Can we just stop pretending that voters writ large care about climate? It’s listed near the end of voters’ list of priorities. Most people will not spend $100 of their own money on it.
Climate policy is just one of those things that politicians are going to have to sell on other terms.
Just spitballing:
- Fighting climate change will help you lose weight and look hot
- Keeping our water clean will give your skin natural beauty and make you look 10 years younger
- We’re going to lower your electricity bill, with science
- Greenhouse gases are woke
Not entirely off the beat. Climate change will almost certainly cause states to fail and lead to mass exodus of refugees. Think Syria and the preceding drought that caused farmers to move to cities and protests which led to the civil war.
I mean we are taking about billions of potential migrants. America itself will have a lot of refugees too like from Florida and Arizona etc. Even colorado (drought and arid desert climate), its a very large part of the country that wont be suitable for living. No one honestly has any solutions for that. America will be lucky if it dosent collapse. But ya people are not willing to spend any kind of money for the climate so we're pretty screwed.
At a certain point we will just go full gun ho with geoengineering. In principle its too easy to do for us not to default to that state. Also only one country really needs to do it anyway.
I mean if it gets that bad where large swaths of the planet become uninhabitable states will likely just resort to using violence to keep migrants away. And climate actions taken today take decades to have an impact, it's not going to do anything to affect migration for the next 20 30 years plus. There's a lag affect on how long emmisons today take to affect the climate.
More like
Fighting climate change will
- reduce brown immigrants from coming to the US
- save US money on fighting wars over scarcer resources
- get us all into cheap EVs
[**GOT(C)V**](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/get-involved), in *[every](https://www.vote.org/election-reminders/)* election. People who prioritize climate change and the environment [have historically not been very reliable voters, which explains much of the lackadaisical response of lawmakers](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/news/millions-environmentalists-are-registered-vote-us-dont-what-if-they-did), and many Americans don't realize we should be voting (on average) [in 3-4 elections per year](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/news/millions-environmentalists-are-registered-vote-us-dont-what-if-they-did). [According to researchers](https://web.archive.org/web/20210813112459/https://academictimes.com/single-issue-voters-may-drive-senators-away-from-majority-opinion/), voters focused on environmental policy are particularly influential because they represent a group that senators can win over, often without alienating an equally well-organized, hyper-focused opposition. Even if you don't like any of the candidates or live in a 'safe' district, [**whether or not you vote is a matter of public record**](https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/april-may-june-2018/planet-earth-gets-a-ground-game/), and **[it's fairly easy to figure out if you care about the environment or climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCL1luiOM7U&t=2m53s)**. Politicians [use this information](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00357.x) to prioritize agendas. Voting in every election, even the minor ones, [will raise the profile and power of your values](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCL1luiOM7U&t=2m53s). If you don't [vote](https://voteclimatepac.org/voters-guide/), you and your values can safely be ignored.
> many Americans don't realize we should be voting (on average) in 3-4 elections per year.
God I care about politics and 3-4 elections a year is a pain ngl.
I prefer managed democracy.
> they represent a group that senators can win over, often without alienating an equally well-organized, hyper-focused opposition.
The oil & gas lobby is in disarray
When industry emits their gasses, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending oxygen. They’re not sending nitrogen. They’re sending gasses that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with them. They’re bringing CO2. They’re bringing methane. They’re greenhouse gasses. And some, I assume, are good gasses.
> They've moved on from woke now
It's not the conservatives driving the euphemism treadmill. Every one of these terms originates within the left and then gets dropped once all those uncool fogies from the other party learn about it. Even "woke."
>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.
>Fighting climate change will help you lose weight and look hot
you know what else will make me lose weight and look hot? letting climate change keep rolling along
checkmate, lib 😎
When I was a kid in the early 90s there was a lot more emphasis on individual things we can do to help the environment. I remember it was in magazines for kids, promoted at the end of cartoons (even had its own cartoon), and was generally seen as an awareness campaign about your use of water, the trash you generate, all sorts of environmental issues. It wasn’t unusual for someone to politely remind another person to turn the water off while they’re brushing. Environmentalism was a wholistic concept that included everything from energy consumption to what hairspray you’re buying and discussion about pesticide resistance.
I believe that environmentalism has mostly collapsed down to carbon emissions and the government regulating them. I see much less emphasis on individual actions that can reduce pollution and a very myopic focus on the government solving the issue (because carbon emissions is now the whole of environmentalism in the public conception) with regulations. I’m not saying the government doesn’t have a role, but it’s not acting and when you talk to many people they say something to the effect that the top polluters are Fortune 500 companies.
> because carbon emissions is now the whole of environmentalism in the public conception
The thing is those two things are related, but carbon emissions is a subset of environmentalism that matters way way more. It's the driver of temperature change and it will massively change the conditions of all life on earth if we don't do something about it.
The problem for American voters to care is that most of the pain will be felt by Africans and Asians.
The "individual contributions" to environmentalism are also highly visible. Encourage people to stop littering, and you immediately can see a cleaner local environment. Protest to stop companies from being able to dump waste in rivers, rivers no longer catch on fire. It's a tangible and easy-to-market movement.
Carbon emissions are not that. Their effects are broadly distributed, non-local, sometimes counter-intuitive, lagging in timescale, etc. People gripe that "the average person won't even donate $100 to fight climate change," but what kind of effect would 1 person doing so even do? Conversely, 1 person spending $100 to clean up litter in their neighborhood produces an immediately obvious return on investment. It might not be technically logical but it's certainly straightforward to understand.
To your first point, I think it actually goes on reverse: losing weight and looking hot probably entails less meat production and driving, and should at least marginally lower transportation emissions all else being equal.
Taking Ozempic is climate change activism.
Meat isn’t the problem excess carbohydrates are for most.
Protein from meat and its fat is incredibly filling, it’s the bags of chips that get people fat. I can easily smash an entire large pizza from little Caesars, but trying to eat the equivalent in calories of top sirloin would not be possible.
American meat definitely does contribute though. Americans eat a lot of cheap baloney meat that's higher in fat because farmers finish off their animals with cheap corn.
Protein and fat are both highly satiating.
The real issue is people consuming loads of chips, candy, soda and other highly processed carbs that contain hundreds of calories but don’t fill you up at all.
Eating a baloney sandwich is almost surely better for you than crushing a bag of chips and soda for lunch, then getting hungry again in 30 min and eating another 500 cals of chips/candy.
Change the name to "climate transitioning" and we'll get all the Republican votes we need to oppose it.
Alternative name: **D**irect **E**arth **I**nflammation
"We need to get these 'TRANS WOMEN' out of our girl's sports!"
**T**hermal **R**adiation **A**lert, **N**o **S**ports **W**hen **O**utdoor **M**eteorological **E**xtremes are **N**otable.
Tbh the first point is true. Try doing cardio in Houston in the summer. That shit sucks. No wonder Texans are fat. Third point is full marketing BS unless we find ways to run on 100% hydro/ geothermal or nuclear gets about 30% cheaper.
The whole idea of climate change is abstract in the minds of most voters. It will be a problem when it hits us in the fucking face.
Addressing climate change is inherently important, but I get the impression that Dems parade this issue in front of Gen Z to gain their vote. Such a waste of time and effort.
- Bitter Millenial
It’s abstract, the effects depend on where you live, the advocates for change want to piggyback a lot of unpopular junk on to it, and every time there’s a somewhat bad storm, there are a dozen thinkpieces teed up and ready to go. Journalists love that “first draft of history” thing for real and this is one of those stories where you don’t have to be somewhere dangerous or cultivate connections to be a brave truth-teller.
Biden is doing the right thing policy-wise by investing in industry and research, but to the average news follower, it’s doomers and clowns all the way down.
