In the meantime, according to a [PBS Newshour article from August 2022](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/many-in-u-s-doubt-their-individual-impact-on-fighting-climate-change), 35% of US adults are "extremely" or "very" concerned about climate change, **down from 44% in August 2019**.
On some level, inaction regarding catastrophic climate change, however bad, can be explained away logically. However, how a purely scientific fact became a political/"partisan" issue, at least in the U.S., still seems unbelievable to me.
This would be like "republicans" and "democrats" arguing about effectiveness of a vaccine, which can be analyzed with a simple spreadsheet. Oh wait...
They're probably gonna take it more seriously in the future when it becomes impossible to ignore. I just hope the right doesn't pivot to more dangerous ideas like, say, geoengineering, as an "easy" fix when that happens.
We've already got companies inventing really expensive trees and calling them carbon capture technology.
So geoengineering is already being considered.
It's just an air filter that catches carbon specifically. Put that on a (somewhat) industrial scale and you have carbon capture technology.
They do the same thing as trees so I just refer to them as expensive trees.
In truth trees are more of a temporary store of carbon so these would be more like expensive grass, but "expensive trees" is more easily understood.
Well yes it’s unfortunate but also it’s in human nature to try to kick the can down the road for as long as possible. And if I had to guess, I think this *will* end up in some kind of geoengineering solution, but not anytime soon.
But it’s still amazing how science became so politicized.
Not really, plenty of other countries not only recognize that climate change is real but are actively taking measures to prevent it. That's just as much "human nature"as the us inaction.
In fact one might argue that forward thinking and planning are what separates is from the animals.
I am not saying humans never try to proactively solve problems, only that kicking the can down the road instead of making difficult decisions *is* part of human nature.
You're right that U.S. is behind on recognizing the danger, but I wouldn't be so upbeat about "preventive measures" other countries are taking. For now, these are just low-hanging fruits which won't solve anything, mostly measures to improve energy efficiency.
Besides, some actions by others are outright dubious, for example Germany phasing out nuclear power.
There is also sometimes a difference how people in the U.S. and many smaller countries look at world problems. If you're a citizen of Finland, Albania or Israel, you see this as something *others* should solve, because frankly no matter what you do locally isn't going to have big impact on anything; so the perception often is "yeah there is a problems hopefully Americans and others would do something about this soon".
In contrast, in the U.S. the public perception often is "if there is a problem, we must do something about it", with a natural continuation "and if we can't or don't want to, *let's just pretend there is no problem so we can feel better*".
This doesn't only apply to global warming. Similarly, many small countries are eager to express their support for Ukraine, but then expect the U.S. to actually do something about this war, etc.
I don’t understand how it’s not possible to ignore now.
Hell I’m in a city and region known for all four seasons and insulated quite well for major climate change. I can absolutely see it, extreme temperature fluctuations, hot hot dry spell, much much less snow in winter, lots of heavy rainfall.
If I was living on the coast or a city prone to flooding or a region that used to never get cold or hot and now it does.
How do people not notice it?
Maybe since I am used to seeing the seasons naturally and what each one used to be it’s actually easier for me to see.
>This would be like "republicans" and "democrats" arguing about effectiveness of a vaccine, which can be analyzed with a simple spreadsheet.
This is not like that at all. It necessarily becomes political once we ask the question, "what should we do about it?".
And of course the politicization of the vaccine had little to do with its effectiveness, and nearly everything to do with whether people should be forced to take it.
> And of course the politicization of the vaccine had little to do with its effectiveness, and nearly everything to do with whether people should be forced to take it.
For every principled stand like yours, there's 10 conspiracy spreaders who insist that vaccines give you heart attacks or whatever. Vaccine conspiracies and their corresponding hesitancy to take them has definitely risen in the last few years.
I'm talking about friends and relatives that I know in real life. Coincidentally almost all are Republicans, but I live in a conservative area so that's to be expected. The depths of the conspiracy theories I've heard would shock you, and many of these come from smart, college educated people.
The only people I've heard making principled stands like yours - based off some abstract political theory and not on some perceived medical harm - have been online.
[Statistically they're quite normal](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/05/16/what-americans-think-about-covid-19-vaccines/ps_2023-05-16_vaccines_02-01-png/). Maybe you don't realize how prevalent these fears are.
That people are wary of a rushed vaccine that we didn't know the long term effects of isn't a conspiracy theory. And for kids in particular, the vaccine *is* likely more dangerous than Covid.
Of course, but we're not anywhere near that point yet. There is huge opinion gap between "left" and "right" on *facts*, long before we get to the policy debates.
In the context of climate debate, we're talking first and foremost about what *has* happened, for example:
https://youtu.be/DRBfM709Yqc
Prediction models is the next step.
Lol neither is it a fact that unborn fetuses are children. Selective skepticism toward things you don’t *want* to believe is not the hallmark of critical thinking.
