The Right's Denial of Climate Change Will Destroy the World

[New England Fire Squad]

The right's lack of will to fight climate change (or even outright denialism) is a case of sacrificing the good of the world in the long term for short term economic benefits for massive corporations. The greatest threats the climate currently faces are the continued use of dirty fossil fuels, couple with the threat of Jair Bolsonaro to open up the Amazon to private companies. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ What can we do to combat the potentially disastrous effects of climate change if we cannot wean ourselves off of our gluttony for fossil fuels, and cannot convince enough people to fight for the future of their (and their children's) environment?

[New England Fire Squad]

My personal view is that most people have difficulty caring about 'bigger-picture' problems- they have more immediate concerns, like feeding their family and paying the rent. The world blowing up in 20 years seems pretty far away, especially since they will hear snippets in the media discussing a different date for the calamity every few years. The best way to start, imo, would be to start small. Clean up the garbage in the streets. Clean it out of the rivers. Trash the syringes that litter the sidewalks. Help the homeless as much as we can. Make our neighborhoods and communities a place where decent people can have a decent life. Make clean water and air a priority. Make our countries, our forests, and our lakes as beautiful as we possibly can, on the local level. These things all have the benefit of having much more immediate and more importantly, visible results that the vast majority of people can appreciate. This will open them up to bigger changes, and greater solutions. Or we can just throw a tax on carbon emissions and feel good about ourselves, I guess.

[damian]

And how do you pay for all the clean up/beautification?

The idea of a carbon tax is it can be used if environmental projects like that.

[Greg_the_republican]

Yeah, it’d be nice if countries like China cared about the environment.

[Randomizer]

Trump supporters in the US won't care about global warming until barley production for beer drops. As prices rise and quantities drop, then they'll want to fix it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 17d1aee557

[Octavious]

I think the notion of the right being the enemy of climate change is a very American view. The right in nations like Great Britain and Germany have long put the fight against climate change as a central policy, whilst socialist minded nations such as Norway and Venezuela have had no qualms about building their economies on the exploitation of hydrocarbons.

I would be hesitant before thinking that cleaning up local rivers and air will automatically lead to wider climate gains. Air quality and river quality in the UK has improved tremendously in recent decades, but the impact on the population is as much to inspire complacency as to motivate further effort. The visible impact of climate change is pretty negligible to your average observer.

[Octavious]

One thing we are blessed with in the UK is access to the Met Office's Climate Station records, some of which (although sadly not too many) go back to the mid 1800s. One of these is the Armagh station, which has records of the mean daily maximum temperature for nearly every month since April 1865. Looking at the top 20 hottest months you get the below results (The first 4 digits represent the year, the 5th is the month [7 = July, 8 = August], and the last 3 represent the mean daily maximum temperature in degrees C)

1989 7 23.8
1995 8 23.8
2006 7 23.4
1983 7 23.3
1947 8 23.2
2013 7 23.1
1868 7 22.9
1869 7 22.5
1976 8 22.4
1934 7 22.2
1955 7 22.2
1921 7 22
1876 7 21.8
2018 7 21.7
1955 8 21.7
1870 7 21.6
1870 8 21.6
1874 7 21.6
1975 8 21.6
1878 7 21.5

As you can see, last year's hot July easily makes the top 20, a few spots behind the famous summer of 1976. But it's not a wildly above other hot summers. Hot enough to be a notably good summer, but it's not the sort of event that would convince the man on the street.

[Senlac]

My perception of climate change is that it’s inevitable & a direct result of the nature of mankind (“peoplekind” for the PC folks?)

We cannot get passed humanity being paramount. See ever increasing human population of the planet, when the last thing we need is more humans. Unexpected loss of human life is usually termed “tragedy”. Environmental damage, only a few even notice, let alone use such emotive language.

Climate change cannot be tackled without international collaboration & our track record of achievements in that sphere is minimal. As Diplomacy players you should all know how well the League of Nations worked out in 1914.