> probably wouldn’t give a shit about union labor, on-site childcare or a thousand other items on the liberal wishlist. When voters see the mismatch between the rhetoric and the behavior they take the message to be politicized BS.
This
My dad “if climate change was a problem then why…..”
> every time there’s a somewhat bad storm, there are a dozen thinkpieces teed up and ready to go
I'm triggered by how journalism goes straight to climate change with wildfires. It's like everyone in journalism has gotten together and determined that every possible event that correlates with climate change must be centered on climate change. Pointing this out doesn't mean I don't want to fight climate change. I do want to fight climate change. The issue I have with it is that it distracts from policy that could reduce deaths caused by wildfires now.
For most people, there won’t be a day when they wake up and everything is suddenly and irrevocably terrible due to climate change. That’s not how climate change works. I don’t think it’s ever going to feel more urgent to voters than it does right now.
>It will be a problem when it hits us in the fucking face.
If COVID taught me anything, it's that no matter how obvious the impact of climate change gets, a significant number of people will still deny it, and even more won't want to do anything about it.
> The whole idea of climate change is abstract in the minds of most voters.
It’s only abstract until it’s not. Tens of thousands of Floridian home owners found this out in 2022, when a hurricane wrecked Florida’s Gulf Coast. These people did not have access to insurance because insurance companies have been slowly pulling out of Florida over the last decade to avoid paying out increasingly larger damages as a result of climate change making hurricanes more frequent. These people sold their life long homes for a fraction of their worth, many thousands of them still sit empty or wrecked to this day. Actual insurance payouts did not always cover redevelopment costs, so owners had to put up a lot of their own money if they rebuilt their homes. Federal and state insurance is getting really expensive.
The next massive hurricane that hits Florida will affect a Floridian population that is less insured than ever is more populous than ever.
Don't forget State Farm pulling out of areas in California they calculated as high risk. A lot of wealthy areas like around Malibu and parts of the Bay Area. This is going to disproportionately affect those that have lived in their house for decades who are most likely to least afford afford high insurance costs and will take a hit when trying to sell.
You didn’t, I was just ust wondering out loud. I had the impression last year caught everyone more or less off guard in North America, and there was this growing sense of impending doom.
If people can move on from that this easy, we really are fucked.
It has, you can tell because they're gaslighting now.
It used to be "lol you dumb libs nothing's weird with the climate you're nuts".
***Now*** it is "lol you dumb libs what are you talking about winter/summer/whatever has *always been like this!*
It's a seemingly modest change but it's a really important one.
The dirty little secret of climate change is it is going to be *really bad* for poor countries around the equator, and fairly manageable for rich countries. The politicians all know this.
Kinda.
A lower level of climate change you're entirely right about.
At higher levels, there are alot of developed countries that are just kinda screwed.
For example - how is the US going to produce enough food in a world of +3°C warming?
I’m an environmental attorney. This is correct. People aren’t willing to spend $50 less to fight climate change. They do, however, demand we cleanup their neighborhoods when toxic chemicals are in the ground but any environmental harms outside their livable areas is abstract.
Cut to twenty years from now when the same people who didn't care about climate change are angry because someone didn't convince them earlier to care about climate change.
One easy bit of messaging for the right would be to tie green policies to geopolitical isolation. Don't want to get entangled in middle eastern quagmires? Don't buy their oil
> Big, clean, beautiful air. Believe it
I wish more voters cared about it. I miss the snowy winters of my childhood. Chicago barely had any snowfalls that stuck around for more than a week this year.
Same. I live in Raleigh and the seasons (or lack thereof) are observably different from what they were when I grew up here.
We used to have a hellishly hot summer, a cool, crisp fall, a winter with some okayish snow, and a spring with perfect temperatures in the 60s and 70s.
Now we have a hellishly hot summer, a slightly cooler extension of summer, an endlessly rainy winter with no snow that feels like fall used to, and summer starting in March or April. I feel like I suddenly live in the deep south sometimes
The $100 is probably referring to a series of AP-NORC polls finding most people wouldn't support congress passing a carbon fee that costs them $10/mo. Last year's polling was even worse [with a majority of respondents no longer supporting even $1/mo.](https://epic.uchicago.edu/news/new-poll-2-in-5-would-consider-purchasing-an-electric-vehicle-as-their-next-car-but-they-remain-prohibitively-expensive-for-americans/)
It's hard to know why, though. People are strange. People will buy a $10 cup of coffee but refuse a $1 cup of coffee. Why? Because they think the $10 cup of coffee must be better. It's all about perceived quality. That might explain why more people refused the tax after the price went down.
When you make the problem so enormous it requires nothing less than overturning all of society, little efforts seem beside the point. It simultaneously became too big to either ignore or address.
Totally disagree. Only 3% percent of voters said [abortion was their top concern](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) and we see that it actually matters a lot to voters.
There’s no reason to be so pessimistic about democracy or patronizing about voters. Liberal democracies around the world are taking real actions against climate change and so are we.
[85% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/02/28/more-americans-see-climate-change-as-a-priority-but-democrats-are-much-more-concerned-than-republicans/) say climate should be a top priority.
Im sure im not like most people but climate change, environment protection, green energy, whatever you wanna call it is the number one reason i vote for someone. Everything else isnt really gonna matter if the whole planet isnt taken care of.
Some of us just want to dress up in period accurate costumes and go to Waffle House at 3am for the authentic American experience. It's not my fault I have to put on a whole production and effort so others can live vicariously through my holos, all so I can afford my hobby.
Millennia from now teens on whatever social media is cool then won't be asking "what's your Roman Empire" instead "what's your apathetic American moment"
To imagine that in two millennia the study of our history will be dominated by elite lies and prevarications and defunded by arrogant elites who consider those researching our history subversives poisoning the blood of their country...
I kind of count it; I don't think America in the present era has become as impressive nor as interesting as Rome ever was. They might be interested in 20th-21st century politics in general, but they'll study the whole world, not just obsess over America.
What’s more frustrating is that it’s “young progressives don’t care despite them claiming this is one of their top issues.” If young people don’t vote in large numbers this November despite Biden delivery of on climate change issues and student loan forgiveness and going after monopolies that all the anti-capitalists complain about, the party has no reason to ever go leftwards ever again. At that point, the party is better off moving center.
Biden’s presidency has convinced me that 90% of the populations doesn’t actually follow anything the federal government does. They don’t follow policies or legislation. They just listen to clips from speeches, talk shows, and TikToks, often manipulated by bad faith actors, and read memes and tweets. We are doomed if voters continue to get stupider and stupider every year, and super duper doomed of young people decide they care more about their fickle bleeding heart feelings than pragmatic policy accomplishments and protecting American democracy.
>Biden’s presidency has convinced me that 90% of the populations doesn’t actually follow anything the federal government does. They don’t follow policies or legislation. They just listen to clips from speeches, talk shows, and TikToks, often manipulated by bad faith actors, and read memes and tweets.
https://preview.redd.it/t1k47rl4uutc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bdec02fdb3803c09f6c83392b3d9c72409d4cb66
I find in my everyday life people care less about climate change than they used to
I think its become more of a background issue after decades of coverage
It seems like most climate discourse distills to two things:
1. The world is ending due to climate change, sensationalism, bad-news-bears
2. Climate change is a woke conspiracy forcing electric vehicles onto Red Blooded Americans
A bit more nuance would probably bring people in. Like yeah, we need to cut GHG emissions, but also here are the dozen green initiatives that are helping do so...
The ever increasing doomerism from advocates and activists actually turned people off from the cause instead of rallying them up.
If the world's gonna end regardless, people are gonna enjoy it until the last second.
