Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is Climate Change so controversial?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    It was recorded after the war. We were conserving cereal grains to send them overseas to places that needed them more.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TheCountAlucard View Post
      It was recorded after the war. We were conserving cereal grains to send them overseas to places that needed them more.
      We were sending food and war materials to the UK before the US entered the War in 1941, then the war went on until 1945. So the entire culture was shaped by four years of rationing, then we spent the following years trying to stabilize the war damaged countries. Compare that to now where we have only had minor rationing for about 3 months.

      Though to be fair back in the 1940s a much higher percentage of the US population lived on rural farms rather than in big cities and the suburbs weren't really a thing yet. As such a larger portion of the population was essentially self sufficient being able to produce their own food and supplies. This form of home based survivalism was hammered home by the fact that the dust bowl catastrophe happened just a decade prior.

      But now our suburban homes have next to no self sufficiency, if the power goes out no one knows how to function without TV or Internet, and based off media reports it is taking a pandemic to get people to learn how to bake bread at home.

      Climate change has a nasty habit of making first world societies look at themselves in the mirror and realize that rather than advancing or maturing, their populations are just complacent and infantile in nature. This in turn is why everyone looks for a scape goat or denies the whole thing.

      Comment


      • #18
        Individuals have a lot less power to determine what the possibilities for how they live their lives are or control the alternatives.

        Originally posted by Thoth View Post
        In tribal communities there is usually a "right of manhood" which is the societal mechanism that differentiates a boy from a man. In modern society that "rite" is getting your own car or in the last 15-20 years getting unrestricted access to the internet by smart phone or computer.
        For instance, the narrative of "owning your own car is the ultimate liberty and prosperity" originates with the people who are getting rich off of selling you cars, and then they reinvest a lot of that money in making it increasingly difficult to participate in life at all without a car.

        It's all well and good to say folks have a personal responsibility to not drive cars, but who is responsible for there not being half decent public transportation?


        I have approximate knowledge of many things.
        Write up as I play Xenoblade Chronicles.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post
          It's all well and good to say folks have a personal responsibility to not drive cars, but who is responsible for there not being half decent public transportation?
          The elected officials put in place by the masses who then selected city planning "experts" who turned out to be bad at their job. The big issue with democracy or in our case a republic, is that we the people are responsible for those we elect. If the representative did a bad job, then that's is partially on us for not doing a better job voting.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Thoth View Post
            The elected officials put in place by the masses…
            The masses in the United States have seldom - if ever - put an elected official in place. If we only elected the people the majority of Americans voted for, there wouldn’t be a single person in office.

            Originally posted by Thoth View Post
            selected city planning "experts" who turned out to be bad at their job.
            Or they were good at their job, because their real job was to serve big auto by sabotaging public transit for as long as they could manage before getting booted out.

            Originally posted by Thoth View Post
            If the representative did a bad job, then that's is partially on us for not doing a better job voting.
            Except that right now the representatives are overwhelmingly restricting our ability to vote. Look at Kentucky right now. They cut the number of polling places from over 3,000 to just 200 and tried to close them at 6:00.

            This is like when Prosser was blaming Arthur Dent for not knowing his house was about to be bulldozed.
            Last edited by TheCountAlucard; 06-24-2020, 01:21 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Also, before we can be held responsible for how an election turns out, we need to move away from this winner-take-all two-party parody of a system, where only those lucky enough to not have to work that day get to go out and vote on the lesser of two evils unless they’re not white.

              Comment


              • #22
                And honestly... this is how a lot of people check out and climate change remains controversial.

                While addressing climate change at this point will take some radical systemic changes, this sort of conversation (which I've seen countless times) makes it sound a lot less like climate change is about fixing the planet, and a lot more like a vehicle to force political changes by saying they're necessary because of the big scary climate change doomsayers.