To seriously protect the planet against our never ending damage as a species, would require consensus on the nature of the problem, agreement on the solution to be implemented & the courage to put ourselves secondary to a greater goal. None of that is going to happen.

Locally in places like where I live (Costa Rica) some of that is being achieved & the results are often remarkable, but in general it’s a foolish dream to think it will be achieved. Future generations will be left with mitigating the damage & trying to recover, once the climate change has occurred. It’s not going to be prevented.

People have to get beyond talking the talk to walking the walk & I may be old & cynical now (rather than my idealistic youth) but all the evidence suggests that is beyond us.

[Senlac]

Apologies I meant League of Nations in 1939 (not 1914). Oops!

[ILN]

The solution to climate change is a very sensible and simple one. Replace coal power plants with nuclear or hydro energy. Do so and you eliminate the majority of carbon emissions. All the emissions by automobiles don't even come close to the total emissions by power plants. Solar and wind are fads. It is a shame that a country like Canada, which has massive uranium reserves, has plenty of coal and natural gas power plants.

It is the left, not the right that is against nuclear power. Ironically, 'environmentalists' oppose nuclear power the most, even though it is the most feasible solution for climate change.

Fukushima was built in the RING OF FIRE. A zone prone to earth quakes and tsunamis. Perhaps don't build nuclear plants in areas prone to natural disasters? And Chernobyl was build by the soviets, and the soviets are not known for their quality products... Nuclear technology has improved massively, and if we don't build them in areas prone to earthquakes or tsunamis and dispose of the radioactive waste safely then they are the best solution.

[New England Fire Squad]

The solution to climate change is a very sensible and simple one. Replace coal power plants with nuclear or hydro energy. Do so and you eliminate the majority of carbon emissions. All the emissions by automobiles don't even come close to the total emissions by power plants. Solar and wind are fads. It is a shame that a country like Canada, which has massive uranium reserves, has plenty of coal and natural gas power plants.

It is the left, not the right that is against nuclear power. Ironically, 'environmentalists' oppose nuclear power the most, even though it is the most feasible solution for climate change.

Fukushima was built in the RING OF FIRE. A zone prone to earth quakes and tsunamis. Perhaps don't build nuclear plants in areas prone to natural disasters? And Chernobyl was build by the soviets, and the soviets are not known for their quality products... Nuclear technology has improved massively, and if we don't build them in areas prone to earthquakes or tsunamis and dispose of the radioactive waste safely then they are the best solution.

This guy^ gets it.
I think I like you.

[jhoffer007]

So climate change is bad..correct? When the climate changes it's always for the worst...my question is this...when the climate changes is it ever good or have benefits to a certain regions...think about it?

[Senlac]

So climate change is bad..correct? When the climate changes it's always for the worst...my question is this...when the climate changes is it ever good or have benefits to a certain regions...think about it?

That’s a perspective issue.
Most animals & plants are well adapted to the climate in which they exist, but not so much to alternatives. Think Polar bears in Sahara, Lions in Arctic...
Humans have technological aids that means we can thrive pretty much anywhere, so climate change in a given region may well be perceived as beneficial. To humans.
Rainstorms in a desert maybe? More water, must be good! But not for plants unused to flooding. Could easily destroy a habitat, like draining a marsh.

It’s all about do we care only & entirely about us humans, in which case climate change is probably not such a big deal, or do we care about more than that?

We all have differing answers to that question & without consensus effective action isn’t going to happen, so climate change it is. Enjoy the ride.

[cormorant]

...Replace coal power plants...hydro energy.

New hydro plants are not good from a climate change perspective because they flood vegetated areas which then stop absorbing CO2. Then that vegetation decomposes and emits CO2 and CH4 which are greenhouse gases (e.g. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/art ... 49/2754271)

Solar and wind are fads.

There is no basis for this statement. We are nowhere near global capacity for solar and wind energy generation, and the solar sector employs more people in the US than coal now.

[cormorant]

Also on the subject of Dams/hydro - they are also problematic because they prevent sand and other sediment from reaching the sea, which can exacerbate problems of coastal erosion from rising sea levels resulting from climate change.