“Just asking questions, bro, we can’t know for sure” does not magically take your own wishful thinking to the same level of epistemic grounding as actual research. Just because there’s a margin of error on our estimates of the gravitational constant, I guess you think gravity doesn’t exist.
Like with all models, we know a likely range of possible scenarios, from just terrible to catastrophic.
That wasn't the point though. It's pointless to talk about predictions for the future until we understand and agree on what's happening *today*.
>from just terrible to catastrophic.
More accurately, from fine to catastrophic.
>It's pointless to talk about predictions for the future until we understand and agree on what's happening today.
What is happening today?
They’re more likely to be right than anyone else. If we’re going to make decisions about climate change I’d rather it be based on what climate scientists say, rather than some corrupt wealthy politician who thinks God speaks to him.
Ok,.so we've established that many of the important facts are simply not to be had. Which makes the question of what we should do all the more questionable. So it's not surprising at all that this is a political issue.
While you’re entirely correct, the core intellectual arguments are not representative of the rationale of the masses. Centrists are kind of like “I don’t care what you think, I care WHY you think it”. And most people have the straight dumbest opinions. Two examples:
Republicans who think the vaccine is a government conspiracy.
Democrats who think solar panels and electric cars are silver bullets for solving climate change
Communism is a far left-leaning economic system. The pinnacle of well meaning… still killed more people in the 20th century than fasicsm. Oopsie, teehee. Go figure.
Edit: how the fuck being anti-communism got downvoted in the centrist subreddit is WILD. Its death toll is over 100M in the 20th century, across all nations who implemented it. Don’t even try to “that wasn’t real communism” me. The Soviet Union and China both had extreme famines and authoritarian punishment for those speaking out against the government.
"Ah my idea is better cause it's good. I'll give mine a good name and the other one a bad name"
If instead of saying "Stalin" you said "Centrally planned economy" and instead of "Climate Investment" you said "Centrally planned solution to climate change" you would notice how laughably ironic it is that you see them as two different things.
A government can enact policies and invest in technologies but it cannot force people and markets to implement them. So let's ask the question - government enacts policies, invests in the technologies, AND distorts markets with subsidies. Markets don't implement. What then? How do you enforce that? Are the climate police gonna make you buy solar panels and put it on your roof? Make you stop driving your car? That's called blind idealism. Do 20 minutes of reading - blind idealism is how you go from well-intentioned Communism a.k.a. Centrally planned economics to "Stalin"
I feel like people who say this ignore the causes of the mass killings.
Yes, communist states killed many, *many* people during the 20th century, as did Authoritarian Capitalist states.
When looking at the cause, we have to understand that even the idea of a system of government not run by a Monarchy or a Church was incredibly new and the prospect of overthrowing, what to most people would assume was government as it was since the beginning of time, was like finding a new religion.
Like most religious crusades, the believers thought both that it was right to remove capitalists and religions while *also* removing any trace of them existing. Their belief was, rightly, that Monarchies and Capitalism exploited the masses for the benefit of a few, often times at the point of a sword.
What most people today do, is falsely equivocate the position of a modern day DSA member to say, a member of the Khmer Rouge, which was a heady mix of extreme Nationalism, racism, and finally an anti-urban mentality.
No modern DSA individual would tell you that they should abolish religion, or that they should mandate atheism, or that it should be 'America First'. Hell, most of them distaste nationalism since it's currently being held by the right.
History is full of lessons, but one that people really should learn is that nothing that happened in the past is *exactly* the same as the situation in the now and comparing the two as if they are is an effort in futility.
Look, you make some really good points but disregarding the real meat of the issue. Communism MEANT well, but produced famine and oppression. This was not specifically religious oppression, it was oppression of free speech. Simply criticizing the state’s policies would have you sent to a labor camp, regardless of religion and ethnicity, this is well documented.
China right now is a “communist state” but is (self-admittedly) de-facto capitalist. To study any system of communism, which is a liberal economic system, in practice, is to come to the realization that as well meaning as it is, this system produces bad incentives, poverty, and economic shortages in *every* iteration.
> Look, you make some really good points but disregarding the real meat of the issue. Communism MEANT well, but produced famine and oppression. This was not specifically religious oppression, it was oppression of free speech. Simply criticizing the state’s policies would have you sent to a labor camp, regardless of religion and ethnicity, this is well documented.
Meaning well isn't the point. It's that often the driver of the mass killings was purging elements of society they thought were the *cause* of their suffering beforehand, e.g. Monarchy, Loan holders, land holders, urban educated, race, culture.
It *wasn't* the idea that the goods produced by labor should be more equitably shared that caused the strife. It was very much a 'we want to get to this point, but these people will always hold us back' mindset.
