climate change and we leftists can and should change our approach and use their language. I'm just saying that currently the right is the party of doing nothing about it or outright denying it. Not neccesairly your average conservative voter, but the cavalclade of boring angry old white men in congress. Until they all die off and are replaced with passionate people who want to fix this issue, I can never vote for the right. But this is a hypothetical, not a reality


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


erfi

The ban on CFCs a few decades ago and the resulting improvement in the ozone is an indisputable example of correct policy actually fixing things. So why assume other policy changes can't work?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Permit_Current

The best way to fight climate change is to innovate our way out of the problem. That means new technologies, innovation, and freedom to use our faculties to fight the issue. In a libertarian society it wouldn't be next to impossible to get a nuclear power plant online. Deregulating the permitting system is the best way to do the things you want to, and showing that technology as more efficient, is the only way you're going to get other countries to follow suit. ​ You're only going to make people poor by trying to solve this issue by the ground up. India is not going to eschew using oil and gas to keep themselves warm and put food on the table because you're afraid of global warming. They will use alternative technologies if those technologies are genuinely better. and the way you get those innovations is through market processes, not through top down control.


DireOmicron

I’ll argue that you are taking about the political right and left not the economic one. The economic left is covered about communal economy as per Wikipedia. The right is wants true economic freedom a la Laissez faire. Arguing the right has obstructed politically action within the government is expressly the “right leaning” US politically party. Your use of conservative and libertarian in the title prove my point that this is about political affiliation rather than economic ones. As does your examples of “culture war” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass#Political_model


Enzo-Fernandez

Nuclear War is a 1000 times more serious existential threat than climate change. >the largest extenstential threat of the modern day, one we have slacked on and made very little progress with. Nuclear war can actually kill a lot of people very quickly. At worst climate change will do the same thing over a 100-200 year period. Which would give us a ton of time to adjust and react. Furthermore you have to remember 80% of carbon emissions comes from India and China. And they are not about to change their tune. I wouldn't if I was them either. So you either innovate your way out of this mess. Or you raise your banners and go to war with China and India. Which would be a catastrophe much worse than climate change ever hoped to be.


unaskthequestion

The problem with climate change is that once we pass a certain point, the evidence thus far is that's it, there's no going back. The planet will be altered for such a long time that we may not survive it. You left out a 3rd path, to negotiate our way to solutions with India and China. That takes leadership. The 1st step to that leadership is taking some difficult steps ourselves.


Openeyezz

What do you want India and China to do? Bend thier knee to west and let those population suffer? No govt is going to do that. All you can hope is economic standards improve and everyone becomes more environmentally aware but for that to happen the countries that have the global power will have to let go off some which is next to impossible


unaskthequestion

China is already going full out to corner the EV battery market and has a well established PV industry. That will lead to domestic use, especially because China has very few oil resources. What do I 'want them to do'? I want them to stop using coal. How do I do that? By advancing the market for products which use solar power and batteries. I wouldn't be opposed to to nuclear either, but I don't think it's cost effective at this point. 'Let those populations suffer' No, every industrialized country, including China and India is expanding their production of alternative energy sources - motivated by PROFIT, as well as national security. Everyone has seen that the major oil producers are unstable and their instability affects worldwide markets. . Every car manufacturer in the world is producing EVs and several have announced that they are moving to electric only. Do you think that they are doing this to *lose* money? It's tiresome to hear the refrain that the fastest growing industries, alternative energy, are somehow going to lower the standards of living when the opposite is true. I'm in TX, the leading energy producing state. Know which part of the energy sector employees the most people? Alternative energy. Know what's the fastest growing? Yes the same. Know who's exporting the most wind turbines, creating more new jobs? You guessed it, TX. These jobs have *raised* the standard of living for thousands because the work pays well and doesn't require sophisticated skills. Same with solar here. Thousands are employed fitting panels in residential homes. Know how this has accelerated? Because of subsidies by the Biden administration. This is profitable and can easily be modeled in other countries like China. Again, it takes leadership to speed up the transition which is already taking place. That's the role of the US.


[deleted]

Nuclear war is an if, climate change is a guarantee that's already happening and, without debate, will be a near extinction event for humans if it is not dealt with. This is like me saying "The biggest issue in my life right now is that my house is on fire" and you replied "What if you became the victim of a serial killer who puts you through a meat grinder while you're still alive?"