[ILN]

Oh please, the loss of vegetated land from a hydro plant will barely make a difference in co2 absorption. Let's be realistic here. The only issue with hydro is that it can flood settled areas and force relocations. Flooding trees (which can be cut and utilized) and shrubs isn't going to change anything. Cattle produce much more methane than some flooded grass. The hydro plant is still a net positive considering it replaces coal buring plants.

Also, solar sector is also heavily subsidized. It's not economically feasible without government support. Hydro and nuclear are. Hydro and nuclesr produce energy all the time. What happens to all the solar and wind generators when it's cloudy or there's no wind?

Australia invested hugely in solar power, and they have huge issues because of it. Solar and wind are nice on paper but they are not solutions. If a homeowner wants to get a few panels on his roof then good for him. But municipal solar farms are a bad idea unless you're Morocco or Spain where you have sunshine most of the year. But even then, you need a solution to provide energy at night. Energy storage is very expensive.

[ILN]

Lastly, hydro has the massive advantage of ensuring water supply during droughts by using up the water in their reservoirs that would have otherwise flowed into the sea. Imagine if California didn't have any hydro reservoirs during their last drought, and all the water from the melting snow in the Rockies simply flowed into the Pacific. They would have been screwed.

[cormorant]

Oh please, the loss of vegetated land from a hydro plant will barely make a difference in co2 absorption. Let's be realistic here. The only issue with hydro is that it can flood settled areas and force relocations. Flooding trees (which can be cut and utilized) and shrubs isn't going to change anything. Cattle produce much more methane than some flooded grass. The hydro plant is still a net positive considering it replaces coal buring plants.

Also, solar sector is also heavily subsidized. It's not economically feasible without government support. Hydro and nuclear are. Hydro and nuclesr produce energy all the time. What happens to all the solar and wind generators when it's cloudy or there's no wind?

Australia invested hugely in solar power, and they have huge issues because of it. Solar and wind are nice on paper but they are not solutions. If a homeowner wants to get a few panels on his roof then good for him. But municipal solar farms are a bad idea unless you're Morocco or Spain where you have sunshine most of the year. But even then, you need a solution to provide energy at night. Energy storage is very expensive.

You are misinformed about nuclear and hydro not requiring public investment. Building either is a huge project requiring government involvement at all levels from planning to funding to building to insurance (no private insurance company will insure a reactor!) to management. If you have counterexamples of specific plants that were only privately funded please share because I’m super interested. In fact dams are kind of the poster boy for massive government projects (most recently 3 gorges in China)

I’m a Californian and I agree that we are dependent on our water infrastructure (as is everywhere, especially semi-arid places). We are going to need to radically rethink it because it relies on water stored in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, which is projected to be less reliable as global warming continues.

At any rate, climate change is an unprecedented multi scale accelerating problem, and there is no single solution that will fix everything. We need to mobilize on many different fronts.

[Octavious]

Recalling from my days some years ago working for the South West Energy & Environment Group, hydro could indeed be quite nasty in terms of methane produced from rotting vegetation. Quite how bad it was varied somewhat depending on location, but the ones in Brazil were especially problematic from a climate change perspective.

Coal is should be sent the same way as Irish peat burning and abolished. Nasty stuff for all sorts of reasons, particularly from a climate and air quality perspective. Sadly abolishing coal is a first step rather than a solution.

Nuclear is good. Traditionally it has demanded huge government assistance to cover the upfront costs, but next generation plants are moving into small scale generation that will be easier to stomach. The first generation plants were built primarily to create weapons grade material, were expensive and extremely dangerous. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Windscale, Mayak... The risks taken in the past were truly terrifying. These days standards are massively improved, which makes it such a share we're moving away from nuclear.

[ILN]

Yes hydro and nuclear are massive investments, but they are worth it. Their problem is the upfront capital costs. Solar and wind are very expensive and aren't worth it. If private individuals or businesses want to install solar or wind on their property then good for them. Gov shouldn't subsidize their purchases though and instead use that money on more effective solutions. Even replacing coal with natural gas would be a start.