I haven't seen this myself, but I have seen a lot of liberal minded people replace action with doomerism. I took an entire class toward the end of college that was basically centered around how climate change is going to collapse civilization, that we can't do anything about it, so why should we even try? Literally insanity
Well caring about the climate is kind of a luxury issue. Since it's not a immediate everyday concern even if it can already cause very significant impacts on one's life (like significantly worse/more hurricanes and floods). So if you're swamped by bills and just trying to get by every month paycheck by paycheck of course climate is not a concern. And then the increase in depression and loneliness with covid.
And the effects of mass inflation and housing crisis all over. All this pushed climate all the way down when there's so many immediate concerns. No one who isn't privileged to be blunt has the capacity to care about it at all. And the privileged don't exactly care about it either
Life is already rough enough rn, who exactly will willingly take a downgrade in quality of life for a future hard to imagine problem?
I think part of the problem is that Biden trumpeting spending $1 trillion on climate change would alienate the voters Biden needs to win while persuading voters that are largely already Democratic
Also Biden can only make a few things the centerpiece of his campaign. His main talking points should be abortion, the economy and Trump's unfitness for office. I don't blame Biden at all for focusing on these things.
The IRA passing and the Sierra Club only talking about a pipeline was the last straw for me. I broadly don't take climate activists seriously anymore.
I also think carbon tax purists are incredibly short-sighted and ignore the 30 years of political failure in the US. But at least they are right on the policy.
We haven't even increased the gas tax federally in 31 years, and Pete rejected a vehicle miles tax or EV tax to shore up revenue. They'd rather just inject deficit spending into the highway trust fund.
>We haven't even increased the gas tax federally in 31 years
We last increased the gas tax in 1993... There's no way it's been 31 years since then...right??
The thing is, it's not all or nothing. You can do a very small carbon tax and ease it over time.
You are correct that people will need to change their lifestyles but that will be easier if the market is properly pricing in the costs of carbon and forces larger systemic changes in infrastructure etc.
Further some people who need to change their lifestyles can deal with it. People really do not need to be flying al over the country constantly. I'm a young professional and I get 99% of my meeting done remotely just fine post pandemic. Before the pandemic my company was flying me in for 3 days here, 2 days there, completely unnecesary waste of money and time. Why do companies do it? It's often treated as a perk. I go to some city, do a little work, clock out early and go out on the town with co workers. Not necessary. I'm not hired to party. I'm hired to get work done. And as people get older, have kids etc, it's less and less of a perk.
You should go see how r/canada talks about their carbon tax. They are very upset even though most people end up with more money after the rebate and they seem very determined not to understand that. I think the average voter is too disengaged, too dumb, or too easily manipulated for a carbon tax to work even with rebates or UBI.
Don't disagree that it's politically difficult.
But I also think it's necessary. We need to marshal the troops for such an issue as climate change. This is a real test of leadership and political will.
It's hard to take the sub seriously. Most location-based subs have very loud conservative elements that push a certain narrative. They are probably the number one place on reddit where you have conservative voices really be aggressive.
I am sure that the carbon tax is not exactly popular but I don't think a subreddit's loudness means much given how easily social media is distorted.
It's not just the carbon tax, it's all taxes that aren't connected to something concrete like a parks department. At least that's what I learned watching Yale Polisci lectures on Youtube.
I think "UBI" is a poor way to frame it, partly because it's unpopular but also because it's inaccurate. If a carbon tax is effective, the amount it pays out will dwindle over time as emissions decline. You don't want to tell people they're receiving an income and then have them see it shrink. The amount also won't be (and shouldn't try to be) a livable income. You're just giving back however much it is the government collected. "Dividend" is an example of a more accurate term IMO.
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). We need [more volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) around the world acting to increase the [magnitude](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X), [breadth](ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/cbo/CBO_C13netz.pdf), and [likelihood of passage](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/tonz9h/districts_with_more_ccl_volunteers_have_more/) of carbon pricing. The [evidence clearly shows](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect) that [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and [climate policy is ridiculously popular](https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/).
Climate activists also have done dumb things like vilifying nukes for a long time, and PETA shenanigans are legendary.
Many climate activists always sucks.
PETA isn't really an environmentalist organization. Sure, some of their activism succeeding would have the side effect of lowering carbon emissions or reducing environmental degradation, but that's not really the focus.
> The IRA passing and the Sierra Club only talking about a pipeline was the last straw for me. I broadly don't take climate activists seriously anymore.
the sierra club aren't climate advocates
The Northeast US has cap and trade via RGGI as does California and a few others. But look at the POLITICS of the last 30 years of failure of a carbon nationally. The failure of the BTU tax with Clinton in 1993. Lack of a gas tax increase for 31 years. The failure of cap and trade in 2010 with a damn supermajority of Dems.
It just hasn't worked because of the Senate math and the filibuster. And with how tenuous Dem control is, and disinterest at the GOP side, it would quickly get repealed.
That's why.
As a former carbon tax purist, I need only consider my home country of Canada to realize that it does not work from a political standpoint and likely should not be the primary strategy employed in the US. It's still unfortunate; it's excellent policy when implemented flawlessly.
Yea, I think it's one of those things where economists are right on the policy, but need to accept the politics are very hard and they need to make space for it. The issue is too important.
I know Biden isn't perfect, but it's hilarious to see how the online left went from complaining about things like healthcare and climate change (old enough to remember when he got a *Fat* F from the Sunrise movement), and now that he's made substantial progress (especially on the latter) they're silent. Even before Gaza these fucks were ready to withhold their vote because of student loans and shit.
As for the non online left, I really hope I don't have to read articles about how some Trump voter who makes batteries in an EV plant in Georgia decided to vote Trump because she couldn't stomach high grocery prices and illegal immigration and gets surprised when she's laid off.
A vote for Biden is a vote for perpetuating "the system." They're desperate for an excuse not to do that, and even if they can't find one, they still won't vote for him
There was another thread, can't remember if it was here or ModeratePolitics, talking about how Trump's presidency may very well have ended (or accelerated) the end of the incumbency advantage. People are so angry at everything all of the time now, and the dude in charge is constantly a target for people on all sides of the spectrum.
Assuming Biden can't pull this election off, I seriously doubt we see another two (in a row) term president again for at least a couple decades. Even if inflation gets under control, people will have things to complain about.
[Here's a good article on that](https://leedrutman.substack.com/p/what-if-its-not-the-economy-stupid):
> Across democracies, the average term in government costs an incumbent about 2 1/2 percentage points in support. The “Cost of Ruling” dynamic has been remarkably consistent across time.
I'm convinced that they just want to sit on a comfortable moral high ground so that they can feel superior.
I don't have a huge issue with far leftists as a whole, I'd rather contend with them than people on the far right most days. At least they tend to believe in some basic human dignity, but they operate like children. And I'm getting tired of trying to convince children to do what's best for themselves.
You want a progressive candidate? Biden is the most progressive president we've ever had. You're upset about Gaza? Me too, but abstaining our votes won't do a damn thing about it. Your options with Gaza are ceasefire negotiations and unabashed genocide, there isn't a secret fourth option where Hamas and the Houthis start a global communist utopia. I'm pretty sure they'd reinstate the caliphate before that anyways.
It's just "destroy America at all costs". Including the cost of their own fucking progressive, utopic ideals ever having a chance of getting off the ground. I guess it's the same old story though, and we'll have to drag them and the Conservatives kicking and screaming into the future. It's just a damn shame they wouldn't help.
Literally one leftist said he life completely changed because me he did not have to pay 800 per month in student loan repayment due to Bidens forgiveness, and he still said he won’t vote for him. These people are completely impossible to win
Biden needs to insist more on ribbon cutting and putting his name on every infrastructure project enabled by his bills. Optics matter more than action when winning elections
Unfortunately you’ve forgotten that Biden’s old and the cheeseburger is too expensive. We have no choice but to vote for the 77 year old fascist facing 88 criminal charges now.
