Liberal solutions may be hot air, but until the majority of conservative leaders and voters accept, as you did, the reality of climate change and the role mankind has in that change, it is all we have. I hope you can help effect a change of heart and mind amongst conservatives. I am not optimistic. Just as with COVID-19, the climate crisis is politicized. There is power to be obtained in denying humans are contributing to climate change and in resisting any measures to mitigate.
The (continuing) denial of climate change being a real issue has prevented discussion of real solutions to the problems. Some undoubtedly was due to the economic consequences of proposed solutions (not least from the companies most likely to be affected), and it was easier/more profitable in the short term to deny rather then engage and offer alternative/combined solutions. This approach ignored Ben Franklin's adage "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure": this failure is also plaguing our handling of COVID.
Some was also undoubtedly a knee-jerk reaction to Democrats: "If they want X, then I'm against it".
I'm glad you've finally accepted the reality of climate change as an issue needing serious attention. You're correct that *some* ideas from a more conservative perspective will be better than from a more liberal perspective, and that the only things we can directly control are what we the USA does.
"We do need to find a way to deal with this problem before it causes some very negative effects, like changing the salinity and chemistry of the oceans, sinking coastal cities, altering global weather patterns, creating deserts in places once filled with lush vegetation, causing massive droughts, floods, fires, famine, and livestock die-offs, and a whole bunch of plagues we haven’t thought of. The question is not “if,” given the evidence, it’s “when.” But “when” is, and remains, a very open question."
The problem here is that this statement is aimed at prevention, and at this point ocean salinity is already increasing, and the chemistry is already acidifying. Coastal cities are already more at risk of flooding due to increasing sea levels, caused by a feedback loop of melting ice creating more water that absorbs more solar energy that melts more ice.... Global weather patterns are changing to longer fire seasons here in the West and hurricane seasons in the East. Desertification is increasing, permafrost is thawing (leading to increasing releases of additional greenhouse gases and ancient viruses).
It's (likely) too late to prevent these issues from continuing, and we may now be stuck with mitigation.
Is the only real solution to force everyone who is not an agricultural worker or a miner into cities so that they can enjoy a Chicago or New York lifestyle? That way, no one has an absolute need to travel except locally on public conveyances. The opportunities for controlling waste and capturing excess heat are almost limitless. Of course some people have to live in Green Bay while others get to live in Sarasota. Will Amtrak be improved to the extent it allows tourism even if it's only to government approved compact Fun Spots for the Masses?
Just to start a comment thread on it: how about some ideas for reducing energy/water/etc... usage that are generally sane. I'll start:
We currently let a lot of fresh drinking water go down the drain while we wait for the hot water to reach a particular sink. There's energy loss involved in maintaining a tank of hot water and in transporting that hot water from a central water heater to a faucet. Why not require every newly built house utilize on-demand hot water heaters at each sink to reduce both fresh water and energy usage? This can also reduce plumbing needs/costs, or free those funds that would have gone towards hot water lines towards utilizing gray water for flushing toilet (further reducing fresh water usage). No innovation or new technologies needed: just building code changes.
I do like that piece of Kevin Williamson from the National Review, as he nails it quite well. Politics are by nature, reactive from a rhetorical sense. How rational and well one presents the arguments for climate change or any other issues, largely determines the reaction from the other side, and vice versa. Those who advocate for action on climate change with demagogic, hysterical, and overly alarmist rhetoric, do not provide incentives for the audiences to consider and possibly accept their conclusions regarding anthropogenic climate change. If I were undecided on that issue and listed to shrill voices on the left spout what they do, I would've tuned them out immediately. I don't take very kindly to people who act like that, and immediately write them off as nothing people as an instinctive reaction. One of the reasons many on the right make fun of climate activists or tune them out in the knee-jerk manner, is because how the how the latter advocates for their point of view. They use the "either you are with us, or you are...(insert a bad faith motive)" way too often. It is just like the issue of race, where the tendency on many on the right to sweep under the rug any assertion of racism(whether real or imagined), comes as a knee jerk reaction to some progressive leftists playing the race card incessantly for mere policy differences. There is plenty of blame to go around, and I'm not absolving the right's behavior on this. But I've noticed that when I rationally present my points of view without using demagogic tactics about why we cannot ignore climate change and need to take some corrective action, people do listen. They may not be converted right away, but you have credibility with them so they will at least consider what you have to say. But over time, some have changed their minds, which is a good thing.
I know some who were convinced it was all a hoax come around to that belief that we need to be mindful about our changing climate. I don't use alarmist or hysterical rhetoric, but try to be constructive and positive in these discussions. Given the politics surrounding climate change have been polarized like Covid-19 pandemic, many have hardened their hearts one way or another, and some might not respond well to a good faith discussion. But it has to start somewhere, and I believe that people like you Steve, and David are doing a good job with your good faith arguments.
On a positive note, I believe the belief in climate change tends to be generational. From what I observed, younger generations of conservatives tend to be believe in climate change reality and the need to do something, while the older generation of those on the right tend not to. Of course, you will have those who reject climate change reality from all generations, but I've noticed that trend.
Steve, have you heard of Benji Backer? He's one of the major voices from the conservative movement calling for dealing with climate change issues. I've watched and read some of his commentary. It is far more commonsensical than some of the irresponsible rhetoric from political partisans of late. I think he is doing really good work in changing hearts and minds, and breaking across the political stalemate on this issue.