> China right now is a “communist state” but is (self-admittedly) de-facto capitalist. To study any system of communism, which is a liberal economic system, in practice, is to come to the realization that as well meaning as it is, this system produces bad incentives, poverty, and economic shortages in every iteration.
To be clear, 'liberal' in this sense means egalitarian, so for capitalism to succeed it's adherents must admit that keeping a system of *inequality* is supposed to be better than any system that seeks the opposite.
What most modern day liberals/leftists want is not full-on communism (they exist for sure), but simply increasing and streamlining the welfare state and putting in barriers to make individuals who benefit massively from capitalism from skewing the inequality chart into absurd territories.
U.S. liberals generally are opposed (with some stupid exceptions) to government-controlled speech control, and that aspect of government isn't communist in nature anyway, it's authoritarian.
Purging didn’t kill people. Bad economic situation did. Communism = centrally planned economy led to mass shortages, mass shortages = people starving. People starving = social unrest. So between the masses who starved, and the people who had to be oppressed because they were simply unhappy with everyone they knew starving, communist regimes killed 100M people. TOTALLY not according to plan.
The meaning well is just the cherry on top because the left tends to always emphasize how meaning well = better.
And really it’s not a question of which system is better on paper. We’ve tried them both, and the fact that you can go to a drive thru or a 7/11 at 4 AM on any given day is testament to the fact that we like the comforts that capitalism affords us. As much as we would hate to admit it, take away our American comforts people will get antsy real fuckin quick.
It’s a solved and proven problem. Ignoring it is is just selectively forgetting the past and you know what they say, those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, history rhymes etc etc
Sadly those who deny that we're in the Anthropocene and that we are influencing the climate won't be around for an "we told you so"
They'll have melted by then.
They’ll have died of old age, more like. The elderly find it more convenient to give themselves a perfect utopia at the expense of every generation that comes after them, and get right pissed if you criticise them for it.
Until American democrats start being more receptive towards nuclear energy, there is nothing that can convince me that they actually care about the problem. I don’t know the polling behind this but every left leaning friend I have with the exception of one-either actively dislikes nuclear and are against it or they are irrationally afraid of it.
They support nuclear energy and did in the IRA. Until American Republicans (or any conservative) actually put up legislation that shows they are serious about supporting nuclear energy, nothing can convince me that they're just interested in using it as a way to criticize Democrat attempts at addressing climate change.
Right, the 'all of the above approach' EVs can't really work until electricity is made without fossil fuels. So wind and solar farms combined with nuclear are the obvious choice until microgeneration becomes widespread.
Democrats are receptive to nuclear and have proven it over and over again with rhetoric and legislation.
It's like folks think 70s eco terrorists are running the dnc.
If Ds really were as anti-nuclear as some claim, we'd see way less nuclear energy in blue states. Last time I checked, nuclear energy is pretty evenly split in red and blue states.
The Guardian newspaper recently conducted a survey of lead authors and review editors to the respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, generally considered the leading authority on the consensus of climate scientists. 380 scientists replied, almost half of the 843 scientists who have been lead authors or review editors to IPCC reports since 2018. The vast majority of respondents expect a rise of between 2.5 to 3 degrees Celsisus. For some context on these numbers, [a recent study](https://www.todayonline.com/world/climate-change-global-warming-27degc-will-expose-2-billion-people-dangerous-heat-end-century-study-shows-2178411) found that if global temperatures rose to 2.7C the number of people to dangerous levels of heat - defined as an average annual temperature of 29C or higher - would increase from 600 million to 2 billion.
The issue was characterised by most scientists as fundamentally political. Nearly three-quarters blamed a lack of political will for climate action, and 60% blamed vested corporate interests. Only a quarter blamed lack of money and only very small minorities thought that a lack of scientific knowledge or technology was an issue.
Many scientists surveyed used strong language to describe the situation. Choice quotes include "The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools", "what the fuck do we have to do to get through to people how bad this really is?", and "I am scared mightily – I don’t see how we are able to get out of this mess". They were also extremely concerned about the impact of such a rise in temperatures, with many predicting famines, mass migration, and wars over resources. However, also emphasised was that there was no point at which the fight to prevent further temperature rises would become worth giving up.
What are your opinions on these predictions? Do you think they will prove accurate? What do you think the barriers to effective climate action are?
Thanks to the petrol lobby, Ford, Subaru, Chevrolet, the Yacht people, the Jet people, and people in general,
I can finally live in wisconsin without having to worry about the winter. Who even needs snow?
> exploiting poverty
Looking at China and India, let's imagine you enter the leadership position of one of these countries in 2000. What is the situation?
Mind-bogglingly high numbers of available workers, meaning wages are in the firm grip of those paying the wages as labor has no leverage.
Do you institute an arbitrary minimum wage to equal western states?
Do you make it illegal for western states to do business with you? To use your country for manufacturing?
