Why is the climate change issue divided along party lines?

[NipperDog]

This is something I've never understood. It's almost as if conservatives care less about their children's future than progressives do.

Why are right-wingers so resistant to the hard science behind it and choose to ignore the vast majority of climatologists.

Please help me understand why we're so divided on this issue.

[Oerets]

I have never understood greed, selfishness or willingness to ignore the obvious. Have come to conclude they that do must feel it is to late now. So enjoy it while you can.
Or to hard work and requiring sacrifices they being what they are will not endure.
So believe what makes them happy.
But looking back on human history we have as a species would use up an area and move on to greener pastures. Now we have run out of places to go.

So in a nut shell it describes the general Republican I know.......

Also a trait common is the willingness to have others pay.

[nailer]

Two parties equals two side on each issue be it global warming, abortion, globalization, voting rights...

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

Two parties equals two side on each issue be it global warming, abortion, globalization, voting rights...

This is about it. Add in that big oil wanted it this way. But for the rank and file, it's just a matter of 'this is what people like us think.'

[Oerets]

There is no two sides to climate change.
It is here and not going away!

[Rajoo]

It's to do with regulations, less regulations, no regulations even better.

[NipperDog]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

It's to do with regulations, less regulations, no regulations even better.

I can see this being the reason but it doesn't make sense that they're not concerned about the mess they're passing on to their kids and grandkids.

[TryToFindmid]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

It's to do with regulations, less regulations, no regulations even better.

I feel you nailed it with this one.

After recently being mortified by learning about the on going dumping of deadly chemicals by Dupont and Monsanto, I have little to no faith in these regulatory entities. Which often have ties, some directly others not so much, with government entities.

I can understand when I first recall this issue being raised in my early 20s around the early 2000s, it wasnt as clear cut. I was hearing stories about the global cooling being talked about in the 70s (before my time). And how so much of this movement was old hat that was dis proven already.

The fact that it became so politicized once it got legs I feel was a disservice to its efforts. No fault of the movement itself. Just as nailer says, there are two parties. It further reflects how damaging this polarized political discourse is to any greater good.

I think it also reflects how, to this day, there seems to be no trusted scientific body the government or public has to look upon. There are many who get praised as being accredited and trusted. But there are also many others, with varying levels of validation and knowledge. The recent handling of the Covid pandemic and the WHO certainly shines a light on the issues of trust and how believable all these institutions might be. I simply see a need to somehow form a gov / public scientific body that is unified and fact checked. I know we kinda have a form of that now, just not well organized IMO. And clearly not well known or publicized IMO.

IMO these days there seems little reason to think carbon emissions arent harmful on varying levels. And reducing their output would be a good idea. I dont know why that cant be agreed upon universally.

Which brings us back to regulations and to expand on that, cost. This is where the tire hits the road, no pun. I feel allot of the push back politically has to do with our screwed up ties to companies / powers that be. And both parties are VERY much guilty of this. Some just have stereotypical ties. And you know what they say about stereotypes.

Another aspect of cost of carbon reduction has to do with consumers. Up till recently electric cars simply were not widely available nor affordable. Both of those hurdles are changing for the better. And they show no signs of slowing.

But this brings us back to carbon emissions with coal electric plants. Alternative energy is gaining strides, but short of hydro electric plants I cant think of something with the output of coal plants. Let alone cost. Which is why Im pro Nuclear. When done properly and safely nothing compares. I feel its a real disservice to the environment they are not better used.

So in the end I feel we are going in the greener direction. The speed at which doing so is debatable and the issues that play into that are another topic to itself. Cost to the consumer being a big one. Again massive topic to itself.

But I think its silly to not at least be on board with the pursuit of cleaner energy, recycling, waste reduction, more efficient anything. To those that want to argue this notion, yes I get it, theres many dimensions to this. But in general....

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by TryToFindmid

I feel you nailed it with this one.

After recently being mortified by learning about the on going dumping of deadly chemicals by Dupont and Monsanto, I have little to no faith in these regulatory entities. Which often have ties, some directly others not so much, with government entities.

I can understand when I first recall this issue being raised in my early 20s around the early 2000s, it wasnt as clear cut. I was hearing stories about the global cooling being talked about in the 70s (before my time). And how so much of this movement was old hat that was dis proven already.

The fact that it became so politicized once it got legs I feel was a disservice to its efforts. No fault of the movement itself. Just as nailer says, there are two parties. It further reflects how damaging this polarized political discourse is to any greater good.

I think it also reflects how, to this day, there seems to be no trusted scientific body the government or public has to look upon. There are many who get praised as being accredited and trusted. But there are also many others, with varying levels of validation and knowledge. The recent handling of the Covid pandemic and the WHO certainly shines a light on the issues of trust and how believable all these institutions might be. I simply see a need to somehow form a gov / public scientific body that is unified and fact checked. I know we kinda have a form of that now, just not well organized IMO. And clearly not well known or publicized IMO.