Liberal solutions may be hot air, but until the majority of conservative leaders and voters accept, as you did, the reality of climate change and the role mankind has in that change, it is all we have. I hope you can help effect a change of heart and mind amongst conservatives. I am not optimistic. Just as with COVID-19, the climate crisis is politicized. There is power to be obtained in denying humans are contributing to climate change and in resisting any measures to mitigate.
The (continuing) denial of climate change being a real issue has prevented discussion of real solutions to the problems. Some undoubtedly was due to the economic consequences of proposed solutions (not least from the companies most likely to be affected), and it was easier/more profitable in the short term to deny rather then engage and offer alternative/combined solutions. This approach ignored Ben Franklin's adage "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure": this failure is also plaguing our handling of COVID.
Some was also undoubtedly a knee-jerk reaction to Democrats: "If they want X, then I'm against it".
I'm glad you've finally accepted the reality of climate change as an issue needing serious attention. You're correct that *some* ideas from a more conservative perspective will be better than from a more liberal perspective, and that the only things we can directly control are what we the USA does.
"We do need to find a way to deal with this problem before it causes some very negative effects, like changing the salinity and chemistry of the oceans, sinking coastal cities, altering global weather patterns, creating deserts in places once filled with lush vegetation, causing massive droughts, floods, fires, famine, and livestock die-offs, and a whole bunch of plagues we haven’t thought of. The question is not “if,” given the evidence, it’s “when.” But “when” is, and remains, a very open question."
The problem here is that this statement is aimed at prevention, and at this point ocean salinity is already increasing, and the chemistry is already acidifying. Coastal cities are already more at risk of flooding due to increasing sea levels, caused by a feedback loop of melting ice creating more water that absorbs more solar energy that melts more ice.... Global weather patterns are changing to longer fire seasons here in the West and hurricane seasons in the East. Desertification is increasing, permafrost is thawing (leading to increasing releases of additional greenhouse gases and ancient viruses).
It's (likely) too late to prevent these issues from continuing, and we may now be stuck with mitigation.
There's a good thread by Jonathan Adler on this matter:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jadler1969/status/1425457785819566080
Is the only real solution to force everyone who is not an agricultural worker or a miner into cities so that they can enjoy a Chicago or New York lifestyle? That way, no one has an absolute need to travel except locally on public conveyances. The opportunities for controlling waste and capturing excess heat are almost limitless. Of course some people have to live in Green Bay while others get to live in Sarasota. Will Amtrak be improved to the extent it allows tourism even if it's only to government approved compact Fun Spots for the Masses?
Who's going to deal with the 60% of the world's population in Africa and Asia who do not give a hoot?
I like the more trees idea. Use less lumber in building. Toilet paper and packaging are the two uses for paper I couldn't do without.
Just to start a comment thread on it: how about some ideas for reducing energy/water/etc... usage that are generally sane. I'll start:
We currently let a lot of fresh drinking water go down the drain while we wait for the hot water to reach a particular sink. There's energy loss involved in maintaining a tank of hot water and in transporting that hot water from a central water heater to a faucet. Why not require every newly built house utilize on-demand hot water heaters at each sink to reduce both fresh water and energy usage? This can also reduce plumbing needs/costs, or free those funds that would have gone towards hot water lines towards utilizing gray water for flushing toilet (further reducing fresh water usage). No innovation or new technologies needed: just building code changes.
I do like that piece of Kevin Williamson from the National Review, as he nails it quite well. Politics are by nature, reactive from a rhetorical sense. How rational and well one presents the arguments for climate change or any other issues, largely determines the reaction from the other side, and vice versa. Those who advocate for action on climate change with demagogic, hysterical, and overly alarmist rhetoric, do not provide incentives for the audiences to consider and possibly accept their conclusions regarding anthropogenic climate change. If I were undecided on that issue and listed to shrill voices on the left spout what they do, I would've tuned them out immediately. I don't take very kindly to people who act like that, and immediately write them off as nothing people as an instinctive reaction. One of the reasons many on the right make fun of climate activists or tune them out in the knee-jerk manner, is because how the how the latter advocates for their point of view. They use the "either you are with us, or you are...(insert a bad faith motive)" way too often. It is just like the issue of race, where the tendency on many on the right to sweep under the rug any assertion of racism(whether real or imagined), comes as a knee jerk reaction to some progressive leftists playing the race card incessantly for mere policy differences. There is plenty of blame to go around, and I'm not absolving the right's behavior on this. But I've noticed that when I rationally present my points of view without using demagogic tactics about why we cannot ignore climate change and need to take some corrective action, people do listen. They may not be converted right away, but you have credibility with them so they will at least consider what you have to say. But over time, some have changed their minds, which is a good thing.
I know some who were convinced it was all a hoax come around to that belief that we need to be mindful about our changing climate. I don't use alarmist or hysterical rhetoric, but try to be constructive and positive in these discussions. Given the politics surrounding climate change have been polarized like Covid-19 pandemic, many have hardened their hearts one way or another, and some might not respond well to a good faith discussion. But it has to start somewhere, and I believe that people like you Steve, and David are doing a good job with your good faith arguments.
On a positive note, I believe the belief in climate change tends to be generational. From what I observed, younger generations of conservatives tend to be believe in climate change reality and the need to do something, while the older generation of those on the right tend not to. Of course, you will have those who reject climate change reality from all generations, but I've noticed that trend.
Steve, have you heard of Benji Backer? He's one of the major voices from the conservative movement calling for dealing with climate change issues. I've watched and read some of his commentary. It is far more commonsensical than some of the irresponsible rhetoric from political partisans of late. I think he is doing really good work in changing hearts and minds, and breaking across the political stalemate on this issue.