Why do liberals believe in global warming but not conservatives?

[K1052]

Stabilizing energy markets, regardless of the source, is an obvious concern to government as it has a tremendous impact to the economy. Stabilizing and safeguarding markets against disruptions (terrorist attacks on supply etc) seems like a logical thing for government to do.

Investing in decoupling the US from oil dependency seems like a better, less murdery, way to accomplish that.

 

[bshole]

Well the science is settled. Sure details continue to evolve but as your girl Judith Curry said, "All things being equal more CO2 means more warming." If it wasn't, why you could win yourself a Nobel prize for over turning thermodynamics.

Yea and we have known that for around a century. THAT science is settled. What is not settled and what has not been demonstrated is the hypothesis that the bad effects of global warming are such that they cannot be adapted to and that positive effects are not greater than the negative effects. The greening planet due to warmer climate and increased CO2 is demonstrable science. It is also settled.

It is up to science to prove that this greeening is harmful to humanity.

A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

 

[Brainonska511]

Yea and we have known that for around a century. THAT science is settled. What is not settled and what has not been demonstrated is the hypothesis that the bad effects of global warming are such that they cannot be adapted to and that positive effects are not greater than the negative effects. The greening planet due to warmer climate and increased CO2 is demonstrable science. It is also settled.

It is up to science to prove that this greeening is harmful to humanity.



http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

Some areas might benefit, but other areas are bound to be big losers. Particularly those areas around the coast, where a lot of infrastructure is and where people live, will not benefit from rising sea levels and increased flooding.

 

[PokerGuy]

In this Ars article link they mention the amount of global subsidies to both the fossil fuel and renewables industries:

I don't know what exactly is included in that $325B 'subsidy' category, nor do I know what exactly is in the $150B subsidy number. Perhaps some further reading of their sources will have that info, but I haven't had time to do that.

So would you say governments are manipulating the market by reducing subsidies for fossil fuels and increasing them for renewables or is it the fact they subsidized one or both industries

That depends on what exactly you mean with subsidies. For example, the US spends tens (hundreds?) of billions annually to safeguard the supply of oil. Is that a subsidy? At the same time, we directly apply a tax on the price of gasoline, so is that considered as a 'negative subsidy'?

Or is this not the kind of market manipulation you were referring to.

There are many kinds of manipulation. Some are direct (subsidies or financial incentives), while others are indirect but no less real. EPA regulations, CAFE standards, penalties for using more energy, carbon taxes etc. Actions that impose burdens and/or overhead to increase the price of one source of energy to make another source of energy more desirable are manipulating the marketplace. Some amount of government interference / manipulation of the marketplace is inevitable and in fact desirable (to stabilize the economy and protect national interests).

If renewables become cheaper or cost competitive and consumers/industry go that way, that's great.... but I'm opposed to artificially adding to the cost of fossil fuel by imposing regulations, penalties etc to try and drive the market towards one source or another. Let the marketplace sort it out.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yea and we have known that for around a century. THAT science is settled. What is not settled and what has not been demonstrated is the hypothesis that the bad effects of global warming are such that they cannot be adapted to and that positive effects are not greater than the negative effects. The greening planet due to warmer climate and increased CO2 is demonstrable science. It is also settled.

It is up to science to prove that this greeening is harmful to humanity.



http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

..... and even if we do conclude that the overall effect is negative (which is far from settled at this point), we have very little in the way of a roadmap that demonstrates a real solution to the problem.

 

[Sunburn74]

..... and even if we do conclude that the overall effect is negative (which is far from settled at this point), we have very little in the way of a roadmap that demonstrates a real solution to the problem.

There are plenty of solutions. It's lack of interest that is the issue.

Can go all nuclear, use wave energy, invest in massive solar arrays on platforms in space with transfer of energy to the earth through RFA signaling, etc etc or just reduce population headcount with an aggressive birth control strategy throughout the world. theres even tech to convert co2 to ethanol cheaply and quickly thats in development.

There are a lot of options but a lot of stakeholders involved and the problem needs global cooperation.

 

[hal2kilo]

What a load of crap.

Speaking of noisy data.

 

[PokerGuy]

There are plenty of solutions. It's lack of interest that is the issue.

Can go all nuclear, use wave energy, invest in massive solar arrays on platforms in space with transfer of energy to the earth through RFA signaling, etc etc or just reduce population headcount with an aggressive birth control strategy throughout the world. theres even tech to convert co2 to ethanol cheaply and quickly thats in development.