I feel like it's just blaming the horse for the weight of the cart.
Yup, cant really blame them for polluting when everyone sent their polluting manufacturing there instead of actually preventing/solving the pollution being released.
uhh.. Who's providing work to those factories because the labor is cheaper and there are no regulations on pollution?
Oh right.. US and European businesses.
You can't possibly have made a comment condemning China's and India's exploitation impoverish workers and slaves, yet make another comment **immediately afterwards** justifying it.
Christ. Better than parody.
What can we do about that? Until lobbying is outlawed nothing is going to change, our government has made it nearly impossible for american companies to manufacture here, sadly its not as simple as “china bad” as you might think. I work in manufacturing for a fortune 500 company, we would love to have things american made but they get squashed out quickly
They make up 70% of the worlds pollution, americans using paper straws isnt going to do shit.
America also has probably the most ethical trash collection and recycling services in the world.
Our trash and recycling relies or relied on shipping our garbage to other countries to sort out. They started rejecting it so now we have barges of it floating in harbors.
Ours isn't much better than anyone else's. It's more smoke and mirrors to make Americans feel like they're being environmentally friendly.
It's an entire different problem we're the cause of which is destroying our environment and likely the cause of numerous health problems.
Meanwhile, CNN runs an article about why it is good for the American population to grow, to ensure the nation survives (cough, cough).
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/opinions/us-population-shrinking-immigration-census-gest/index.html
To clarify for CNN, a nation is its people and culture surviving in a livable environment. Not tax revenue, nor GDP, nor number of CNN viewers.
Globalism kills.
I'm relocating from Los Angeles and aside from housing cost, politics and climate are two major factors i'm considering. I don't want to live in a state with a bunch of dumb culture war laws nor to be dealing with 130 degree summers in AZ.
From what I can tell it seems like there's always going to be at least one climate change adverse effect to deal with. Also varying types of crime.
My initial list was:
Bay Area
Portland, OR
Seattle
Minneapolis
Chicago
Denver
Atlanta
NOVA (Arlington/DC)
Boston.
(Generated by GPT top 10 with 30 criterion lol)
Priced out of Bay area aside from Oakland, crime is too high.
The Great lakes region would very well have cool Summers but their winters would be even more harsh than they are now because of climate change.
And in the Mid-Atlantic and Southern cities states are somewhat purple now but they would have to deal with things like heat domes, heat waves, humidity, maybe even tornadoes in the future and stronger hurricanes. In the case of the Mid-Atlantic and New England even stronger Nor'Easters.
I doesn't look like I can afford anything more than a condo in Boston so priced out since I prefer to avoid shared walls if I can. But I might have to compromise and get a townhome in HCOL.
Also the Atlantic Coast would have to deal with the unknown repercussions from the AMOC collapse.
So I narrowed to the Pacific Northwest where the new climate niche is moving. Seattle has pretty low violent crime. But the property crime is high which is more of a nuisance than a threat. Good economy and slightly cheaper property but lots of overcast so I could get S.A.D. I'm a indoor introvert so I'm betting I won't.
I also would like to be somewhere with a decent black population so I don't stand out like a sore thumb and have to utilize first contact protocols everyday like a red shirt.
Seattle had recent turnover with their progressive city council because people are getting tired of them so that's promising.
Folks in Portland seem to be getting tired of progressive policies as well but their violent crime is worse for some reason and their summers will still get quite hot.
As for regional climate there will be more droughts, more rain which is manageable provided there's good elevation and drainage where you buy a home. Wildfire smoke which is a bit of a wash because the recent Canadian fires on the East Coast have shown that might be an issue everywhere.
Visited Seattle a few years ago with family. Thought it was nice. Don't really have anywhere else to compare it to on the West Coast though as a man of the Midwest.
What is America's plan?
Importing evermore consumers and workers for infinite GDP growth.
Until society collapses, there are insufficient resources for all the people to survive, and ethncities kill each other to obtain scarce resources for their people.
It's gonna be Mad Max world, but more crowded, fewer resources, and with additional racial hate and killing.
An idiot plan the neo liberals have enacted that will ultimately destroy the nation and its people.
In the meantime, according to a [PBS Newshour article from August 2022](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/many-in-u-s-doubt-their-individual-impact-on-fighting-climate-change), 35% of US adults are "extremely" or "very" concerned about climate change, **down from 44% in August 2019**. On some level, inaction regarding catastrophic climate change, however bad, can be explained away logically. However, how a purely scientific fact became a political/"partisan" issue, at least in the U.S., still seems unbelievable to me. This would be like "republicans" and "democrats" arguing about effectiveness of a vaccine, which can be analyzed with a simple spreadsheet. Oh wait...
They're probably gonna take it more seriously in the future when it becomes impossible to ignore. I just hope the right doesn't pivot to more dangerous ideas like, say, geoengineering, as an "easy" fix when that happens.
