Why do people still deny climate change?

  • 140 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: What "other problems" are there that we must deal with? Can they be resolved within the next few decades? Because if were not well on our way to a climate change solution by then we are screwed. Our children.. are screwed.

All we need to do is warm the ocean just a few more degrees dude... That's it. A tipping point occurs. Checkmate. At that point there's NOTHING we can do to prevent the ultimate erosion of the ice caps. No more ice = no more civilization.

So again I ask.. what are the more pressing issues that we must deal with before any kind of strict mandate is passed to deal with climate change?

Tangible issues that directly affect everyday Americans -- do you honestly think one will place more emphasis on an intangible issue compared to something that directly affects him or her? We do not live in an ideal world where we drink tea sitting at a round table singing hyms of love and harmony.

Issues like the job market, job benefits, retirement (medicare/social), marriage issues, energy/water prices, gas prices, food prices, high cost of living, local government debt, failing infrastructure, illegal immigration, crime, etc, etc.The list goes on and on and on regarding issues that directly affect your average American.

#102 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

If people are going to revolt against policies intended to stop/mitigate harmful changes to the earth's ecosystem I'll happily meet them in the streets.

And just looking at the poll you cited, the country is much more supportive of addressing the issue of climate change than you give them credit for. 49% of the country is either cares about the issue a "great deal" or a "fair amount", so I doubt I would be alone or even outnumbered.

Curious, noble, and perhaps a little naivete. If, or perhaps when, the riots do reach the streets, I will be there to keep order.

It's on everyone's minds, but the importance of the matter far sinks in comparison to actual pertinent and relevant issues. To invest trillions for the future, one must have a solid foundation (something the US clearly lacks). The two largest titans in the world who dictate the world mantra, the United States and China, both must take massive hits in order to "alleviate" the issues in climate change. I can declare with a strong amount of certainty that will not happen anytime soon.

I fail to see how investing in energy independence and preventing harm to the earth's ecosystem constitutes as taking a "major hit"

The opportunity cost of doing nothing is exceedingly higher than doing something.

The benefits of addressing climate change go much farther than just addressing climate change. There's a lot wrong with our energy sector. It's highly centralized which makes it a point of weakness in terms of conflict with a foreign enemy or terrorists and it has far too great an influence on our foreign policy to the point that we are in bed with countries that openly fund and fight against our own national interests.

#103 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

Oh so I guess it's more of just a resign yourself to the will of the uninformed masses

It's a "follow your own free will" and decide your path.

#104 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (7842 posts) -

The argument that we don't need to address the issue simply because China doesn't is absurd.

#105 Posted by Motokid6 (5844 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer: All of those issues... Will be issues for the rest of time. There will never be such thing as a utopia. The earlier we deal with climate change the easier and cheaper it will be.

#106 Edited by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I fail to see how investing in energy independence and preventing harm to the earth's ecosystem constitutes as taking a "major hit"

The opportunity cost of doing nothing is exceedingly higher than doing something.

The benefits of addressing climate change go much farther than just addressing climate change. There's a lot wrong with our energy sector. It's highly centralized which makes it a point of weakness in terms of conflict with a foreign enemy or terrorists and it has far too great an influence on our foreign policy to the point that we are in bed with countries that openly fund and fight against our own national interests.

Cut the moral verbal diarrhea from the equation -- if I see one more "prevent harm" to the earth declarative, I might puke. Tighten the belt, and speak in practicality.

Have you seen the countless studies on the cost of the investment, the cost to the job market, and the cost to the overall economy? How can one justify such mantra in a poor economic climate, nevermind when the construct being targeted is an issue that will come a century from now or later? Justify it to the collective, justify it to raise taxes, cut company margins, and force change in how society functions without the barrel of a gun.

#107 Edited by vl4d_l3nin (971 posts) -

I don't know.

What I do know is the ramifications of oil dependency extends well beyond an environmental impact. If that dependency doesn't change, we are going to see an unprecedented global transfer of wealth.

#108 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: All of those issues... Will be issues for the rest of time. There will never be such thing as a utopia. The earlier we deal with climate change the easier and cheaper it will be.

