Put another way, one group conflates the fact of CO2 increases + greenhouse effect with suggested political acrions. Another group counters by conflating not agreeing with political actions with disputing the underlying physics.
Put another way, one group conflates the fact of CO2 increases + greenhouse effect with suggested political acrions. Another group counters by conflating not agreeing with political actions with disputing the underlying physics.
At some point we should probably start doing something – and enough – about it to maybe avoid the worst consequences?
Make them buy less because production is hindered due to various reasons and make them pay more for petrol and energy??
Hmm, Im curious whether we could do that on global scale. Maybe if there was some convinient way to tell ppl to stay at home.
Putting money into solving Renewable intermitency (either through large scale storage projects or nuclear) and decommisioning every single coal plant on earth (followed closely by gas plants) would be the single largest step change in emissions that has fuck all to do with 'consumer' behaviour.
The individual inconvenience of not doing that far outweighs the individual cost. Calling that selfishness is being far too generous.
"resist climate change" could mean different things. It's true that something like "rising CO2 raises global temperature" is uncontroversial, but agreeing to that doesn't get you anywhere close to implementing climate policy, or to even acknowledge that humans are the leading cause. For instance, you can agree that "rising CO2 raises global temperature", but still think that the warming is totally natural (ie. not primarily caused by humans) and/or that it's impossible for humans to stop. Polling suggests a good chunk of republicans believe in the former[1]. I suspect that most people would characterize those people as "resisting climate change" even if they believe that co2 leads to atmospheric warming.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...
The other side has been stating it as a causal relationship for over 40 years. Their projections have proven correct over that timespan.
Also, your argument about rhetoric justifies voting immorally whenever one side is universally in the wrong. (Examples from history include women’s suffrage, slavery, locking ethnic groups in camps, etc.) I don’t find it to be a useful way of thinking about political issues.
The solution is a strong constitution and independent courts that enforce it, ie liberal democracy.