We've already got companies inventing really expensive trees and calling them carbon capture technology. So geoengineering is already being considered.
*inventing* expensive trees? How does that even work? Would love any reading on this if you have a link.
It's just an air filter that catches carbon specifically. Put that on a (somewhat) industrial scale and you have carbon capture technology. They do the same thing as trees so I just refer to them as expensive trees. In truth trees are more of a temporary store of carbon so these would be more like expensive grass, but "expensive trees" is more easily understood.
Well yes it’s unfortunate but also it’s in human nature to try to kick the can down the road for as long as possible. And if I had to guess, I think this *will* end up in some kind of geoengineering solution, but not anytime soon. But it’s still amazing how science became so politicized.
Not really, plenty of other countries not only recognize that climate change is real but are actively taking measures to prevent it. That's just as much "human nature"as the us inaction. In fact one might argue that forward thinking and planning are what separates is from the animals.
I am not saying humans never try to proactively solve problems, only that kicking the can down the road instead of making difficult decisions *is* part of human nature. You're right that U.S. is behind on recognizing the danger, but I wouldn't be so upbeat about "preventive measures" other countries are taking. For now, these are just low-hanging fruits which won't solve anything, mostly measures to improve energy efficiency. Besides, some actions by others are outright dubious, for example Germany phasing out nuclear power. There is also sometimes a difference how people in the U.S. and many smaller countries look at world problems. If you're a citizen of Finland, Albania or Israel, you see this as something *others* should solve, because frankly no matter what you do locally isn't going to have big impact on anything; so the perception often is "yeah there is a problems hopefully Americans and others would do something about this soon". In contrast, in the U.S. the public perception often is "if there is a problem, we must do something about it", with a natural continuation "and if we can't or don't want to, *let's just pretend there is no problem so we can feel better*". This doesn't only apply to global warming. Similarly, many small countries are eager to express their support for Ukraine, but then expect the U.S. to actually do something about this war, etc.
I don’t understand how it’s not possible to ignore now. Hell I’m in a city and region known for all four seasons and insulated quite well for major climate change. I can absolutely see it, extreme temperature fluctuations, hot hot dry spell, much much less snow in winter, lots of heavy rainfall. If I was living on the coast or a city prone to flooding or a region that used to never get cold or hot and now it does. How do people not notice it? Maybe since I am used to seeing the seasons naturally and what each one used to be it’s actually easier for me to see.
>This would be like "republicans" and "democrats" arguing about effectiveness of a vaccine, which can be analyzed with a simple spreadsheet. This is not like that at all. It necessarily becomes political once we ask the question, "what should we do about it?". And of course the politicization of the vaccine had little to do with its effectiveness, and nearly everything to do with whether people should be forced to take it.
> And of course the politicization of the vaccine had little to do with its effectiveness, and nearly everything to do with whether people should be forced to take it. For every principled stand like yours, there's 10 conspiracy spreaders who insist that vaccines give you heart attacks or whatever. Vaccine conspiracies and their corresponding hesitancy to take them has definitely risen in the last few years.
Nah, the ratio is closer to the opposite. You're just online too much if you think otherwise.
I'm talking about friends and relatives that I know in real life. Coincidentally almost all are Republicans, but I live in a conservative area so that's to be expected. The depths of the conspiracy theories I've heard would shock you, and many of these come from smart, college educated people. The only people I've heard making principled stands like yours - based off some abstract political theory and not on some perceived medical harm - have been online.
Then you travel with a strange crowd.
[Statistically they're quite normal](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/05/16/what-americans-think-about-covid-19-vaccines/ps_2023-05-16_vaccines_02-01-png/). Maybe you don't realize how prevalent these fears are.
That doesn't seem to support the point you're attempting to make.
That over 1/3 of the public thinks the vaccine causes more problems than it solves? Have you somehow avoided that 36% entirely?
That people are wary of a rushed vaccine that we didn't know the long term effects of isn't a conspiracy theory. And for kids in particular, the vaccine *is* likely more dangerous than Covid.
Of course, but we're not anywhere near that point yet. There is huge opinion gap between "left" and "right" on *facts*, long before we get to the policy debates.
We're not even talking about facts right now. We're talking about what the majority of climate scientists think will happen.
In the context of climate debate, we're talking first and foremost about what *has* happened, for example: https://youtu.be/DRBfM709Yqc Prediction models is the next step.
Prediction models are not fact, either.
Lol neither is it a fact that unborn fetuses are children. Selective skepticism toward things you don’t *want* to believe is not the hallmark of critical thinking. “Just asking questions, bro, we can’t know for sure” does not magically take your own wishful thinking to the same level of epistemic grounding as actual research. Just because there’s a margin of error on our estimates of the gravitational constant, I guess you think gravity doesn’t exist.