                Do you folks really think any of the larger societal issues didn't exist in the past when major reforms happened? Voter suppression isn't the only reason 40% of Americans don't vote in the big elections, let alone abysmal turn out in smaller ones (you know, the ones that actually pick city councils, mayors, and all those people that handle most of the day-to-day stuff in people's lives). Ranked choice voting isn't going to magically fix politics by itself. Tossing civil engineers under the bus (ha) as either incompetent or corrupt when they're the people that are going to have to design and build a greener infrastructure doesn't endear anyone to the cause.

                Recrimination, defeatist attitudes, and muddying the waters with other (important to fix) issues isn't going to get all the citizens out there that support the idea of protecting our environment and get them in gear to proactively advocate for it so that there's political will and pressure to do something. It's just handing the assholes that would rather profit today even if the world burns for it more wedges to shove into messy effort to get stuff done.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I live in eastern Poland. We are much closer to the climate of mainland Russia than seaside most of Europe. Few years ago, I would only see few storms in whole June outside my house. Now we are having almost two weeks of constant storms and rains in June. Earlier this year we have tornado-like winds - which were unheard off in this are, even my around 70 years old parents do not heard of any. Climate Change - or, more accurate - Climate Crisis is real, and should be dealt with. I have evidence just outside my very own window.
                  Last edited by wyrdhamster; 06-24-2020, 05:01 AM.


                  My stuff for Realms of Pugmire, Scion 2E, CoD Contagion, Dark Eras, VtR 2E, WtF 2E, MtAw 2E, MtC 2E & BtP
                  LGBT+ through Ages
                  LGBT+ in CoD games

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    In a Nutshell YT channel made video on Who Is Responsible for #ClimateChange? Both in terms of current and historical CO2 emissions, they are China, the USA and the European Union - in various configurations of these leaders. What will they do to solve the Climate Crisis?



                    My stuff for Realms of Pugmire, Scion 2E, CoD Contagion, Dark Eras, VtR 2E, WtF 2E, MtAw 2E, MtC 2E & BtP
                    LGBT+ through Ages
                    LGBT+ in CoD games

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Thoth View Post

                      The elected officials put in place by the masses who then selected city planning "experts" who turned out to be bad at their job. The big issue with democracy or in our case a republic, is that we the people are responsible for those we elect. If the representative did a bad job, then that's is partially on us for not doing a better job voting.

                      Well then, whom do you plan to vote for that has certainly received no campaign financing from PACs to which the automobile industry makes massive contributions, and who then can be relied upon to not listen to the automobile industry lobbies?

                      American democracy is riddled with systemic issues that greatly limit who can vote and who they can vote for. It's naive (at best) to think that the only necessary resolution is for people to "do a better job voting".

                      Edit: Noooo, too cynical by far. Adjustment.

                      Voting is not irrelevant, particularly in a time when camps and candidates have greater recognition of the issues and would work towards improving them. It's just that there are still problems beyond who gets chosen by the electorate that underlie why the issues exist, and relate to how power is distributed.
                      Last edited by Isator Levi; 06-25-2020, 06:20 AM.


                      I have approximate knowledge of many things.
                      Write up as I play Xenoblade Chronicles.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Yeah Americans “Democracy “ has always been fucked.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post


                          Well then, whom do you plan to vote for that has certainly received no campaign financing from PACs to which the automobile industry makes massive contributions, and who then can be relied upon to not listen to the automobile industry lobbies?

                          American democracy is riddled with systemic issues that greatly limit who can vote and who they can vote for. It's naive (at best) to think that the only necessary resolution is for people to "do a better job voting".

                          Edit: Noooo, too cynical by far. Adjustment.

                          Voting is not irrelevant, particularly in a time when camps and candidates have greater recognition of the issues and would work towards improving them. It's just that there are still problems beyond who gets chosen by the electorate that underlie why the issues exist, and relate to how power is distributed.
                          ^This.

                          It's all well and good to shout "VOTE!". It doesn't change that the mechanisms for voting and the choices to vote for are...some would say "flawed", I would say "rigged".