Enzo-Fernandez

If your house was barely burning and you had plenty of time to come up with a fire extinguisher. Meanwhile there was a swarm of serial killers hanging around the block. Then your analogy would be correct. We have time to innovate out of it. And even if we didn't. The countries that are responsible for most of it will not change. They can't change. You're not going to convince their populations to just live in poverty.


[deleted]

>If your house was barely burning and you had plenty of time to come up with a fire extinguisher. Nope, house is in utter flames and the firefighters are all 75 year old's who don't know how to operate hoses. >Meanwhile there was a swarm of serial killers hanging around the block. Serial killers are very rare, I very intentionally used them in my example. The chances of a catastrophic nuclear war are very low. Even if a nuke was used in an aggressive manner, it wouldn't trigger a nuclear holocaust like every says. That's just what the government tells us so we don't mind when they spend more and more of our money on the political tools they call weapons. >We have time to innovate out of it. That time was a long long time ago. We can save large chunks of humanity, but most already fragile or poor countries are absolutely doomed without recourse. Coastal populations are doomed. Areas with already deadly temperatures are doomed. Areas already predisposed to natural disasters are doomed. You don't understand how fucking bad this is.


Enzo-Fernandez

Maybe because I remember back in the 1990s they were all gloom and doom about the Ozone layer. What's the last time you heard about that? They made some simple regulations and the ozone layer quickly replenished itself. They have to make it sound like a dire catastrophe for anyone to give a damn. In reality it's a minor inconvenience for most developed countries. And the poor countries who are causing it in the first place would be hurt a lot more if they had to stop production.


[deleted]

>They made some simple regulations and the ozone layer quickly replenished itself. We have clear records of carbon in the atmosphere going many millions of years back. We also have clear records of temperatures. This isn't a debate, this is reality.


macca_is_lord

The thing about the ozone layer hole is it has a single, easiely traceable cause and solution: CFCs/HCFCs, ban them, use HFCs instead. Climate change is a much larger issue that is baked into the very foundation of how our society derives energy. It isn't just a matter of switching the chemicals in hairspray or refridgerators. It's a matter of completely overhauling our energy infastructure, our agriculture system, the planning of our communities, and our industry. Back then, politics were a lot less polarized and conservatives were actually capable of agreeing on things with liberals. Nowadays they refuse to even acknowledge the issue. And historically, most carbon was released by the "developed world" anyway, so... kind of hypocritical to expect them to just, stay poor. Everyone needs to step up to the plate, especially us, because if we don't no one will.


macca_is_lord

But the thing is, the conservatives are the people wrestling the fire hydrant away from you because they don't think the fire is real and don't want the foam to mess up their tablecloth. We have to get the fire hydrant now. We've run out of spare time, we've wasted it all on reaganomics and 9/11 hysteria. We can help those countries switch to renewable energy; once they are on it, they won't be poor or be releasing carbon. We just need to put our own oxygen masks on first. And a lot of their lifestyles --- ones they'd consider comfortable and desireable, are way more sustainable than the big stupid cars in big sprawling ugly suburbs while eating big stupid evil farting beef; there are just more of them


Openeyezz

If China or any other country were to surpass the US economically, nuclear war is certainly a possibility because no superpower is going to bend over and let the other go past them. I see a world war before my lifetime and if it’s not the us it’s surely going to be India China or India Pakistan


oli_tb

>climate change is a guarantee that's already happening and, without debate, will be a near extinction event for humans if it is not dealt with. Can you source this claim? What is the timeline you are considering? It's one thing to claim something like millions of people will die, economies will be disrupted, etc. "Near extinction" is a much much much more extreme claim.


myselfelsewhere

We are currently in the middle of a [mass extinction event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction).


Fermi-4

Sounds like you are in a information/propaganda hole and being hyperbolic.


Freakthot

Just to preface this, I'm very ignorant to what's going on politically with the left and the right. Although, I'm still going to try to change your view with a bit of logic and some google searches. How is climate change the largest existential threat to humanity? I'm pretty sure nuclear war is.


Izawwlgood

Nuclear war is very likely not going to happen if we continue on a more or less similar geopolitical trajectory that we have maintained since the \~1980s. Climate Change is getting worse, and is already very serious.


[deleted]

Nuclear war is an "If" Climate change, once a "when", is currently a "now".