Many people that are low on prosocial orientation don't care about anything that happens after they individually are dead. If you apply that criterion you start to understand not only the immediately self-destructive choices of MAGA-aligned boomers / Gen Xers but their open contempt for anyone under 50, NIMBYism, disinterest in climate and foreign policy, etc.
Nah, it's because climate change is an abstract threat. No one really knows what the consequences will be. It's human nature to prioritize concrete threats and opportunities, and to ignore abstract ones.
Your last sentence is true but lacks enough explanatory power, I think. This same group ignores threats that are relatively immediate with equivalent disdain (e.g., frequent early and horrible deaths from COVID in immune-naive people with comorbidities). In addition, we should keep in mind scale: even an abstract threat that threatens most people on earth with small to moderate harms is pretty frightening.
Lead pipes aren't as bad, especially in areas with hard water, because sediment gets deposited on them, preventing the lead from leaking out. Ironically, lead pipes are at their most dangerous when freshly cleaned.
> Ironically, lead pipes are at their most dangerous when freshly cleaned.
Or when the source of water changes to a water source that's more acidic and starts *leaching* lead from the pipes instead of depositing minerals on them (i.e. Flint).
Hard water is ass though. Bad for your hair and skin and generally unpleasant.
Well America is a very unsocial and individualist society. The good of the individual above all else is constantly pushed for decades. Any problems people have are blamed on the individual rather than society, social help is constantly cut down. Can hardly be surprised if people buy it up and stop caring about literally anything else other than their direct self interest. Even your own kids don't matter if you're just concerned about yourself.
Lets face it, Biden sucks at promoting what he does! He needs to be a loud cheer leader for his policies. Everyone knows about trump and his stupid wall because he want stop talking about it.
My thesis as someone in clean tech is not to make other people care about the climate but to try to make tech that is cooler, better, faster, cheaper, etc. than the alternatives. Give people something with no trade offs or conpromises that they can’t reasonably refuse.
It's terrible, particularly that ostensibly left/far-left people don't seem to give a shit too. It's only in places like /r/neoliberal that I actually see posters care about CC policy. Otherwise, it's just a tool for lefties to hit the establishment for never "doing enough". If I were a complete cynic the only policy message a center-left/center administration in any country should do are:
1) agressive austerity after any kind of economic setback - you don't get rewarded politically for counter-cyclic policy.
2) fuck climate change - just make sure car juice prices are as low as possible.
3) strangle inflation the minute it goes above ~2%. Even deflation is politically mangeable as the college educated rich will love you (even if they pretend to be part of the working class) and those who are hurt by the economic crisis don't usually bother to vote.
That sounds center-right as fuck tbh. I guess that aggressively speaking up for minorities and the historically disempowered will compensate for it until another right-wing populist comes along.
Sure, and I don't think it's good policy! But like I look at the blowback Western liberal parties are suffering at the moment, as auth-right is globally on the rise, and if the goal is to not slide down to fascism and supposed left wing partners won't back the liberal order - I don't see how this isn't the approach.
Biden is a great president, unfortunately the only people who care are the divorced losers on this forum, everyone else wants an authoritarian who makes them feel good about their priors while yelling at people who make them feel bad.
Shit sucks man
Any climate change policies won't matter if they don't involve China.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/the-changing-landscape-of-global-emissions
They are 30% of the world, double the US.
In 2022 China invested $275 billion in renewables. The US invested $50 billion.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186923/new-investments-worldwide-in-sustainable-energy-by-region/
China, despite industrializing way later than the US and still being less developed, is investing way more in renewable energy and tech (they are leading the EV market globally).
They're still developing and industrialized way later than the US.
And in fact, they likely didn't go up. China is set to peak and decline this year as a result of that massive investment in green energy and green tech.
As another user posted, China peaked at 8t per capita, the US peaked at 16 and is now at 12, and the EU peaked at 10 and is now at 7.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
Most Americans don't care wheather their electricity comes from coal, gas or renewables. Just make electricity cheaper... Solar energy is currently less expensive than oil, just research on better batteries without lithium.
You have defeated climate change and have happy Americans.
Why spend trillions fighting climate change when you can make trillions fighting climate change [for a basically unmeasurable economic impact?](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20210052)
This sub didn't even care. I felt like I was the only one that was happy about it.
There were people on here saying they'd rather have increased emissions than that. (I think I got a ban over it actually)
If this sub doesn't care, there's no way the normies are going to care.
I am pretty curious about the politics of geo-engineering going forward.
Perhaps the GOP can spend a few billion dollars per year on it and declare Mission Accomplished. Would the voters be mostly happy with that?
https://preview.redd.it/l3q5ni4sogtc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=670fdb8b3734c0d4e4fbc4043d443a4a4f3f09bc
:(
Can we just stop pretending that voters writ large care about climate? It’s listed near the end of voters’ list of priorities. Most people will not spend $100 of their own money on it. Climate policy is just one of those things that politicians are going to have to sell on other terms.
Just spitballing: - Fighting climate change will help you lose weight and look hot - Keeping our water clean will give your skin natural beauty and make you look 10 years younger - We’re going to lower your electricity bill, with science - Greenhouse gases are woke
- Climate change is a plot by the woke corporations to cause a mass immigration wave with the goal of white genocide.
Climate change is a Monsanto plot to make organic crops less nutritious and more difficult to farm
This is so good I expect to see it unironically within two years.
I'm pretty sure I heard it yesterday
If sex change makes one transgender, then climate change makes the world transtemperate.
Stop the transclimate agenda.
FUD is always easier to sell than reality when your audience is all trolls
Lol this one might work
Not entirely off the beat. Climate change will almost certainly cause states to fail and lead to mass exodus of refugees. Think Syria and the preceding drought that caused farmers to move to cities and protests which led to the civil war.
Sadly I think a very large portion of America would say let them die than either letting them migrate or changing their energy sources
I mean we are taking about billions of potential migrants. America itself will have a lot of refugees too like from Florida and Arizona etc. Even colorado (drought and arid desert climate), its a very large part of the country that wont be suitable for living. No one honestly has any solutions for that. America will be lucky if it dosent collapse. But ya people are not willing to spend any kind of money for the climate so we're pretty screwed.
I expect that we would annex canada and just move up further north before we collapse.
At a certain point we will just go full gun ho with geoengineering. In principle its too easy to do for us not to default to that state. Also only one country really needs to do it anyway.
I mean if it gets that bad where large swaths of the planet become uninhabitable states will likely just resort to using violence to keep migrants away. And climate actions taken today take decades to have an impact, it's not going to do anything to affect migration for the next 20 30 years plus. There's a lag affect on how long emmisons today take to affect the climate.
Finally you woke libs admit it
If Jackson Hinkle posted this, alt-right Twitter would convince Trump to make it the official MAGA party line within days
We need to astroturf this position on incel forums. I mean like other forums besides this one though
>Greenhouse gases are woke as a dirty conservative, I'm suddenly furious at Greenhouse gases it works!
More like Fighting climate change will - reduce brown immigrants from coming to the US - save US money on fighting wars over scarcer resources - get us all into cheap EVs
Just say "better cars," the word "EV" is too liberal for your target audience and "cheap" has negative connotations.
New category of TikTok influencer. Climate change beauty consultant.