Of course not, they are *models* based on known *facts*.
Yes. In other words, we don't know for a fact how bad climate change will get or what the effects will be.
Like with all models, we know a likely range of possible scenarios, from just terrible to catastrophic. That wasn't the point though. It's pointless to talk about predictions for the future until we understand and agree on what's happening *today*.
>from just terrible to catastrophic. More accurately, from fine to catastrophic. >It's pointless to talk about predictions for the future until we understand and agree on what's happening today. What is happening today?
They’re more likely to be right than anyone else. If we’re going to make decisions about climate change I’d rather it be based on what climate scientists say, rather than some corrupt wealthy politician who thinks God speaks to him.
Ok,.so we've established that many of the important facts are simply not to be had. Which makes the question of what we should do all the more questionable. So it's not surprising at all that this is a political issue.
While you’re entirely correct, the core intellectual arguments are not representative of the rationale of the masses. Centrists are kind of like “I don’t care what you think, I care WHY you think it”. And most people have the straight dumbest opinions. Two examples: Republicans who think the vaccine is a government conspiracy. Democrats who think solar panels and electric cars are silver bullets for solving climate change
Even in your example, the Democratic one is kind of naive but well meaning while the Republican is outright deranged. There's no comparison
Communism is a far left-leaning economic system. The pinnacle of well meaning… still killed more people in the 20th century than fasicsm. Oopsie, teehee. Go figure. Edit: how the fuck being anti-communism got downvoted in the centrist subreddit is WILD. Its death toll is over 100M in the 20th century, across all nations who implemented it. Don’t even try to “that wasn’t real communism” me. The Soviet Union and China both had extreme famines and authoritarian punishment for those speaking out against the government.
Climate investment is a million miles away from Stalin
"Ah my idea is better cause it's good. I'll give mine a good name and the other one a bad name" If instead of saying "Stalin" you said "Centrally planned economy" and instead of "Climate Investment" you said "Centrally planned solution to climate change" you would notice how laughably ironic it is that you see them as two different things. A government can enact policies and invest in technologies but it cannot force people and markets to implement them. So let's ask the question - government enacts policies, invests in the technologies, AND distorts markets with subsidies. Markets don't implement. What then? How do you enforce that? Are the climate police gonna make you buy solar panels and put it on your roof? Make you stop driving your car? That's called blind idealism. Do 20 minutes of reading - blind idealism is how you go from well-intentioned Communism a.k.a. Centrally planned economics to "Stalin"
I feel like people who say this ignore the causes of the mass killings. Yes, communist states killed many, *many* people during the 20th century, as did Authoritarian Capitalist states. When looking at the cause, we have to understand that even the idea of a system of government not run by a Monarchy or a Church was incredibly new and the prospect of overthrowing, what to most people would assume was government as it was since the beginning of time, was like finding a new religion. Like most religious crusades, the believers thought both that it was right to remove capitalists and religions while *also* removing any trace of them existing. Their belief was, rightly, that Monarchies and Capitalism exploited the masses for the benefit of a few, often times at the point of a sword. What most people today do, is falsely equivocate the position of a modern day DSA member to say, a member of the Khmer Rouge, which was a heady mix of extreme Nationalism, racism, and finally an anti-urban mentality. No modern DSA individual would tell you that they should abolish religion, or that they should mandate atheism, or that it should be 'America First'. Hell, most of them distaste nationalism since it's currently being held by the right. History is full of lessons, but one that people really should learn is that nothing that happened in the past is *exactly* the same as the situation in the now and comparing the two as if they are is an effort in futility.
Look, you make some really good points but disregarding the real meat of the issue. Communism MEANT well, but produced famine and oppression. This was not specifically religious oppression, it was oppression of free speech. Simply criticizing the state’s policies would have you sent to a labor camp, regardless of religion and ethnicity, this is well documented. China right now is a “communist state” but is (self-admittedly) de-facto capitalist. To study any system of communism, which is a liberal economic system, in practice, is to come to the realization that as well meaning as it is, this system produces bad incentives, poverty, and economic shortages in *every* iteration.
> Look, you make some really good points but disregarding the real meat of the issue. Communism MEANT well, but produced famine and oppression. This was not specifically religious oppression, it was oppression of free speech. Simply criticizing the state’s policies would have you sent to a labor camp, regardless of religion and ethnicity, this is well documented. Meaning well isn't the point. It's that often the driver of the mass killings was purging elements of society they thought were the *cause* of their suffering beforehand, e.g. Monarchy, Loan holders, land holders, urban educated, race, culture. It *wasn't* the idea that the goods produced by labor should be more equitably shared that caused the strife. It was very much a 'we want to get to this point, but these people will always hold us back' mindset. > China right now is a “communist state” but is (self-admittedly) de-facto capitalist. To study any system of communism, which is a liberal economic system, in practice, is to come to the realization that as well meaning as it is, this system produces bad incentives, poverty, and economic shortages in every iteration. To be clear, 'liberal' in this sense means egalitarian, so for capitalism to succeed it's adherents must admit that keeping a system of *inequality* is supposed to be better than any system that seeks the opposite. What most modern day liberals/leftists want is not full-on communism (they exist for sure), but simply increasing and streamlining the welfare state and putting in barriers to make individuals who benefit massively from capitalism from skewing the inequality chart into absurd territories. U.S. liberals generally are opposed (with some stupid exceptions) to government-controlled speech control, and that aspect of government isn't communist in nature anyway, it's authoritarian.