Not all, but in order to make "climate change" a pertinent and relevant issue, it must lead the way ahead of those tangible issues. A good, strong, and healthy economy is the first step in bringing the movement needed to necessitate change for energy and carbon solutions.

#109 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

The argument that we don't need to address the issue simply because China doesn't is absurd.

That is not the argument.

#110 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (971 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer: How can you form a good, strong, healthy economy without energy independence?

#111 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (7842 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

The argument that we don't need to address the issue simply because China doesn't is absurd.

That is not the argument.

"Frivolous, as if you cannot get the United States, or China to invest trillions -- then the entire issue is largely moot. The United States has far too many other issues to even consider investing into such an expensive mantra, and good luck getting China to cooperate in cutting their margins."

You've already alluded to it, and its seems to be a conservative talking point these days. Just because China may not be ready to make that leap doesn't mean the US shouldn't or couldn't.

#112 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

Have you seen the countless studies on the cost of the investment, the cost to the job market, and the cost to the overall economy?

All minor in the face of what would happen if we do nothing to solve the problem. To repeat, doing nothing will end up being much more expensive than doing something.

I agree, there is a collective action problem on this issue. Said problem should be solved, not embraced. To argue the latter is shamelessly irresponsible.

Also I find it troubling that the idea of preventing harm to the earth's ecosystem gives you nausea. That's really not normal, you might want to get that checked out.

#113 Edited by Motokid6 (5844 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer: So what would you see done with this "healthy economy" however many years from now? Would you rather see it go towards the good things or would you rather our children chase a solution to stabilize a wrecked atmosphere for the entirety of their lives and the generations to come?

No amount of money in the world will fix mother nature once we pass this tipping point. Which will slowly occur during the coarse of our present lifetime. And instead of forward progress you get atrophy. Because at this point your "healthy economy" is being dumped into fixing something that cannot be fixed.

#114 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@vl4d_l3nin said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: How can you form a good, strong, healthy economy without energy independence?

Not to mention all the jobs created from investing in renewable energy and the construction of new infrastructure.

#115 Edited by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@vl4d_l3nin said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: How can you form a good, strong, healthy economy without energy independence?

The answer is in the past.

@-Sun_Tzu- said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: How can you form a good, strong, healthy economy without energy independence?

Not to mention all the jobs created from investing in renewable energy and the construction of new infrastructure.

Which would far overshadowed by the jobs lost.

#116 Edited by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

"Frivolous, as if you cannot get the United States, or China to invest trillions -- then the entire issue is largely moot. The United States has far too many other issues to even consider investing into such an expensive mantra, and good luck getting China to cooperate in cutting their margins."

You've already alluded to it, and its seems to be a conservative talking point these days. Just because China may not be ready to make that leap doesn't mean the US shouldn't or couldn't.

You missed the context, obviously.

#117 Edited by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

Have you seen the countless studies on the cost of the investment, the cost to the job market, and the cost to the overall economy?

All minor in the face of what would happen if we do nothing to solve the problem. To repeat, doing nothing will end up being much more expensive than doing something.

I agree, there is a collective action problem on this issue. Said problem should be solved, not embraced. To argue the latter is shamelessly irresponsible.

Also I find it troubling that the idea of preventing harm to the earth's ecosystem gives you nausea. That's really not normal, you might want to get that checked out.

Minor? Ah but relativity, tis' a beautiful thing.

@Motokid6 said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: So what would you see done with this "healthy economy" however many years from now? Would you rather see it go towards the good things or would you rather our children chase a solution to stabilize a wrecked atmosphere for the entirety of their lives and the generations to come?

No amount of money in the world will fix mother nature once we pass this tipping point. Which will slowly occur during the coarse of our present lifetime. And instead of forward progress you get atrophy. Because at this point your "healthy economy" is being dumped into fixing something that cannot be fixed.

I don't rightly know nor do I rightly care. My job is to keep the peace, protect and serve. If I cared enough about policy making on intangible issues affecting our way of life, I would become a politician... but I choose a career of honor, integrity, and honesty. Quite fitting, actually. I don't feel like pandering or beating about the bush regarding philosophy on how to fix the world. I speak in practicality, and the issue of climate change is a complex yet important one. However, all too much is it fueled by idea pandering, and fear mongering.