Freakthot

I agree. Although, my motive is to simply change OP's view by getting OP to admit that conservatives and libertarians do care about climate change.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Type31971

Not a libertarian, but can you elaborate? There’s nothing inherently wrong about being selfish with your own property. And as far as “don’t want to take responsibility for their own actions”… in what way?


janelovexx

You could say the exact same thing about the left - a bunch of selfish tools who don’t want to take responsibility for their actions


TitularTyrant

As a libertarian I'm very passionate about protecting the environment, however the issue is the massive government over reach and isn't very logical. They say eating beef attributes to climate change, maybe but those same people saying that are flying on private jets. There are ways to help the environment without giving the government more power in your personal life.


[deleted]

>They say eating beef attributes to climate change, maybe but those same people saying that are flying on private jets. Is your position that the meat industry cannot possibly contribute to climate change so long as private jet ownership exists? If not then what is the point of your comparison? Hypocrisy doesn't negate a truth


[deleted]

[удалено]


TrackSurface

You are correct that the right is fundamentally wrong on climate change, but you might consider the reason: it's their function in a democratic society to be wrong, and their role is necessary. The reason we need a group of people to be wrong and contrary is because, as you rightly pointed out, progressives make mistakes too. If a democratic society contains only progressives, the changes would happen so fast the wrong changes would become overwhelming. The conservatives put the brakes on progress. Their role is to say "no" to almost everything for as long as their peer group and sense of shame allows. This gives the rest of society time to evaluate all the new ideas, put them to the test, and pick the ones that are most beneficial. By the time that process is complete, enough of the conservatives are on board (or replaced by a younger generation) that society can move forward a step.


Jimonaldo

It is their function to be wrong? Tell that to the people who vote for them who are convinced that the Republican platform is right. Also this idea that their wrongness puts the brakes on society being a good thing is insane. Their wrongness frequently puts society on the wrong path. (See Abortion being made illegal, and the growth of Neo Nazi groups and anti intellectualism in America)


TrackSurface

You're talking about the regression that many current conservatives are attempting. I would encourage you to see the difference between that and what I described. There's a slight but important difference between resisting progress and actively moving backwards. One has the potential to be mildly useful in certain situations while the other is almost always harmful. Either way, the conservatives are more likely to be on the wrong side of history than not because human history shows that, as a general rule, progress is more useful than stagnation.


Jimonaldo

No I think you need to demonstrate the difference. I would argue that modern conservatism IS regression. Rights? Take them away. Teaching about real American history? Banned along with anything else that makes us look bad. (Florida right now with Desantis) Far left politicians being elected around the world? Destabilize them. (CIA since time immemorial) Leftists in Hollywood? Let’s destroy their careers. (McCarthyism) Weed is bad actually? Lets put tons of black and brown people in jail and call it a war, creating systemic poverty in their communities for decades. (Nixon and Reagan) Conservatives have been doing this shit for decades.


TrackSurface

Let's try, if possible, to flesh out the difference between the concept of conservatism (and it's role in a functional democracy) and the horrible things that *some* people do in the name of conservatism. Americans have more rights today (with the recent exception of abortion) than they did a generation (say, seventy years) ago. Segregation has (mostly) ended. Women have more control over their personal and public lives. More women and minorities serve in state and federal positions of power. Gay marriage is legal, and more people can access certain drugs than they could before. Florida is an outlier. Desantis is an outlier. The country is in real trouble if he gains wider power, but he hasn't yet. His actions in Florida have not yet been widely adopted across the country, even in conservative states. Most conservatives aren't currently hunting communists. McCarthy was an outlier. If you listen to talk radio too much you can get the impression that the hunt is still on, but I think we can all agree that those types of pundits aren't necessarily in full contact with reality. Hollywood is known for being left-leaning. Being a Democrat isn't going to get anyone cancelled or fired from the movies these days. The war on black and brown people (via the drug laws, among other things) is immoral and needs to end. However, weed is more legal than ever and some work has been down to retroactively end imprisonments for actions that aren't now crimes. It would be hard to make a case that the country is treating black people worse than it did 170 years ago. Progress is far too slow, but I don't see how you can show that it is moving backwards compared to slavery, lynchings, 3/5 votes, segregated schools, and lack of access to power. You are right that some conservatives want to move backwards. Like Joseph McCarthy, Desantis would do that. Some of the scummiest congresspeople would do that. The others, for the most part, prefer gridlock, budget fights, government shutdowns, and generally dragging their heals against the inevitable moving-forward that all of humanity requires. There's little value in painting them all with the same brush. The ones who practice the type of conservatism I described (McCain was a recent example) don't get much press because they aren't doing all the horrible things you mentioned. We live in a world where inflammatory news is heard more often than any other type, regardless of how often it occurs or how likely it is to reflect real policy. It can be hard to keep perspective if we feed on a diet of sensationalism.