IMO these days there seems little reason to think carbon emissions arent harmful on varying levels. And reducing their output would be a good idea. I dont know why that cant be agreed upon universally.

Which brings us back to regulations and to expand on that, cost. This is where the tire hits the road, no pun. I feel allot of the push back politically has to do with our screwed up ties to companies / powers that be. And both parties are VERY much guilty of this. Some just have stereotypical ties. And you know what they say about stereotypes.

Another aspect of cost of carbon reduction has to do with consumers. Up till recently electric cars simply were not widely available nor affordable. Both of those hurdles are changing for the better. And they show no signs of slowing.

But this brings us back to carbon emissions with coal electric plants. Alternative energy is gaining strides, but short of hydro electric plants I cant think of something with the output of coal plants. Let alone cost. Which is why Im pro Nuclear. When done properly and safely nothing compares. I feel its a real disservice to the environment they are not better used.

So in the end I feel we are going in the greener direction. The speed at which doing so is debatable and the issues that play into that are another topic to itself. Cost to the consumer being a big one. Again massive topic to itself.

But I think its silly to not at least be on board with the pursuit of cleaner energy, recycling, waste reduction, more efficient anything. To those that want to argue this notion, yes I get it, theres many dimensions to this. But in general....

I was waiting for you to mention nuclear. And I agree with you. I'm in the power industry and I can tell you that solar and wind are nothing more than political tools. They are like the little solar cell on a battery pack. I live in Kentucky and tell people that all the teslas here should have a bumper sticker that says, "Powered by coal". Anyone serious about reducing CO2 is a proponent of Nuclear. Either that or they are swimming in a sea of ignorance.

But I'm going to disagree on CO2. We've been duped on that whole issue. Everyting that human beings do produces CO2. Same with animals. Convincing the population that it is a polutant is key to giving a government authority the power to completely control every aspect of our lives. And the whole thing is baloney. It is not a pollutant, it is not a dangerous gas, and we are not producing too much. We could use about four times more CO2 in our atmosphere than we currently have.

Some point to Venus as an example of 'runaway CO2" and its affects. Yet Venus and Mars have almost exactly the same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere. What makes one cold and one hot is the DENSITY of the atmosphere itself. It's why It's so bloody hot on the surface of Jupiter.

It's why it is so cold at the top of Mt. Everest and so hot at the bottom of the grand canyon. And if you dug a hole a few thousand feet deep here on earth it would have the same temperature at the bottom as venus' atmosphere, even if it hat NO CO2 in it.

iow, using venus as an example of the pitfalls of too much CO2 in the atmosphere is like using the bottom of the ocean as an example of the pitfalls of too much water in the atmosphere. i.e. bad science.

This can help:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/

https://realclimatescience.com/

We've been sold a bill of goods and the information easily debunking it is all over the place on the internet if one is willing to dig.

On Youtube this is useful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcAH...VcLOwKh-FB7Rxp

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

I was waiting for you to mention nuclear. And I agree with you. I'm in the power industry and I can tell you that solar and wind are nothing more than political tools. They are like the little solar cell on a battery pack. I live in Kentucky and tell people that all the teslas here should have a bumper sticker that says, "Powered by coal". Anyone serious about reducing CO2 is a proponent of Nuclear. Either that or they are swimming in a sea of ignorance.

But I'm going to disagree on CO2. We've been duped on that whole issue. Everyting that human beings do produces CO2. Same with animals. Convincing the population that it is a polutant is key to giving a government authority the power to completely control every aspect of our lives. And the whole thing is baloney. It is not a pollutant, it is not a dangerous gas, and we are not producing too much. We could use about four times more CO2 in our atmosphere than we currently have.

Some point to Venus as an example of 'runaway CO2" and its affects. Yet Venus and Mars have almost exactly the same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere. What makes one cold and one hot is the DENSITY of the atmosphere itself. It's why It's so bloody hot on the surface of Jupiter.

It's why it is so cold at the top of Mt. Everest and so hot at the bottom of the grand canyon. And if you dug a hole a few thousand feet deep here on earth it would have the same temperature at the bottom as venus' atmosphere, even if it hat NO CO2 in it.

iow, using venus as an example of the pitfalls of too much CO2 in the atmosphere is like using the bottom of the ocean as an example of the pitfalls of too much water in the atmosphere. i.e. bad science.

This can help:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/

https://realclimatescience.com/

We've been sold a bill of goods and the information easily debunking it is all over the place on the internet if one is willing to dig.

On Youtube this is useful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcAH...VcLOwKh-FB7Rxp

The Twain quote describes rabid Trump supporters perfectly.