#118 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:
@vl4d_l3nin said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: How can you form a good, strong, healthy economy without energy independence?

Not to mention all the jobs created from investing in renewable energy and the construction of new infrastructure.

Which would far overshadowed by the jobs lost.

That is impossible to say.

#119 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

That is impossible to say.

It's impossible to analyze possible market outcomes?

#120 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (7842 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

"Frivolous, as if you cannot get the United States, or China to invest trillions -- then the entire issue is largely moot. The United States has far too many other issues to even consider investing into such an expensive mantra, and good luck getting China to cooperate in cutting their margins."

You've already alluded to it, and its seems to be a conservative talking point these days. Just because China may not be ready to make that leap doesn't mean the US shouldn't or couldn't.

You missed the context, obviously.

Then what context is China relevant in this discussion other than to dismiss the US' attempts to curb carbon out put as but mere drops in the bucket? If factoring China into the discussion wasn't your intent, then why mention it at all?

#121 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Then what context is China relevant in this discussion other than to dismiss the US' attempts to curb carbon out put as but mere drops in the bucket? If factoring China into the discussion wasn't your intent, then why mention it at all?

To highlight the complexity of a globalized issue and why I did not want to focus on that avenue; thus, I was more keenly focused on the American viewpoint.

#122 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

That is impossible to say.

It's impossible to analyze possible market outcomes?

Of course not, but it is impossible to take one possible market outcome out of many and treat it like a certainty, especially when talking about new technology that we don't fully understand and/or appreciate in terms of its applicability. It is perfectly conceivable that revolutionizing the energy sector in this country will be a net positive in terms of job growth.

#123 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

That is impossible to say.

It's impossible to analyze possible market outcomes?

Of course not, but it is impossible to take one possible market outcome out of many and treat it like a certainty, especially when talking about new technology that we don't fully understand and/or appreciate in terms of its applicability. It is perfectly conceivable that revolutionizing the energy sector in this country will be a net positive in terms of job growth.

I'd be interested in reading a peer-reviewed study on that outcome.

#124 Posted by dave123321 (34202 posts) -

Yeah, embracing the collective action issue instead of trying to address it seems to be a large misstep

#125 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7842 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Then what context is China relevant in this discussion other than to dismiss the US' attempts to curb carbon out put as but mere drops in the bucket? If factoring China into the discussion wasn't your intent, then why mention it at all?

To highlight the complexity of a globalized issue and why I did not want to focus on that avenue; thus, I was more keenly focused on the American viewpoint.

So in order to more keenly focus on the American viewpoint, the costs and decision making of China is brought into discussion? That seems rather odd to me.

As its been brought up previously, the mention of China simply seems like an allusion to a collective action issue.

#126 Posted by Motokid6 (5844 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer: Are you a police officer?

#127 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

That is impossible to say.

It's impossible to analyze possible market outcomes?

Of course not, but it is impossible to take one possible market outcome out of many and treat it like a certainty, especially when talking about new technology that we don't fully understand and/or appreciate in terms of its applicability. It is perfectly conceivable that revolutionizing the energy sector in this country will be a net positive in terms of job growth.

I'd be interested in reading a peer-reviewed study on that outcome.

As would I

#128 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

To highlight the complexity of a globalized issue and why I did not want to focus on that avenue; thus, I was more keenly focused on the American viewpoint.

So in order to more keenly focus on the American viewpoint, the costs and decision making of China is brought into discussion? That seems rather odd to me.

As its been brought up previously, the mention of China simply seems like an allusion to a collective action issue.

It's overtly obvious that the goals cannot be met without American and Chinese cooperation. You cannot force change without the barrel of a gun; indeed, the day the European Union has a "pair" to back up their words (assuming they feel the need is there) is the day I become a trillionaire. Until then, tea sipping and legs on the table. It's time to watch the world burn, lads.

#129 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@Motokid6 said:

@Stevo_the_gamer: Are you a police officer?

Similar, but better.