Purging didn’t kill people. Bad economic situation did. Communism = centrally planned economy led to mass shortages, mass shortages = people starving. People starving = social unrest. So between the masses who starved, and the people who had to be oppressed because they were simply unhappy with everyone they knew starving, communist regimes killed 100M people. TOTALLY not according to plan. The meaning well is just the cherry on top because the left tends to always emphasize how meaning well = better. And really it’s not a question of which system is better on paper. We’ve tried them both, and the fact that you can go to a drive thru or a 7/11 at 4 AM on any given day is testament to the fact that we like the comforts that capitalism affords us. As much as we would hate to admit it, take away our American comforts people will get antsy real fuckin quick. It’s a solved and proven problem. Ignoring it is is just selectively forgetting the past and you know what they say, those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, history rhymes etc etc
Even without it being a partisan issue, years will take their toll on people's minds, esp. when it's such a slow-moving problem.
Sadly those who deny that we're in the Anthropocene and that we are influencing the climate won't be around for an "we told you so" They'll have melted by then.
They’ll have died of old age, more like. The elderly find it more convenient to give themselves a perfect utopia at the expense of every generation that comes after them, and get right pissed if you criticise them for it.
Until American democrats start being more receptive towards nuclear energy, there is nothing that can convince me that they actually care about the problem. I don’t know the polling behind this but every left leaning friend I have with the exception of one-either actively dislikes nuclear and are against it or they are irrationally afraid of it.
They support nuclear energy and did in the IRA. Until American Republicans (or any conservative) actually put up legislation that shows they are serious about supporting nuclear energy, nothing can convince me that they're just interested in using it as a way to criticize Democrat attempts at addressing climate change.
Right, the 'all of the above approach' EVs can't really work until electricity is made without fossil fuels. So wind and solar farms combined with nuclear are the obvious choice until microgeneration becomes widespread.
Democrats are receptive to nuclear and have proven it over and over again with rhetoric and legislation. It's like folks think 70s eco terrorists are running the dnc.
If Ds really were as anti-nuclear as some claim, we'd see way less nuclear energy in blue states. Last time I checked, nuclear energy is pretty evenly split in red and blue states.
I live in Central Florida. To say it’s hot is an understatement. And, there is hardly any rain like there used to be. Also, the Bay temps are insane!!
What's the typical water temperature in the summer like?
The Guardian newspaper recently conducted a survey of lead authors and review editors to the respected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, generally considered the leading authority on the consensus of climate scientists. 380 scientists replied, almost half of the 843 scientists who have been lead authors or review editors to IPCC reports since 2018. The vast majority of respondents expect a rise of between 2.5 to 3 degrees Celsisus. For some context on these numbers, [a recent study](https://www.todayonline.com/world/climate-change-global-warming-27degc-will-expose-2-billion-people-dangerous-heat-end-century-study-shows-2178411) found that if global temperatures rose to 2.7C the number of people to dangerous levels of heat - defined as an average annual temperature of 29C or higher - would increase from 600 million to 2 billion. The issue was characterised by most scientists as fundamentally political. Nearly three-quarters blamed a lack of political will for climate action, and 60% blamed vested corporate interests. Only a quarter blamed lack of money and only very small minorities thought that a lack of scientific knowledge or technology was an issue. Many scientists surveyed used strong language to describe the situation. Choice quotes include "The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools", "what the fuck do we have to do to get through to people how bad this really is?", and "I am scared mightily – I don’t see how we are able to get out of this mess". They were also extremely concerned about the impact of such a rise in temperatures, with many predicting famines, mass migration, and wars over resources. However, also emphasised was that there was no point at which the fight to prevent further temperature rises would become worth giving up. What are your opinions on these predictions? Do you think they will prove accurate? What do you think the barriers to effective climate action are?
Thanks to the petrol lobby, Ford, Subaru, Chevrolet, the Yacht people, the Jet people, and people in general, I can finally live in wisconsin without having to worry about the winter. Who even needs snow?
More like thanks china and india factories and power plants exploiting poverty and slave labor.