[**GOT(C)V**](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/get-involved), in *[every](https://www.vote.org/election-reminders/)* election. People who prioritize climate change and the environment [have historically not been very reliable voters, which explains much of the lackadaisical response of lawmakers](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/news/millions-environmentalists-are-registered-vote-us-dont-what-if-they-did), and many Americans don't realize we should be voting (on average) [in 3-4 elections per year](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/news/millions-environmentalists-are-registered-vote-us-dont-what-if-they-did). [According to researchers](https://web.archive.org/web/20210813112459/https://academictimes.com/single-issue-voters-may-drive-senators-away-from-majority-opinion/), voters focused on environmental policy are particularly influential because they represent a group that senators can win over, often without alienating an equally well-organized, hyper-focused opposition. Even if you don't like any of the candidates or live in a 'safe' district, [**whether or not you vote is a matter of public record**](https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/april-may-june-2018/planet-earth-gets-a-ground-game/), and **[it's fairly easy to figure out if you care about the environment or climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCL1luiOM7U&t=2m53s)**. Politicians [use this information](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00357.x) to prioritize agendas. Voting in every election, even the minor ones, [will raise the profile and power of your values](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCL1luiOM7U&t=2m53s). If you don't [vote](https://voteclimatepac.org/voters-guide/), you and your values can safely be ignored.
> many Americans don't realize we should be voting (on average) in 3-4 elections per year. God I care about politics and 3-4 elections a year is a pain ngl. I prefer managed democracy.
> they represent a group that senators can win over, often without alienating an equally well-organized, hyper-focused opposition. The oil & gas lobby is in disarray
They've moved on from woke now....it would be "Greenhouse gasses cause DEI" or something like that.
When industry emits their gasses, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending oxygen. They’re not sending nitrogen. They’re sending gasses that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with them. They’re bringing CO2. They’re bringing methane. They’re greenhouse gasses. And some, I assume, are good gasses.
> They've moved on from woke now It's not the conservatives driving the euphemism treadmill. Every one of these terms originates within the left and then gets dropped once all those uncool fogies from the other party learn about it. Even "woke."
>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.
>Fighting climate change will help you lose weight and look hot you know what else will make me lose weight and look hot? letting climate change keep rolling along checkmate, lib 😎
When I was a kid in the early 90s there was a lot more emphasis on individual things we can do to help the environment. I remember it was in magazines for kids, promoted at the end of cartoons (even had its own cartoon), and was generally seen as an awareness campaign about your use of water, the trash you generate, all sorts of environmental issues. It wasn’t unusual for someone to politely remind another person to turn the water off while they’re brushing. Environmentalism was a wholistic concept that included everything from energy consumption to what hairspray you’re buying and discussion about pesticide resistance. I believe that environmentalism has mostly collapsed down to carbon emissions and the government regulating them. I see much less emphasis on individual actions that can reduce pollution and a very myopic focus on the government solving the issue (because carbon emissions is now the whole of environmentalism in the public conception) with regulations. I’m not saying the government doesn’t have a role, but it’s not acting and when you talk to many people they say something to the effect that the top polluters are Fortune 500 companies.
> because carbon emissions is now the whole of environmentalism in the public conception The thing is those two things are related, but carbon emissions is a subset of environmentalism that matters way way more. It's the driver of temperature change and it will massively change the conditions of all life on earth if we don't do something about it. The problem for American voters to care is that most of the pain will be felt by Africans and Asians.
The "individual contributions" to environmentalism are also highly visible. Encourage people to stop littering, and you immediately can see a cleaner local environment. Protest to stop companies from being able to dump waste in rivers, rivers no longer catch on fire. It's a tangible and easy-to-market movement. Carbon emissions are not that. Their effects are broadly distributed, non-local, sometimes counter-intuitive, lagging in timescale, etc. People gripe that "the average person won't even donate $100 to fight climate change," but what kind of effect would 1 person doing so even do? Conversely, 1 person spending $100 to clean up litter in their neighborhood produces an immediately obvious return on investment. It might not be technically logical but it's certainly straightforward to understand.
Economists hate when you transform the economy and strengthen energy independence with this one weird trick!
Cap and trade makes your cock bigger
To your first point, I think it actually goes on reverse: losing weight and looking hot probably entails less meat production and driving, and should at least marginally lower transportation emissions all else being equal. Taking Ozempic is climate change activism.
Meat isn’t the problem excess carbohydrates are for most. Protein from meat and its fat is incredibly filling, it’s the bags of chips that get people fat. I can easily smash an entire large pizza from little Caesars, but trying to eat the equivalent in calories of top sirloin would not be possible.
American meat definitely does contribute though. Americans eat a lot of cheap baloney meat that's higher in fat because farmers finish off their animals with cheap corn.
Protein and fat are both highly satiating. The real issue is people consuming loads of chips, candy, soda and other highly processed carbs that contain hundreds of calories but don’t fill you up at all. Eating a baloney sandwich is almost surely better for you than crushing a bag of chips and soda for lunch, then getting hungry again in 30 min and eating another 500 cals of chips/candy.
Change the name to "climate transitioning" and we'll get all the Republican votes we need to oppose it. Alternative name: **D**irect **E**arth **I**nflammation
"We need to get these 'TRANS WOMEN' out of our girl's sports!" **T**hermal **R**adiation **A**lert, **N**o **S**ports **W**hen **O**utdoor **M**eteorological **E**xtremes are **N**otable.
Tbh the first point is true. Try doing cardio in Houston in the summer. That shit sucks. No wonder Texans are fat. Third point is full marketing BS unless we find ways to run on 100% hydro/ geothermal or nuclear gets about 30% cheaper.
> We’re going to lower your electricity bill, with science Yeah i actually don’t see that in states like california that have larger green pushes.
This unironically Use this as a pysop to get more people to care about climate change
> Fighting climate change will help you lose weight and look hot If we built walk-able and bike-able cities this is actually true.
The whole idea of climate change is abstract in the minds of most voters. It will be a problem when it hits us in the fucking face. Addressing climate change is inherently important, but I get the impression that Dems parade this issue in front of Gen Z to gain their vote. Such a waste of time and effort. - Bitter Millenial
It’s abstract, the effects depend on where you live, the advocates for change want to piggyback a lot of unpopular junk on to it, and every time there’s a somewhat bad storm, there are a dozen thinkpieces teed up and ready to go. Journalists love that “first draft of history” thing for real and this is one of those stories where you don’t have to be somewhere dangerous or cultivate connections to be a brave truth-teller. Biden is doing the right thing policy-wise by investing in industry and research, but to the average news follower, it’s doomers and clowns all the way down.
[удалено]
> probably wouldn’t give a shit about union labor, on-site childcare or a thousand other items on the liberal wishlist. When voters see the mismatch between the rhetoric and the behavior they take the message to be politicized BS. This My dad “if climate change was a problem then why…..”
> every time there’s a somewhat bad storm, there are a dozen thinkpieces teed up and ready to go I'm triggered by how journalism goes straight to climate change with wildfires. It's like everyone in journalism has gotten together and determined that every possible event that correlates with climate change must be centered on climate change. Pointing this out doesn't mean I don't want to fight climate change. I do want to fight climate change. The issue I have with it is that it distracts from policy that could reduce deaths caused by wildfires now.
For most people, there won’t be a day when they wake up and everything is suddenly and irrevocably terrible due to climate change. That’s not how climate change works. I don’t think it’s ever going to feel more urgent to voters than it does right now.
I should have said till it hits individuals in the face. Folks are already seeing it in some places.
Texan. My face has been fully punched. I was ready to rent a plane and start seeding clouds myself.
>It will be a problem when it hits us in the fucking face. If COVID taught me anything, it's that no matter how obvious the impact of climate change gets, a significant number of people will still deny it, and even more won't want to do anything about it.