There are a lot of options but a lot of stakeholders involved and the problem needs global cooperation.

Okey, I'll amend my statement to "realistic and not batshit insane solutions".

 

[Brainonska511]

Okey, I'll amend my statement to "realistic and not batshit insane solutions".

Plenty of realistic solutions have been proposed. But it's hard to have a conversation about the solutions and possible paths we can take policy-wise when we have a large collection of nincompoops still arguing whether the problem really exists or not.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's all fine, like I said, I don't have a problem with whatever the direction the market is driven. If consumers want something and companies respond, or if marketplace economics drive a change, that's perfectly normal. I object to artificially trying to create such directions.

Do you believe in sending riot police to quell civil unrest? Should people be artificially prevented from doing what they want to?

When you look at all the neurotic claims from the right that the left wants to control people what you see is Stockholm Syndrome, people who were subjected to intense authoritarian intimidation as children to stand up for themselves as proud egotistical self serving winners so they would grow up on top in a capitalist system of hate filled competition. These poor inverted victims now see any hope or help for the human community of victims generally as a threat they must work to destroy. They seek to preserve the savage jungle self hate is has created because they believe they are it's rightful heirs. And they are. They are its saddest most lonely and cut off victims who have lost what it means to be alive.

 

[Retro Rob]

PLENTY of conservatives believe in global warming but the news and electronic media tend to focus on the 1 percent of dumb, loud assholes.

I agree 100 percent, and I think they tend to focus on the 1 percent because of a propagandist agenda to paint every conservative opinion as "anti-science".

Since we live in a "click-bait" and react-without-thinking society, this agenda is easier to push than ever before.

 

[poofyhairguy]

No one is entitled to a better standard of living at the expense of someone else, when people can come to terms with that is when you will be able to solve all the environmental issues affecting the planet.

If people could agree on that we wouldn't have wars either. Fighting over resources (aka some having a better standard of living) runs through our history. So if that if what it takes then the issues might never be solved.

In this comment you have NAILED why a lot of conservatives I know deny climate change. If it was just the science and not the policy many wouldn't deny it. But the way the climate change argument has been constructed if you accept the science you HAVE TO accept the solutions which are often created based on this "all people have the same value" lie that is the undercurrent of progressive philosophy. Add in the fact that all the solutions require "world government collaboration" (which conservatives read as "One World Government") and you have the perfect mix of everything a modern American conservative rejects.

It is the same reason why conservatives don't mind bombing the middle east (if it stops terrorists) but don't want to really help or accept the refugee fallout from middle eastern war. The empathy gap for all those people is huge, and sadly isn't very political as many non-progressive liberals really only get upset for a week or two about it when pictures of dead or hurt kids from Syria end up in their Facebook feed. Americans of all stripes never hit that critical point of empathy needed to actually sacrifice in ways needed to "fix" Syria, it is too easy to ignore. Climate change is the same except it doesn't even have the advantage of dead kid pictures.

Global warming will lead to rising oceans that will mostly hurt poor people first, and those poor people aren't all American (or even mostly American). That is the real reason why conservatives have trouble accepting climate change and probably won't accept climate change. They don't want world equality, in fact they like that their children being born on the right side of an imaginary line gives them a better shot in life than a kid the same age in the third world. The American Dream has always been implied as only for Americans, and never concerned itself at who would actually huff the fumes from the production of that plastic white picket fence that fills in our perfect family picture.

We are a century away at best from some sort of world acknowledgement that every common life is worth the same (we will always have elites), but the overpopulated future messy world that comes with that realization will look more like how China is arranged than some Star Trekian utopia. Probably at that point people will look back at the freedom loving, SUV driving independent and wasteful American with the same scorn that we look at slaveholders today. But it is asking too much to expect that mindset in modern people, it just is.

Either technology fixes climate change almost by itself (like electric cars become the cheaper option to drive), or we are doomed.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Unsurprising you're completely unfamiliar with previous her policy positions, ie outside of what right wing media tells you*, but feel compelled to mouth off anyway.

*that's not a great source for science.
Why would anyone care what someone who doesn't know anything about science think about it?

Most people don't, other then the few bigots that like to attack religious people on their faith. It's because it's a policy and political issue when the passion comes from and the attacks really set in. I'm pretty familiar with her positions, after all she voted for the fuckhole Obama twice.