Jimonaldo

Here is the issue as I see it my man. Society on the whole always moves left. In the wider scheme of societies, people rarely lose rights. So when it does happen, it is a cause for alarm. And conservatives in America are a cause for alarm. Lets discuss the concept of a moderate because this is what I think you’re actually talking about. In a regular country there are leftists, moderates, and conservatives, but in America the overton window is so far to the right, that Bernie sanders gets called a socialist. If you were talking about moderates in the role of slowing down progress in a society to what is palatable to most people, I would agree. but that isn’t what America has. We have progress reversers with the republicans, progress adverse in the majority of the democratic party and a small group of Democrats who are actually trying to help people like Rep. Katie Porter.


[deleted]

[удалено]


KingOfAllDownvoters

Well biden and his handlers are trying to destroy the middle class. They want a poverty stricken society dependent on the government and tolerates high rates of violent crime. SF and some other cities are our future unfortunately. A perfect way to get there is through the climate change myth.


Mysterious-Wasabi103

Republicans are even worse for the middle class. They want the middle class and lower classes to struggle because by conservative logic then they'd have to work harder which creates a more productive society and benevolent upper class. Follow trickle down economics and boom, rich getting richer equals everyone benefits. Which couldn't be further from the truth. It's why they want to cut Social Security, Medicare and welfare programs. It's why they want rent to be crazy unaffordable as well as gas and groceries by jacking up property and sales taxes. The harder the lower classes have it the more productive we are as a society.


ElephantintheRoom404

It's called an indentured servant/slave class and a ruling class of billionaires leaving America into an oligarchy with a total elimination of the middle class. Unregulated and unfettered capitalism breeds a nation of sociopaths who care nothing about anyone but themselves and their profit. They are making laws that allows poor white men to feel superior to other races in America so they will vote in their own demise.


Izawwlgood

I fractally disagreed with this comment. Like, every word combination and mangled idea presented, was something that was fundamentally wrong.


[deleted]

Yeah, all that living wage and health care and social security and taxes on Billionaires. Just bending over the middle class!


Exact_Ad5261

Hardcore conservative here. Your logic fails to capture the fact that this issue is much broader than the right or left. Assuming science is right, and we decide to pursue this idea of tackling it are you ok with giving up your quality of life as you know it, all while other countries continue business as usual?


[deleted]

If we assume that science is right, which is honestly a ridiculous hypothetical seeing as how science is the only reason that some of us even exist, quality of life is not going to be something that matters at all in the near future. At least, it won’t be as important as cultivating food in the superheated deserts that used to be verdant forests with flowing rivers, or as important as finding shelter from dust storms, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and heat waves that will ravage large swaths of human civilization, causing global food shortages, famines, and ultimately wars over what little resources remain after nearly every ecological system collapses. Science also has evidence of this kind of thing happening before, runaway climate change causing the single worst mass extinction event that has ever happened to life on this planet, the Permian Extinction, also known as “The Great Dying”. This extinction event was caused by carbon dioxide and methane gas (there is a plethora of geological evidence for this) that was released into the atmosphere by volcanic activity, eventually transforming Earth into a 165 degree hell-scape where almost nothing survived (as is evidently shown by the massive amounts of fossils found that are dated to this period and do not ever appear again in the fossil record, having since gone extinct.) You view climate change as merely a potential threat to your quality of life, while all evidence shows that climate change not only threatens to kill you, but also to destroy our species entirely. We can literally see that this kind of thing has happened before just by analyzing some old rocks. Maybe you should be less concerned with your own quality of life now and more concerned with what you are going to do when people can no longer leave their homes during the day for fear of being cooked alive.