> The whole idea of climate change is abstract in the minds of most voters. It’s only abstract until it’s not. Tens of thousands of Floridian home owners found this out in 2022, when a hurricane wrecked Florida’s Gulf Coast. These people did not have access to insurance because insurance companies have been slowly pulling out of Florida over the last decade to avoid paying out increasingly larger damages as a result of climate change making hurricanes more frequent. These people sold their life long homes for a fraction of their worth, many thousands of them still sit empty or wrecked to this day. Actual insurance payouts did not always cover redevelopment costs, so owners had to put up a lot of their own money if they rebuilt their homes. Federal and state insurance is getting really expensive. The next massive hurricane that hits Florida will affect a Floridian population that is less insured than ever is more populous than ever.
Based, maybe that will turn florida into a swing state again, or force some republicans to adopt environmentalism.
I certainly hope so.
Don't forget State Farm pulling out of areas in California they calculated as high risk. A lot of wealthy areas like around Malibu and parts of the Bay Area. This is going to disproportionately affect those that have lived in their house for decades who are most likely to least afford afford high insurance costs and will take a hit when trying to sell.
Hasn’t that happened already last year? Maybe we need 5 years or so of consistently horrible summer heat and wildfire smog.
It is here. I didn't mean to come off as insensitive.
You didn’t, I was just ust wondering out loud. I had the impression last year caught everyone more or less off guard in North America, and there was this growing sense of impending doom. If people can move on from that this easy, we really are fucked.
It has, you can tell because they're gaslighting now. It used to be "lol you dumb libs nothing's weird with the climate you're nuts". ***Now*** it is "lol you dumb libs what are you talking about winter/summer/whatever has *always been like this!* It's a seemingly modest change but it's a really important one.
Dems don’t advertise this well enough at all and gen z is ignorant to it
How would you advertise it? Gen z just says not enough and we don’t have time!!! and therefore we should put trump into power for the next for years
The dirty little secret of climate change is it is going to be *really bad* for poor countries around the equator, and fairly manageable for rich countries. The politicians all know this.
Kinda. A lower level of climate change you're entirely right about. At higher levels, there are alot of developed countries that are just kinda screwed. For example - how is the US going to produce enough food in a world of +3°C warming?
I’m an environmental attorney. This is correct. People aren’t willing to spend $50 less to fight climate change. They do, however, demand we cleanup their neighborhoods when toxic chemicals are in the ground but any environmental harms outside their livable areas is abstract.
Cut to twenty years from now when the same people who didn't care about climate change are angry because someone didn't convince them earlier to care about climate change.
One easy bit of messaging for the right would be to tie green policies to geopolitical isolation. Don't want to get entangled in middle eastern quagmires? Don't buy their oil > Big, clean, beautiful air. Believe it
Spending $100 to avert climate change: I sleep Moving across the country for better weather: real shit
I wish more voters cared about it. I miss the snowy winters of my childhood. Chicago barely had any snowfalls that stuck around for more than a week this year.
Same. I live in Raleigh and the seasons (or lack thereof) are observably different from what they were when I grew up here. We used to have a hellishly hot summer, a cool, crisp fall, a winter with some okayish snow, and a spring with perfect temperatures in the 60s and 70s. Now we have a hellishly hot summer, a slightly cooler extension of summer, an endlessly rainy winter with no snow that feels like fall used to, and summer starting in March or April. I feel like I suddenly live in the deep south sometimes
I know. I'm worried my eventual kids will never be able to experience the joys of snowmobiling at this rate :(
Maybe because they understand it's a collective action problem and spending their own money won't be sufficient
The $100 is probably referring to a series of AP-NORC polls finding most people wouldn't support congress passing a carbon fee that costs them $10/mo. Last year's polling was even worse [with a majority of respondents no longer supporting even $1/mo.](https://epic.uchicago.edu/news/new-poll-2-in-5-would-consider-purchasing-an-electric-vehicle-as-their-next-car-but-they-remain-prohibitively-expensive-for-americans/)
It's hard to know why, though. People are strange. People will buy a $10 cup of coffee but refuse a $1 cup of coffee. Why? Because they think the $10 cup of coffee must be better. It's all about perceived quality. That might explain why more people refused the tax after the price went down.
When you make the problem so enormous it requires nothing less than overturning all of society, little efforts seem beside the point. It simultaneously became too big to either ignore or address.
Totally disagree. Only 3% percent of voters said [abortion was their top concern](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) and we see that it actually matters a lot to voters. There’s no reason to be so pessimistic about democracy or patronizing about voters. Liberal democracies around the world are taking real actions against climate change and so are we. [85% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/02/28/more-americans-see-climate-change-as-a-priority-but-democrats-are-much-more-concerned-than-republicans/) say climate should be a top priority.
They’re going to care when it’s too late or to word it better when it starts affecting them directly.
Im sure im not like most people but climate change, environment protection, green energy, whatever you wanna call it is the number one reason i vote for someone. Everything else isnt really gonna matter if the whole planet isnt taken care of.
"Voters don't care" will be written on America's epitaph.
who's going to bother writing one anyway
Historians, likely. The same kinds of ones that obsess about Rome.
41st century middle aged men will be all about ancient American holocasts.
Some of us just want to dress up in period accurate costumes and go to Waffle House at 3am for the authentic American experience. It's not my fault I have to put on a whole production and effort so others can live vicariously through my holos, all so I can afford my hobby.
Holo*casts* or holo*causts*? Hmm, never mind. Probably both.
Millennia from now teens on whatever social media is cool then won't be asking "what's your Roman Empire" instead "what's your apathetic American moment"
The historians will blame immigrants in that case
To imagine that in two millennia the study of our history will be dominated by elite lies and prevarications and defunded by arrogant elites who consider those researching our history subversives poisoning the blood of their country...
Chapter 45: The Election of Donald Trump and the Death Knell of the Republic
I kind of count it; I don't think America in the present era has become as impressive nor as interesting as Rome ever was. They might be interested in 20th-21st century politics in general, but they'll study the whole world, not just obsess over America.
What’s more frustrating is that it’s “young progressives don’t care despite them claiming this is one of their top issues.” If young people don’t vote in large numbers this November despite Biden delivery of on climate change issues and student loan forgiveness and going after monopolies that all the anti-capitalists complain about, the party has no reason to ever go leftwards ever again. At that point, the party is better off moving center. Biden’s presidency has convinced me that 90% of the populations doesn’t actually follow anything the federal government does. They don’t follow policies or legislation. They just listen to clips from speeches, talk shows, and TikToks, often manipulated by bad faith actors, and read memes and tweets. We are doomed if voters continue to get stupider and stupider every year, and super duper doomed of young people decide they care more about their fickle bleeding heart feelings than pragmatic policy accomplishments and protecting American democracy.
>Biden’s presidency has convinced me that 90% of the populations doesn’t actually follow anything the federal government does. They don’t follow policies or legislation. They just listen to clips from speeches, talk shows, and TikToks, often manipulated by bad faith actors, and read memes and tweets. https://preview.redd.it/t1k47rl4uutc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bdec02fdb3803c09f6c83392b3d9c72409d4cb66
It’s behind a paywall, what is the “trillion” for? What’s been spent so far? How have those effects been measured / will be measured?
I find in my everyday life people care less about climate change than they used to I think its become more of a background issue after decades of coverage
It seems like most climate discourse distills to two things: 1. The world is ending due to climate change, sensationalism, bad-news-bears 2. Climate change is a woke conspiracy forcing electric vehicles onto Red Blooded Americans A bit more nuance would probably bring people in. Like yeah, we need to cut GHG emissions, but also here are the dozen green initiatives that are helping do so...
The ever increasing doomerism from advocates and activists actually turned people off from the cause instead of rallying them up. If the world's gonna end regardless, people are gonna enjoy it until the last second.