                          When those already in power - whether economically or politically - are able to select for who CAN vote and curate the choices, it's not really a fair system. When big money interests can elevate certain candidates over others with their campaign contributions, then use those contributions as leverage to force those candidates to always act according to those big money interests, who gets ushered into positions of power isn't really the public's choice.

                          If existing politicians can call a candidate on the telephone and say, "if you want a career in politics moving forward, you'll drop out of this race and immediately back our preferred candidate", that's not really the public's choice either.

                          If those same monied interests from before are ALSO owners of major media networks, who can tailor news and opinion coverage to emphasize and legitimize one candidate while marginalizing another, how can the public be expected to make an informed choice?

                          There are such things as Controlled Opposition and Manufactured Consent. These are not differences of opinion or abstract ideas, but very real forces at work in the American system. Forces working to manipulate democratic systems to maintain a status quo that benefits those already in charge. The system, indeed, is rigged, and those in power spend a great deal of time, effort, and money obfuscating this fact.

                          Because as soon as citizens realize that being told to vote is a manipulation - an illusion of control meant to pacify - they'll begin to wonder if they should stop working within a corrupt system and start dismantling and rebuilding it. The rich people and the politicians fear this possibility more than anything.


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            OK.

                            So please, explain how we can leverage the fear of rich people and politicians (assuming your generalization of their motivations is sufficiently accurate) to force a radical overhaul of the US political system, and cut US emissions by 50% in the next ten years.

                            The point of this thread is, after all, "why is climate change so controversial," not, "why is the US political system so fucked up."

                            Unless there's a solid explanation of how fixing the US political system can be done and address climate change without blowing wildly past the current projected benchmarks we're supposed to be paying attention to as science believing individuals, why shouldn't all this talk of political reform be seen as much of an attempt to politicize climate change and thus make it subject to debate, as anyone using pseudoscience to defend the status quo?

                            If climate change is a non-political and existential threat to our civilization, it has to be confronted no matter how broken, corrupt, or rigged the system is. If it takes us 25 years to throw a political revolution to completely restructure our country (which is, over the course of history, a pretty short turn over to get as drastic a change as is being discussed) before we even get around to addressing climate change... well then we're good and screwed because climate disasters and economic devastation will come in and crush the better government that gets built. Well, unless some other country performs a scientific miracle regarding carbon sequestration technologies.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                              So please, explain how we can leverage the fear of rich people and politicians (assuming your generalization of their motivations is sufficiently accurate) to force a radical overhaul of the US political system, and cut US emissions by 50% in the next ten years.
                              A general strike would probably send the message.
                              Last edited by TheCountAlucard; 06-26-2020, 10:07 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                A general strike is an action, not an explanation.

                                What's the plan to organize a general strike with enough of a cross section of society to be effective? What's the support system to convince the millions of people that might be supportive of a general strike, but cannot endure a long term strike without putting themselves or their family in direct danger of dying from a lack of resources?

                                How is a counter movement going to be confronted?

                                What general strikes from the past 25 years can you point to do demonstrate that a general strike has a decent chance of even working for the level of societal change being discussed?

                                What are the demands of the general strike movement proposed, what concessions will be acceptable to the movement, and how does that factor into the limited timeline to start implementing sufficient climate change policies?

                                What happens to the general strike if Trump wins in November and uses the strike to solidify his status as an authoritarian dictator? What happens if Biden wins and the Democrats take back the Senate, then they enact enough good reforms to mollify enough of the population that the strike movement can't sustain it's energy despite the need to do more?

                                When does climate change actually get fixed in all this?

                                Why should anyone actually believe the vagueness of just having a general strike is actually going to produce appreciable results? Because even if a general strike works to reform the system, history doesn't really indicate it'll be smooth enough of a process for the climate part of the equation to actually work.

                                And yes, I understand, you're not the leader of this movement, you don't actually have full answers to a lot of these questions. I'm not asking them expecting a white paper on this. I'm asking them to point out how much the political part of this discussion is divorced from the actual need to fix climate change.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X