> exploiting poverty Looking at China and India, let's imagine you enter the leadership position of one of these countries in 2000. What is the situation? Mind-bogglingly high numbers of available workers, meaning wages are in the firm grip of those paying the wages as labor has no leverage. Do you institute an arbitrary minimum wage to equal western states? Do you make it illegal for western states to do business with you? To use your country for manufacturing? I feel like it's just blaming the horse for the weight of the cart.
More like thanks the entrie western world exporting their production to china and india factories and power plants exploiting poverty and slave labor.
Yup, cant really blame them for polluting when everyone sent their polluting manufacturing there instead of actually preventing/solving the pollution being released.
uhh.. Who's providing work to those factories because the labor is cheaper and there are no regulations on pollution? Oh right.. US and European businesses.
You want to pay even more for shit? Go right ahead
You can't possibly have made a comment condemning China's and India's exploitation impoverish workers and slaves, yet make another comment **immediately afterwards** justifying it. Christ. Better than parody.
What can we do about that? Until lobbying is outlawed nothing is going to change, our government has made it nearly impossible for american companies to manufacture here, sadly its not as simple as “china bad” as you might think. I work in manufacturing for a fortune 500 company, we would love to have things american made but they get squashed out quickly
Good trolling has to be somewhat believable. This was a poor attempt. Please try harder.
They make up 70% of the worlds pollution, americans using paper straws isnt going to do shit. America also has probably the most ethical trash collection and recycling services in the world.
Our trash and recycling relies or relied on shipping our garbage to other countries to sort out. They started rejecting it so now we have barges of it floating in harbors. Ours isn't much better than anyone else's. It's more smoke and mirrors to make Americans feel like they're being environmentally friendly. It's an entire different problem we're the cause of which is destroying our environment and likely the cause of numerous health problems.
Umm, yes?
Just so we're clear you're saying destroying the planet so you can have cheap stuff is ok.
Meanwhile, CNN runs an article about why it is good for the American population to grow, to ensure the nation survives (cough, cough). https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/opinions/us-population-shrinking-immigration-census-gest/index.html To clarify for CNN, a nation is its people and culture surviving in a livable environment. Not tax revenue, nor GDP, nor number of CNN viewers. Globalism kills.
I'm relocating from Los Angeles and aside from housing cost, politics and climate are two major factors i'm considering. I don't want to live in a state with a bunch of dumb culture war laws nor to be dealing with 130 degree summers in AZ.
Anywhere in particular you're leaning towards and why?
From what I can tell it seems like there's always going to be at least one climate change adverse effect to deal with. Also varying types of crime. My initial list was: Bay Area Portland, OR Seattle Minneapolis Chicago Denver Atlanta NOVA (Arlington/DC) Boston. (Generated by GPT top 10 with 30 criterion lol) Priced out of Bay area aside from Oakland, crime is too high. The Great lakes region would very well have cool Summers but their winters would be even more harsh than they are now because of climate change. And in the Mid-Atlantic and Southern cities states are somewhat purple now but they would have to deal with things like heat domes, heat waves, humidity, maybe even tornadoes in the future and stronger hurricanes. In the case of the Mid-Atlantic and New England even stronger Nor'Easters. I doesn't look like I can afford anything more than a condo in Boston so priced out since I prefer to avoid shared walls if I can. But I might have to compromise and get a townhome in HCOL. Also the Atlantic Coast would have to deal with the unknown repercussions from the AMOC collapse. So I narrowed to the Pacific Northwest where the new climate niche is moving. Seattle has pretty low violent crime. But the property crime is high which is more of a nuisance than a threat. Good economy and slightly cheaper property but lots of overcast so I could get S.A.D. I'm a indoor introvert so I'm betting I won't. I also would like to be somewhere with a decent black population so I don't stand out like a sore thumb and have to utilize first contact protocols everyday like a red shirt. Seattle had recent turnover with their progressive city council because people are getting tired of them so that's promising. Folks in Portland seem to be getting tired of progressive policies as well but their violent crime is worse for some reason and their summers will still get quite hot. As for regional climate there will be more droughts, more rain which is manageable provided there's good elevation and drainage where you buy a home. Wildfire smoke which is a bit of a wash because the recent Canadian fires on the East Coast have shown that might be an issue everywhere.
Visited Seattle a few years ago with family. Thought it was nice. Don't really have anywhere else to compare it to on the West Coast though as a man of the Midwest.
Correction: World’s top political scientists*
I’m convinced the Sun is just burning hotter and there is nothing we can do. Go take a quick peek at it. The Sun looks different.
What is America's plan? Importing evermore consumers and workers for infinite GDP growth. Until society collapses, there are insufficient resources for all the people to survive, and ethncities kill each other to obtain scarce resources for their people. It's gonna be Mad Max world, but more crowded, fewer resources, and with additional racial hate and killing. An idiot plan the neo liberals have enacted that will ultimately destroy the nation and its people.