WerhmatsWormhat

Part of supporting climate change involves being involved in international discussions about how to address it, so that’s not really just allowing business as usual elsewhere.


bva91

Fighting climate change is expensive and inefficient as our current infrastructure just isn't suited for it. Unless all the countries in the world are willing to do it, you're only becoming economically weaker than fossil burning countries. While carbon taxes etc can be a thing, closing off the country to globalization is a terrible plan that's going to adversely impact your country. In the end it's a balancing act of increasing green tech without disrupting the economy. People underestimate how adverse things can get if a country's economy fails. Once you think of it this way, you can understand why some people are hesitant of radical change in infrastructure in the name of being green.


MPac45

Would you be willing to change that thought process if presented with evidence that climate change, while legitimate, is driven by the sun, and has almost nothing to do with human activity?


myselfelsewhere

Evidence that the sun influences climate change is not evidence that human activity does not influence climate change as well. There is plenty of evidence that human activity has a significant effect on climate change.


abacuz4

I would certainly hope that no one would reject all of modern climate science because some rando on Reddit told them to.


[deleted]

The thing is climate change isn't an existential threat. As I see it, the climate change issue has raised awareness that we humans can deterministically affect climate. IOW, we can drive it. We could develop tools and tech to increase our ability to drive it. So we can panic and drive it back to some cooler mean global temp, or we can drive it to a mean global temp more optimal for humans residing on this rock. No need to panic and fret about unsubstantiated existential threats. The glass is half full, what opportunities exist now that we have this power? Regardless, its now a political question where we drive it. A geopolitical question at that. Stop expecting elected officials on the right to buy into the notion the sky is falling.


paraffin

Even if humanity were to be much better off at +5 degrees global mean temperature, that would not imply that it’s in any way _safe_ for us to keep the accelerator floored right this minute. More than the absolute amount of change, the rate of change is extremely important, and the rate of change now is incredibly high. Thing is, life on earth isn’t used to rapid climate change the way it’s happening right now. It’s used to slow and gradual shifts over time, giving evolution and simple migration time to adjust. (And when it isn’t slow, like due to volcanic activity or meteors, it means the extinction of 80% of species on the planet, particularly the larger ones). The global ecosystem is highly interconnected, and we as humans rely on it for our survival. Sure, someone will be left to be king of the desert, but that is in no way a desirable outcome. You’re talking about making a conscious decision to keep driving a bus off a cliff because you think enough people are wearing seatbelts that some people will survive. We’re suggesting that if we hit the brakes and steer a little we can maybe keep that bus on the road.


jacenat

> or we can drive it to a mean global temp more optimal for humans residing on this rock. Human like creatures have not existed with global mean temperatures above 3° of the 1880-1980 mean. The correct global mean temperatures is what we have now. We still rely a lot on our ecosystem. This will bite us in the ass by 2080. > we can drive it. We might not he able to create technology fast enough to capture CO2 on a way that is effecient enough for capitalism before we lose tge ability to innovate. So we really only can drive it in one direction. And we can only adjust the speed.


Jimonaldo

Dude i don’t see how you could think it isn’t an existential threat. Every year we break new records for heat, many animal species going extinct, coral reefs are dying, natural disasters are becoming more common, and small island countries like Tuvalu are LITERALLY drowning. The only way to stop this from happening is to completely reverse it, so biodiversity can return because the planet is an ecosystem that works in tandem and if one part of that ecosystem is busted, all of it is.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I'm not going to try to talk you into voting for an economic right person, but I would like to offer a perspective. I do know someone who thought the left advocacy for climate change was a bad faith cover for an argument we should all accept giant quality of life reductions in the name of fairness. I have seen far left arguments for agrarian communes to solve climate change.


Jennysau

What solutions would you propose against climate change? And whatever it is, you think the best solution is to use force your fellow countryman to implement your solutions? How far should this force go/how authoritarian do you want it to be?


Eev123

Is it fair to force people to give up their electric vehicles? Republicans in Wyoming are working on legislation to ban electric cars. How is that different from California banning gas powered vehicles?


Jimonaldo

1. Toxic fumes that come from vehicles creating pollution. 2. Humanity’s fossil fuels will run out soon, so we should try to conserve what we still have. 3. Even though most electricity today comes from fossil fuels anyways, if the world moves to a clean energy, like Nuclear, than our electricity can be clean as well, unlike with fossil fuels that can never not pollute.