 

[agent00f]

Most people don't, other then the few bigots that like to attack religious people on their faith. It's because it's a policy and political issue when the passion comes from and the attacks really set in. I'm pretty familiar with her positions, after all she voted for the fuckhole Obama twice.

So why do you think she shills for right wing media now given her previous positions?

 

[agent00f]

Stabilizing energy markets, regardless of the source, is an obvious concern to government as it has a tremendous impact to the economy. Stabilizing and safeguarding markets against disruptions (terrorist attacks on supply etc) seems like a logical thing for government to do.

So you're just pretending to be too dumb to justify another set of policy choices?

 

[sandorski]

If people could agree on that we wouldn't have wars either. Fighting over resources (aka some having a better standard of living) runs through our history. So if that if what it takes then the issues might never be solved.

In this comment you have NAILED why a lot of conservatives I know deny climate change. If it was just the science and not the policy many wouldn't deny it. But the way the climate change argument has been constructed if you accept the science you HAVE TO accept the solutions which are often created based on this "all people have the same value" lie that is the undercurrent of progressive philosophy. Add in the fact that all the solutions require "world government collaboration" (which conservatives read as "One World Government") and you have the perfect mix of everything a modern American conservative rejects.

....

This is complete bullshit. Numerous solutions have been offered, every last one has been rejected by Conservatives by simply denying the problem exists or responsibility for the problem. At every step, from improving Energy Efficiency, to Market based Carbon Markets, to regulation of emissions, or taxes to add a Cost to Carbon emissions has been rejected with not a single alternative being offered to address the issue.

 

[JSt0rm]

Most people don't, other then the few bigots that like to attack religious people on their faith. It's because it's a policy and political issue when the passion comes from and the attacks really set in. I'm pretty familiar with her positions, after all she voted for the fuckhole Obama twice.

Religious people are always the victim.

 

[Grooveriding]

This is complete bullshit. Numerous solutions have been offered, every last one has been rejected by Conservatives by simply denying the problem exists or responsibility for the problem. At every step, from improving Energy Efficiency, to Market based Carbon Markets, to regulation of emissions, or taxes to add a Cost to Carbon emissions has been rejected with not a single alternative being offered to address the issue.

I agree. There are real solutions and paths to stopping it, but it's difficult and it will change lifestyles. You can't sell that to a lot of people, right or left, probably most people. Even among the group of people who understand and/or accept the science and are aware it's happening and will eventually become a crisis, if you began to actually implement effective measures, many of them would likely balk when it hit their lifestyles.

When it comes to Republicans they are sucking the dicks of the interests that stand to lose huge amounts of money if real solutions are enabled. It's not even a left or right issue for most first world nations, except the USA, there are countries in Europe with the right leaning party in charge that are not denying climate change like a bunch of loons. In Canada our Conservative party would have and never denied it in recent history and both parties when in power have made efforts to do something towards it. It's just a crazy trait of some US Republicans in office to actually deny it. Maybe they see some value in the strategy of complete denial into alternate reality, rather than acknowledging it and making a token effort like many other nations do. The US Republican party comes off as a two-faced joker, on one hand they pander to an electorate with junk single-issue hooks like abortion, religion, guns to pander votes - while the other face has a wide open mouth working hard for the richest of the rich. The Democratic party in the US seems to do much of the same, just without the same dog whistling, and they just take the shaft, not cup the nuts as well.

We humans have a tendency to ignore problems until they become an unavoidable crisis that has to be confronted because it's become emergent and climate change may very well end up going that way. I think this happens more often with problems that are not sitting in front of your eyes, observable and easily understood at all times. A hundred years from now those responsible for not doing enough will end up cursed and go down in the history books as oblivious, or complicit morons. The ones who were denying it when the evidence had already settled it will be vilified as crooks. I think right now for the deniers it's simply what do I care, it's only my children and grandchildren who will suffer for it, I'll be dead and and no longer aware of anything when the shit hits the fan.

 

[Grooveriding]

Religious people are always the victim.

Of themselves.

 

[poofyhairguy]

This is complete bullshit. Numerous solutions have been offered, every last one has been rejected by Conservatives by simply denying the problem exists or responsibility for the problem.

Because most of those solutions all hinge on effective (read: authoritarian) government oversight which many conservatives don't believe in unless we are talking abortion or bathrooms.