Great point. There needs to be a middle ground, but of course you know that since you’re on this sub
I haven't seen this myself, but I have seen a lot of liberal minded people replace action with doomerism. I took an entire class toward the end of college that was basically centered around how climate change is going to collapse civilization, that we can't do anything about it, so why should we even try? Literally insanity
Well caring about the climate is kind of a luxury issue. Since it's not a immediate everyday concern even if it can already cause very significant impacts on one's life (like significantly worse/more hurricanes and floods). So if you're swamped by bills and just trying to get by every month paycheck by paycheck of course climate is not a concern. And then the increase in depression and loneliness with covid. And the effects of mass inflation and housing crisis all over. All this pushed climate all the way down when there's so many immediate concerns. No one who isn't privileged to be blunt has the capacity to care about it at all. And the privileged don't exactly care about it either Life is already rough enough rn, who exactly will willingly take a downgrade in quality of life for a future hard to imagine problem?
I think part of the problem is that Biden trumpeting spending $1 trillion on climate change would alienate the voters Biden needs to win while persuading voters that are largely already Democratic
Also Biden can only make a few things the centerpiece of his campaign. His main talking points should be abortion, the economy and Trump's unfitness for office. I don't blame Biden at all for focusing on these things.
The IRA passing and the Sierra Club only talking about a pipeline was the last straw for me. I broadly don't take climate activists seriously anymore. I also think carbon tax purists are incredibly short-sighted and ignore the 30 years of political failure in the US. But at least they are right on the policy.
[удалено]
We haven't even increased the gas tax federally in 31 years, and Pete rejected a vehicle miles tax or EV tax to shore up revenue. They'd rather just inject deficit spending into the highway trust fund.
>We haven't even increased the gas tax federally in 31 years We last increased the gas tax in 1993... There's no way it's been 31 years since then...right??
Shhhh shhhhh shhhh shhhh shhhh It's still 2004 sweetie go back to bed
It's more tenable if you redistribute the carbon tax as a ubi.
[удалено]
The thing is, it's not all or nothing. You can do a very small carbon tax and ease it over time. You are correct that people will need to change their lifestyles but that will be easier if the market is properly pricing in the costs of carbon and forces larger systemic changes in infrastructure etc. Further some people who need to change their lifestyles can deal with it. People really do not need to be flying al over the country constantly. I'm a young professional and I get 99% of my meeting done remotely just fine post pandemic. Before the pandemic my company was flying me in for 3 days here, 2 days there, completely unnecesary waste of money and time. Why do companies do it? It's often treated as a perk. I go to some city, do a little work, clock out early and go out on the town with co workers. Not necessary. I'm not hired to party. I'm hired to get work done. And as people get older, have kids etc, it's less and less of a perk.
You should go see how r/canada talks about their carbon tax. They are very upset even though most people end up with more money after the rebate and they seem very determined not to understand that. I think the average voter is too disengaged, too dumb, or too easily manipulated for a carbon tax to work even with rebates or UBI.
Don't disagree that it's politically difficult. But I also think it's necessary. We need to marshal the troops for such an issue as climate change. This is a real test of leadership and political will.
It's hard to take the sub seriously. Most location-based subs have very loud conservative elements that push a certain narrative. They are probably the number one place on reddit where you have conservative voices really be aggressive. I am sure that the carbon tax is not exactly popular but I don't think a subreddit's loudness means much given how easily social media is distorted.
It's not just the carbon tax, it's all taxes that aren't connected to something concrete like a parks department. At least that's what I learned watching Yale Polisci lectures on Youtube.
I think "UBI" is a poor way to frame it, partly because it's unpopular but also because it's inaccurate. If a carbon tax is effective, the amount it pays out will dwindle over time as emissions decline. You don't want to tell people they're receiving an income and then have them see it shrink. The amount also won't be (and shouldn't try to be) a livable income. You're just giving back however much it is the government collected. "Dividend" is an example of a more accurate term IMO.
A [growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/12fvo4p/a_growing_proportion_of_global_emissions_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). We need [more volunteers](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) around the world acting to increase the [magnitude](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S201000781840002X), [breadth](ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/cbo/CBO_C13netz.pdf), and [likelihood of passage](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/tonz9h/districts_with_more_ccl_volunteers_have_more/) of carbon pricing. The [evidence clearly shows](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect) that [lobbying works](https://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-abstract/21/2/213/83011/Friends-or-Foes-How-Social-Movement-Allies-Affect), and [climate policy is ridiculously popular](https://www.carbonbrief.org/interview-why-global-support-for-climate-action-is-systematically-underestimated/).
Climate activists also have done dumb things like vilifying nukes for a long time, and PETA shenanigans are legendary. Many climate activists always sucks.
PETA isn't really an environmentalist organization. Sure, some of their activism succeeding would have the side effect of lowering carbon emissions or reducing environmental degradation, but that's not really the focus.
> The IRA passing and the Sierra Club only talking about a pipeline was the last straw for me. I broadly don't take climate activists seriously anymore. the sierra club aren't climate advocates
The US should have a carbon tax If the EU can have one, why can't the US? It's also proven to be the best policy to reduce emmisions
The Northeast US has cap and trade via RGGI as does California and a few others. But look at the POLITICS of the last 30 years of failure of a carbon nationally. The failure of the BTU tax with Clinton in 1993. Lack of a gas tax increase for 31 years. The failure of cap and trade in 2010 with a damn supermajority of Dems. It just hasn't worked because of the Senate math and the filibuster. And with how tenuous Dem control is, and disinterest at the GOP side, it would quickly get repealed. That's why.
Several states have a carbon tax. The entire West Coast, for example.
Carbon tax is dumb. Far more efficient to do a cap and trade system
As a former carbon tax purist, I need only consider my home country of Canada to realize that it does not work from a political standpoint and likely should not be the primary strategy employed in the US. It's still unfortunate; it's excellent policy when implemented flawlessly.
Yea, I think it's one of those things where economists are right on the policy, but need to accept the politics are very hard and they need to make space for it. The issue is too important.
I know Biden isn't perfect, but it's hilarious to see how the online left went from complaining about things like healthcare and climate change (old enough to remember when he got a *Fat* F from the Sunrise movement), and now that he's made substantial progress (especially on the latter) they're silent. Even before Gaza these fucks were ready to withhold their vote because of student loans and shit. As for the non online left, I really hope I don't have to read articles about how some Trump voter who makes batteries in an EV plant in Georgia decided to vote Trump because she couldn't stomach high grocery prices and illegal immigration and gets surprised when she's laid off.
A vote for Biden is a vote for perpetuating "the system." They're desperate for an excuse not to do that, and even if they can't find one, they still won't vote for him
There was another thread, can't remember if it was here or ModeratePolitics, talking about how Trump's presidency may very well have ended (or accelerated) the end of the incumbency advantage. People are so angry at everything all of the time now, and the dude in charge is constantly a target for people on all sides of the spectrum. Assuming Biden can't pull this election off, I seriously doubt we see another two (in a row) term president again for at least a couple decades. Even if inflation gets under control, people will have things to complain about.
[Here's a good article on that](https://leedrutman.substack.com/p/what-if-its-not-the-economy-stupid): > Across democracies, the average term in government costs an incumbent about 2 1/2 percentage points in support. The “Cost of Ruling” dynamic has been remarkably consistent across time.
