Actually, climate change action does have support on the Right, e.g., in the Republican Climate Resolution. I don't believe we're at the political tipping point, but getting there is possible, the same way we did with tobacco and chemical pollutants. Who can say what is needed to get there: unfortunately misinformation campaigns are better funded than pro climate action campaigns.
Yeah, if Republicans lead by Trump passed some plan where carbon was taxed, and some of the money was used to offset the increased fuel cost for the poor/middle classes, whereas rich folks were thrown a bone with tax cuts, that would be phenomenal. I would be very, very happy with that decision, enough so to feel happy with the Trump administration in spite of everything else.
Chance of this happening, IMO: 0%
As I said in another comment a long time ago and thus sparking an argument with a conservative commentator: this has become a political issue where the majority of people do not understand it. Laypersons are arguing with scientists. There is a tribal sense of which side is correct that is totally unrelated to the facts, and until that is pierced it doesn't matter how urgent the warnings or how win-win the proposals. In the mainstream conservative view, this is firmly in the realm of hysterical, liberal bullshit and does not merit further negotiation. I mean, people actually argue that "the climate is always changing" as though that in any way counters what scientists are saying - fucking asinine.
It breaks my heart that we're going to play chicken with the habitability of our planet just as I'm preparing to bring children into the world.
> There is a tribal sense of which side is correct that is totally unrelated to the facts
I think it's important to acknowledge some role of the Left in alienating the Right in their framing of climate change: Greedy, evil corporations are polluting the environment, and the solution is massive public spending or restructuring of society. Of course I'm exaggerating.
To me the most important questions are: How has science communication failed to convince the public of the danger, and what can be done memetically to counter corporate misinformation campaigns?
>"unfortunately misinformation campaigns are better funded than pro climate action campaigns."
I can't attest as to who is better funded. But the "pro-climate" camp has cornered the market on childhood indoctrination. You know, the whole "green" movement, "save the planet", "extinct species", "pollution", "recycling", etc. It's all neatly packaged and pawned off in classrooms and children's cartoons. You would think then that as adults we'd stick with that; yet there are people out there that have had to go back on everything they've been taught in order to get into the anti-climate-change camp.
Coral reefs, specifically? I personally don't care about them or have any feelings for their well-being. It would be unfortunate if my children don't get to see them, yes. Then again, that assumes they would want to, and pictures wouldn't suffice.
I think the problem being created/presented is state-promoting and reinforcing propaganda, rather than a left/right one. I.e. a problem that conveniently has only one easy & short-term solution: more state intervention/legislation.
Now, if it comes to the general well-being and usefulness of an immense natural resource such as the ocean? I think humanity deserves what they're causing & not-preventing. They put it simultaneously in the hands of everyone and no-one in the form of "public property", then complain when the problem of pollution is unfixable because of state-governments not implementing enough legislation and enforcement.
You seem to throw everything associated with the green movement into the same lump of bad things (judging from the tone of your comment). What could be so bad about recycling that you dislike the idea? Is there a logical explanation or maybe it's based on religious beliefs? I'm genuinely curious.
I wasn't trying to portray those items as bad. The thing that is bad is when those things are pushed on children. They're the least likely to question things told to them by authority figures such as teachers.
Then again, I probably have a very narrow view of what should be taught to children by educators. Simple facts and techniques, that's all. Otherwise, the classroom is just another battle front that opinionated teachers can use to push their version of politicized topics that haven't been agreed upon completely by the scientific community. E.g. religion, evolution, climate-change, etc.
In the context of what is being taught in schools and how our education currently exists, there should be no issue with teaching ecological principles, which as noted elsewhere, are as firmly rooted in science as evolution.
This is not a matter of pushing politics.
> the classroom is just another battle front that opinionated teachers can use to push their version of politicized topics that haven't been agreed upon completely by the scientific community. E.g. religion, evolution, climate-change, etc.
One of these things is not like the other. It does however explain your bizarre mindset that teaching basic facts of ecology is some kind of politicization of children. I would think of all populations, children have the most stake in the future of the planet.
>"there should be no issue with teaching ecological principles, which as noted elsewhere, are as firmly rooted in science as evolution. This is not a matter of pushing politics."
Sure, teaching ecological principles as facts and history, yes. I would agree with your wholeheartedly there. But that is not how it's presented in the classrooms of younger-grades. It is loaded with guilt and fear, along with suggestions/instructions about what must be done. At least in the case of global-warming, desertification, deforestation, pollution, ozone-layer depletion, etc. It's the ever-present boogey-man of society's bad choices. That's not teaching. Perhaps young children are simply not ready to hear some of these things, and know of the possibly impending disasters that humanity as a whole is causing. Almost entirely out of the child's control.
>"I would think of all populations, children have the most stake in the future of the planet."
Just as much as the parents, I would argue. They want what's best for their children. Still, doesn't mean you need to burden the children with thoughts/worries of such things.
You include several things in the list of questionable, politicized content that are cold, hard facts. The amount of pollution produced, the effects of this pollution and the rate of extinction of species are not liberal propaganda. The scientific community is in agreement that we are in the anthropocene, or in other words that humans are having such a massive effect on the environment that this geological era is dominated by our influence over that of any other single factor.
I whole-heartedly disagree with your conclusion and tone, but am up voting because it is an interesting question I've wondered about. At what point did these people say "screw everything I was taught, I'm going to spread disinformation and promote harmful policies to make some $$$"? While we've made lots of progress on the hard science aspects of preservation, I think the social science aspect is woefully behind
Not with that attitude :-P
Actually, climate change action does have support on the Right, e.g., in the Republican Climate Resolution. I don't believe we're at the political tipping point, but getting there is possible, the same way we did with tobacco and chemical pollutants. Who can say what is needed to get there: unfortunately misinformation campaigns are better funded than pro climate action campaigns.