At every step, from improving Energy Efficiency,

I don't think anyone minds more efficient products, its when the efficiency is enforced by law (and that leads to more expensive products) that people get upset. It basically becomes a consumer tax at that point.

to Market based Carbon Markets,

The problem is they aren't really markets, because the made-up "carbon cost" is dependant on calculated social costs that are basically a liberal value judgement. It is the opposite of a usual market where the market sets the price. Plus Cali's Cap and Trade policy has been a complete flop so the effectiveness is questioned.

to regulation of emissions,

I don't what you mean here. Not only does the EPA have emssion standards for things like cars, many states have their own on top. If anything this is success and agreed upon policy.

or taxes to add a Cost to Carbon emissions

That isn't very controversial either. Hell Exxon is pushing for Carbon Taxes! Big companies love the idea because it creates a barrier of entry to their industries:

https://electrek.co/2016/08/29/a-federal-carbon-tax-is-imminent-in-the-usa-and-exxon-is-pushing-it/

has been rejected with not a single alternative being offered to address the issue.

I think the alternative advocated is clear- there is a big market for cleaner products with lots of people willing to pay above and beyond pure economic value to get products that are green (think Tesla or hybrid cars). The more alternatives like this there are in the market the more the public can choose at a personal level to make a difference.

The problem with that alternative to many is that there is an assumption that people won't make the correct decisions for the planet, so we have to force their hand. A lot of conservatives will pretty much never agree with that conclusion.

 

[agent00f]

This is complete bullshit. Numerous solutions have been offered, every last one has been rejected by Conservatives by simply denying the problem exists or responsibility for the problem. At every step, from improving Energy Efficiency, to Market based Carbon Markets, to regulation of emissions, or taxes to add a Cost to Carbon emissions has been rejected with not a single alternative being offered to address the issue.

I think you misinterpret what he's trying to say, namely they're denying the problem exists because they don't like the solution.

Eg. a mechanic tells you that your engine has some issue that costs $1k to fix. You don't want to spend $1k so you deny there's anything amiss with the thing, keep insisting every expert on the matter who says it's going to be $5k if you don't get it fixed now is trying to bilk you, and shop around until there's finally some guy who can tell you there's nothing wrong with it.

Notice the problem isn't so much you have real trouble believing an engine can be problematic per se, you're just rationalizing to avoid spending the grand now.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Exactly.

Liberals and especially progressives believe because it represents the ultimate in control for them. Little is more appealing to them than controlling large groups of people but the climate of the planet, well that's control on an epic scale! It appeals to the bottom rung on a visceral level. The religious, cult-like based fear of destruction and death of the orb that sustains us drives them. It appeals to the big Kahuna's because it gives them the control they need over huge swaths of the populace. Some of them undoubtedly harbor climate related fears at various levels but for most, it is the very thought of controlling both the people and the climate of an entire planet that is so intoxicating.

Regardless, with Trump at the helm these needs are going to go unfulfilled for the next eight years. We'll be drilling, digging coal and tapping energy sources at a frantic pace.

Invest in Pfizer and grow rich over the next two terms. Maybe you can make enough to move to Mars.

You live in a very odd world.

 

[Paratus]

Getting back to the OP it's not just liberals who "believe" in climate change. It's the head of every country.

According to this article
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...only_world_leader_to_deny_climate_change.html

We would be the only country to have its leadership deny it's happening, if that's their position on assuming office.

Even Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin have signed the Paris accords. Putin has apparently come around over the last few years. Maybe Putin could be a good influence.

 

[agent00f]

Getting back to the OP it's not just liberals who "believe" in climate change. It's the head of every country.

According to this article
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...only_world_leader_to_deny_climate_change.html

We would be the only country to have its leadership deny it's happening, if that's their position on assuming office.

Even Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin have signed the Paris accords. Putin has apparently come around over the last few years. Maybe Putin could be a good influence.

It's an intl conspiracy against american greatness.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Yea and we have known that for around a century. THAT science is settled. What is not settled and what has not been demonstrated is the hypothesis that the bad effects of global warming are such that they cannot be adapted to and that positive effects are not greater than the negative effects. The greening planet due to warmer climate and increased CO2 is demonstrable science. It is also settled.

It is up to science to prove that this greeening is harmful to humanity.



http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

It's not humanity that is doing the immediate suffering, you're smart enough to realize that. Eventually it will be humanity, but first it's the small things like plankton, or bees, or something else at the bottom of the food chain that numerous other species depend on for food/shelter/protection/fertilization/etc.