alt Hacker NewsThe important part to understand here is the childish reaction by major parts of the US populace to the outsize responsibility their country has for the catastrophic development of the global climate.
Instead of acknowledging the scientific facts and the ethical implications thereof, they engage in "catch me if you can"-tactics.
They let themselves be willfully utilized as a shield of ignorance against the financial restitution they owe. Not to speak of the implied loss of influence in the world economy after fossil fuels are phased out.
Replies
US has reduced their global carbon emissions over the last 20 years. We were a peak of 55% of global emissions to less than 13% today, and continue to drop (we were 23% in 2000).
Even when adjusting for trade, it is down considerably over the last 20 years. Mainly due to dematerialization, basically a free market economy doing more with less (e.g. efficient packaging uses less materials and is cheaper).
US and the Western world can continue reducing carbon emissions and it won't make a bit of difference.
Try spending 5 minutes on google before you spout uniformed opinions
It's gotten bad all over the western world. Here in Canada, just mentioning climate change and policies to restrict CO2 emissions puts you in the political doghouse and gets you crucified on social media. It's just apparently not a concern now. Carney has eviscerated all regulation, and enabling exponential growth of the oil export sector is now a national emergency justified by tariffs, nationalism, national unity etc. etc.
Sorry, great grand-children. Pipelines gotta pump.
Catch-22:
Telling them this will make them vote even stronger in the other way. Especially if you call them stupid, selfish, etc.
You have to show them how it impacts eg. the cost of insurance for coastal properties. But even so, this is hard to convey. The people voting aren't feeling it and are told by coastal elites what to care about - changing their opinion in the opposite direction.
Some countries are even going to benefit tremendously from warming, eg. Russia gets more arable land and access to the North Sea, which is fantastic for trade, energy, and defense.
[dead]
It's because carbon reduction has not been disconnected from material impoverishment. We need more stuff moving; we need more housing, we need more transport, we need more food, we need more energy, we need more children. Carbon reduction's story is one of denying/reducing these things in the name of saving planet earth. The answer needs to be doing both: reducing carbon and making more houses and food and energy and babies. Nobody really wants to be DINK pod-people who have little optionality in life activities, and that's what climate change warriors are selling them.