#130 Edited by Stevo_the_gamer (43080 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

As would I

#131 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7842 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

It's overtly obvious that the goals cannot be met without American and Chinese cooperation. You cannot force change without the barrel of a gun; indeed, the day the European Union has a "pair" to back up their words (assuming they feel the need is there) is the day I become a trillionaire. Until then, tea sipping and legs on the table. It's time to watch the world burn, lads.

Obviously it would help if China were more willing, no one is denying it. However the US is still the second biggest carbon polluter on the planet. Just because my neighbor creates more trash than me and throws it on his lawn doesn't mean I have to do the same.

The EPA report on the carbon reduction attributes 90 billion or so dollars saved in health care costs and premature deaths in the US alone due to the change.

#132 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

As would I

All I said is that the outcome was conceivable m8

Since you seem so certain about the economic impact that transitioning to renewable energy will have I'd love to see what peer reviewed research you're relying on

#133 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

It's overtly obvious that the goals cannot be met without American and Chinese cooperation. You cannot force change without the barrel of a gun; indeed, the day the European Union has a "pair" to back up their words (assuming they feel the need is there) is the day I become a trillionaire. Until then, tea sipping and legs on the table. It's time to watch the world burn, lads.

Obviously it would help if China were more willing, no one is denying it. However the US is still the second biggest carbon polluter on the planet. Just because my neighbor creates more trash than me and throws it on his lawn doesn't mean I have to do the same.

The EPA report on the carbon reduction attributes 90 billion or so dollars saved in health care costs and premature deaths in the US alone due to the change.

It also becomes much easier for China to decide to cut down on carbon emissions if the US has already done so.

#134 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (7842 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

It's overtly obvious that the goals cannot be met without American and Chinese cooperation. You cannot force change without the barrel of a gun; indeed, the day the European Union has a "pair" to back up their words (assuming they feel the need is there) is the day I become a trillionaire. Until then, tea sipping and legs on the table. It's time to watch the world burn, lads.

Obviously it would help if China were more willing, no one is denying it. However the US is still the second biggest carbon polluter on the planet. Just because my neighbor creates more trash than me and throws it on his lawn doesn't mean I have to do the same.

The EPA report on the carbon reduction attributes 90 billion or so dollars saved in health care costs and premature deaths in the US alone due to the change.

It also becomes much easier for China to decide to cut down on carbon emissions if the US has already done so.

Indeed it will.

Edit: I would also consider the amount of smog and premature deaths related to it to be a big factor in their reduction of coal use. The amount of particulate matter in their cities is going to be a mounting crisis, and their only option is to use cleaner sources of energy. Given that the cost of health care to the people start outweighing the benefits of cheap and dirty fuel.

#135 Edited by The_Last_Ride (72995 posts) -

It's despicable how lobbyists try to hide the fact there is global warming

#136 Edited by Black_Alpha_G (92 posts) -

I'll just leave this here.

#137 Posted by girlshavefuntoo (120 posts) -

Let's just go back to gay cows.

#138 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (14686 posts) -

Ignorance is bliss for a lot of people.

Also I'd imagine this would be a very expensive issue to tackle, if we even could effectively. Too many people have become used to a certain way of living, not to mention the effects it would have on our global industry.

#139 Posted by gamerguru100 (10748 posts) -

Something something Republican something something religion something

#140 Edited by wis3boi (31592 posts) -

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Ignorance is bliss for a lot of people.

Also I'd imagine this would be a very expensive issue to tackle, if we even could effectively. Too many people have become used to a certain way of living, not to mention the effects it would have on our global industry.

Apathy leads to death in the end. At least the people in the pacific, places like Kiribati, are knowledgeable and woke up to climate change, but the downside is, it's too late for them and will lose their homeland in our lifetime. I think for a lot of humans, they don't care until the problem knocks on their doorstep

#141 Posted by The_Last_Ride (72995 posts) -

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Ignorance is bliss for a lot of people.

Also I'd imagine this would be a very expensive issue to tackle, if we even could effectively. Too many people have become used to a certain way of living, not to mention the effects it would have on our global industry.

That's just people who can't even bother and are lazy. We can do something about it, but companies, people with power and morons keep telling us we can't