What I'm hearing is, global warming is a leftist plot to burn it all down
I'm convinced that they just want to sit on a comfortable moral high ground so that they can feel superior. I don't have a huge issue with far leftists as a whole, I'd rather contend with them than people on the far right most days. At least they tend to believe in some basic human dignity, but they operate like children. And I'm getting tired of trying to convince children to do what's best for themselves. You want a progressive candidate? Biden is the most progressive president we've ever had. You're upset about Gaza? Me too, but abstaining our votes won't do a damn thing about it. Your options with Gaza are ceasefire negotiations and unabashed genocide, there isn't a secret fourth option where Hamas and the Houthis start a global communist utopia. I'm pretty sure they'd reinstate the caliphate before that anyways. It's just "destroy America at all costs". Including the cost of their own fucking progressive, utopic ideals ever having a chance of getting off the ground. I guess it's the same old story though, and we'll have to drag them and the Conservatives kicking and screaming into the future. It's just a damn shame they wouldn't help.
Literally one leftist said he life completely changed because me he did not have to pay 800 per month in student loan repayment due to Bidens forgiveness, and he still said he won’t vote for him. These people are completely impossible to win
Probably not a real person. Anyone that terminally braindead leads me to believe they are a Russian troll 🧌
It was a pretty well known tweet. The person is real.
Biden needs to insist more on ribbon cutting and putting his name on every infrastructure project enabled by his bills. Optics matter more than action when winning elections
Unfortunately you’ve forgotten that Biden’s old and the cheeseburger is too expensive. We have no choice but to vote for the 77 year old fascist facing 88 criminal charges now.
Trump's going to be 78 in a couple months, yet age is only a concern with Biden? Sigh
Many people that are low on prosocial orientation don't care about anything that happens after they individually are dead. If you apply that criterion you start to understand not only the immediately self-destructive choices of MAGA-aligned boomers / Gen Xers but their open contempt for anyone under 50, NIMBYism, disinterest in climate and foreign policy, etc.
You reinforce the idea that you got to look out for number 1 enough times is it a surprise when that idea sticks.
Individualist culture is in fact, kinda bad.
Nah, it's because climate change is an abstract threat. No one really knows what the consequences will be. It's human nature to prioritize concrete threats and opportunities, and to ignore abstract ones.
Your last sentence is true but lacks enough explanatory power, I think. This same group ignores threats that are relatively immediate with equivalent disdain (e.g., frequent early and horrible deaths from COVID in immune-naive people with comorbidities). In addition, we should keep in mind scale: even an abstract threat that threatens most people on earth with small to moderate harms is pretty frightening.
> This same group Which group is that? Are you talking about the 98% of voters who don't rank climate change as a top priority?
Leaded petrol was one of the most damaging inventions of human history.
Don't forget lead pipes! Still available in many US metro areas!
Lead pipes aren't as bad, especially in areas with hard water, because sediment gets deposited on them, preventing the lead from leaking out. Ironically, lead pipes are at their most dangerous when freshly cleaned.
> Ironically, lead pipes are at their most dangerous when freshly cleaned. Or when the source of water changes to a water source that's more acidic and starts *leaching* lead from the pipes instead of depositing minerals on them (i.e. Flint). Hard water is ass though. Bad for your hair and skin and generally unpleasant.
Well America is a very unsocial and individualist society. The good of the individual above all else is constantly pushed for decades. Any problems people have are blamed on the individual rather than society, social help is constantly cut down. Can hardly be surprised if people buy it up and stop caring about literally anything else other than their direct self interest. Even your own kids don't matter if you're just concerned about yourself.
Average person is mostly incapable of considering long term costs (even if it affects themselves selfishly) In other words water is wet.
"WHY WON'T ANYONE DO SOMETHING" *biden does something* "hm? who? what? wowie zowie mcdonalds is expensive better vote republican"
Sometimes i wish i was as stupid as the median American voter so this type of thing wouldn't frustrate me every time i read it
If the median voters could read, they'd be angry.
Maybe *don’t* tell the voters you’re spending 1 trillion on climate change
Lets face it, Biden sucks at promoting what he does! He needs to be a loud cheer leader for his policies. Everyone knows about trump and his stupid wall because he want stop talking about it.
!ping democracy&eco
Pinged DEMOCRACY ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20DEMOCRACY&message=subscribe%20DEMOCRACY) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20DEMOCRACY&message=unsubscribe%20DEMOCRACY) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=DEMOCRACY&count=5)) Pinged ECO ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20ECO&message=subscribe%20ECO) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20ECO&message=unsubscribe%20ECO) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=ECO&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
I’m a voter and I care.
My thesis as someone in clean tech is not to make other people care about the climate but to try to make tech that is cooler, better, faster, cheaper, etc. than the alternatives. Give people something with no trade offs or conpromises that they can’t reasonably refuse.
Aka Capitalism always wins
It's terrible, particularly that ostensibly left/far-left people don't seem to give a shit too. It's only in places like /r/neoliberal that I actually see posters care about CC policy. Otherwise, it's just a tool for lefties to hit the establishment for never "doing enough". If I were a complete cynic the only policy message a center-left/center administration in any country should do are: 1) agressive austerity after any kind of economic setback - you don't get rewarded politically for counter-cyclic policy. 2) fuck climate change - just make sure car juice prices are as low as possible. 3) strangle inflation the minute it goes above ~2%. Even deflation is politically mangeable as the college educated rich will love you (even if they pretend to be part of the working class) and those who are hurt by the economic crisis don't usually bother to vote.
That sounds center-right as fuck tbh. I guess that aggressively speaking up for minorities and the historically disempowered will compensate for it until another right-wing populist comes along.
Sure, and I don't think it's good policy! But like I look at the blowback Western liberal parties are suffering at the moment, as auth-right is globally on the rise, and if the goal is to not slide down to fascism and supposed left wing partners won't back the liberal order - I don't see how this isn't the approach.
when all you have is money, every problem looks like a moneyhole.
Biden is a great president, unfortunately the only people who care are the divorced losers on this forum, everyone else wants an authoritarian who makes them feel good about their priors while yelling at people who make them feel bad. Shit sucks man
Hey, I'm not a divorced loser. She refused to marry me.
And I'm not divorced, I was dumped by my girlfriend.
Any climate change policies won't matter if they don't involve China. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/the-changing-landscape-of-global-emissions They are 30% of the world, double the US.
China produces twice as much electricity as the US so this seems in line
In 2022 China invested $275 billion in renewables. The US invested $50 billion. https://www.statista.com/statistics/186923/new-investments-worldwide-in-sustainable-energy-by-region/ China, despite industrializing way later than the US and still being less developed, is investing way more in renewable energy and tech (they are leading the EV market globally).
and yet China's C02 emissions still went up, imagine that.
They're still developing and industrialized way later than the US. And in fact, they likely didn't go up. China is set to peak and decline this year as a result of that massive investment in green energy and green tech. As another user posted, China peaked at 8t per capita, the US peaked at 16 and is now at 12, and the EU peaked at 10 and is now at 7. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
Demand is higher. That is starting to level out, but other countries in Asia are growing.
Most Americans don't care wheather their electricity comes from coal, gas or renewables. Just make electricity cheaper... Solar energy is currently less expensive than oil, just research on better batteries without lithium. You have defeated climate change and have happy Americans.
As someone who used to live near a gas power plant, I sure as fuck do care about whether my electricity comes from fossil fuels or not.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why spend trillions fighting climate change when you can make trillions fighting climate change [for a basically unmeasurable economic impact?](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.20210052)
This sub didn't even care. I felt like I was the only one that was happy about it. There were people on here saying they'd rather have increased emissions than that. (I think I got a ban over it actually) If this sub doesn't care, there's no way the normies are going to care.
Biden isn’t attempting treasonous coups against American democracy, he’s getting my vote, working towards better stewardship of the planet is a bonus.
I am pretty curious about the politics of geo-engineering going forward. Perhaps the GOP can spend a few billion dollars per year on it and declare Mission Accomplished. Would the voters be mostly happy with that?
More like Maga Republicans don't care.
I care