A World On Fire, And 70% Of Republicans Think Climate Collapse "Minor" Or "No Threat"

[hatrack]

Almost three-quarters of US Republican voters think the economy should be given priority in domestic policy, even at the risk of ignoring the climate crisis, a new poll found. The survey, from NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist, found that a majority of Americans (53%) think addressing the climate crisis should be given priority. But 72% of Republicans said otherwise.

June and July were, by many measures, the hottest such months on record. Wildfires are raging across the world, in the US notably in California and Nevada. Smoke from fires in Canada has blotted out the sun on the US east coast this year. Much of the US is threatened by rising seas. The UN has said the world is “boiling”.

But, the NPR poll showed, the percentage of Republicans who think the economy should be given priority regardless is up 13 points since 2018. More than half of respondents (56%) said climate change was a major threat. More than two-thirds of Republicans (70%) said it was a minor threat or no threat at all. Among Republicans, 43% said climate change would have no serious impact on their communities.

The Biden administration has claimed to address the climate crisis but it has not been immune to criticism on the issue and with the House held by Republicans, legislative action is near-impossible.

EDIT

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/03/republicans-economy-climate-crisis-poll

[NNadir]

1. That's not surprising. Of course on the other side of the spectrum...

...we have lots of people who think we should wait for a wind/solar/battery/hydrogen nirvana that has not come, is not here, and won't come to break out.

This mentality to my mind is a form of climate denial since the mentality has done nothing more than entrench fossil fuel use.

[Think. Again.]

2. The Biden administration....

....has, so far, taken a very hesitant approach to informing the public on the truths, facts, and basic actual information on what we are facing with climate change and how the coming changes will affect our individual lives, our communities, and yes, our economy.

Claiming to support an energy transition away from fossil fuels is not enough if the American public has no idea what that even means, let alone how this will directly impact them personally or how they themselves can and will be engaged in that transition.

I believe we need a substantial, in- depth, mulit-faceted, ongoing Climate Awareness Public Engagement Campaign along the lines of the World War 2 public war effort to build public support, gain public understanding, and begin the forces of momentum that a successful transition is going to require.

[Vogon_Glory]

3. There's still a part of my mind that boggles about this

There’s still a part of my mind that boggles about this. My stereotypical Conservative is still a rural (or freshly-urbanized) white man or white woman who may hate “liberals” and “socialism” but still cares about what flows into their water supply or affects that vegetable patch in their back yard. They might let Fox and NewsMax do their thinking for them on immigrants and race, healthcare, and freedom of expression, but they still think about what affects their water taps and back yards.

Goes to show that my stereotype doesn’t quit match reality.

[orthoclad]

6. "Conservative" used to mean things like

waste not, want not
a stitch in time saves nine
penny wise, pound foolish

Rural folks I know think pollution is a liberal city-person plot, somehow.

There are exceptions. Country singer Kathy Mattea sang about the water turning black from coal mines, e.g.

Nowadays, so-called conservatives conserve nothing. Now, I use "reich-wing" to describe the Right.

[Vogon_Glory]

8. I often use the term reactionary

I’m not sure they’re really conserving anything.

[orthoclad]

9. I'm sure they're not conserving anything

They're spendthrift radicals.
Oh, they conserve their power over the rest of us.

(OT: I used to call British wildlife specials "Vogon biology" because I couldn't stay awake for five minutes through the droning voice)

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. They "conserve" the status quo

The musical 1776, includes the song “Cool, Cool, Considerate Men.” These “conservatives” oppose John Adams' call for a revolution. (Too radical, it upsets the status-quo, which has served them well.)

…

Come ye cool, cool conservative men
Our like may never ever been seen again
We have land, cash in hand
Self-command, future planned
Fortune thrives, society survives
In neatly ordered lives
With well-endowered wives

…

…

[DICKINSON, spoken]
But why, sir? For personal glory? For a... place in history? Be careful, sir. History will brand Mr. Adams and his followers as traitors

[HANCOCK, spoken]
Traitors, Mr. Dickinson? To what? The British crown? Or the British half-crown? Fortunately, there are not enough men of property in America to dictate policy

[DICKINSON, spoken]
Well, perhaps not. But don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. And that is why they will follow us!

…

[orthoclad]

12. I think it's gone beyond preserving the staus quo

They're going for outright takeover, radical change, starting with Reagan and trickle down (not to mention removing the solar panels) and now outright bloody fascism. Revenge tour, retribution, slitting throats, "when do we use the guns", while the rich sweep up all the wealth.

Think of Heinlein's Prophet Scudder or The Handmaid's Tale. Or Jack London's The Iron Heel. Fiction. We've seen the practical application 75 years ago. Now with a strong dose of god.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. And that's where the "reactionary" comes into play

As Archie and Edith Bunker sang, “Those Were The Days.”

…
And you know where you were then,
Girls were girls and men were men,
Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again,
Didn't need no welfare states
Everybody pulled his weight,
Gee our old Lasalle ran great,
Those were the days

It's a longing to reclaim a past that never was. Take us back to the good old days, when America was Great!

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4728091/user-clip-nixon-making-america-great-1968

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

16. Not sure why the environmental view is confusing

You worry and take action around things you can control. PA had horrible times with "acid rain" from Ohio high-sulfur coal plants. The EPA helped clean that up for everyone's benefit. Same with CFCs and the ozone layer. Pittsburgh has almost completed a huge program to replace all the lead water pipes. Concentrated sources are far easier to legislate, and it worked. Water and environmental conservation makes sense. Being more efficient makes sense.

Preventing climate change through CO2 from the US perspective is NOT this.

* US is only 15% of CO2 emissions
* APAC is 80% and growing fast
* China burned more coal than the entire earth last year
* China surpassed the US in CO2 20 years ago, and are double what we do
* US CO2 has dropped in the past 10 years
* There is NO stopping sea level rise
* Plastics in the oceans are primarily due to SE Asian countries, not the US

ie, there is nothing mathematically the US can do EXCEPT for doing local for local and look at mediating the impact of eventual climate change. So how much money are you willing to spend for something that the rest of the world will easily throw away.

[Sibelius Fan]

4. The R Party has embraced make believe and willful ignorance as foundational

principles. At its base is the embrace of the make believe of Christianity as THE guiding principle. It’s easy to justify anything - no matter how fantastic or ludicrous - when you can assert without challenge the reality of talking snakes, dead people resurrecting, demons causing diseases and a flat Earth. After that, denying climate change is a walk in the park.

[hunter]

10. Ah, the blessings of U.S. American anti-intellectualism...

... and our tolerance of screaming mad Christians.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Richard Hofstadter

Wikipedia: Anti-intellectualism in American Life


I first really became aware of American anti-intellectualism during the Bush -v- Gore campaign, when it was said that Bush was the man people would rather “have a beer with” (ironic since Bush was a recovering alcoholic.) He affected an “aw shucks” demeanor, but, he was from New England, attended Yale and Harvard (even if he wasn’t a “Rhodes Scholar” like his predecessor.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. See here for original story

Three-quarters of Republicans prioritize the economy over climate change

August 3, 2023 5:01 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition
Domenico Montanaro

…

MONTANARO: Well, we asked people a few questions about climate change, including one that I think is really key for why so little is getting done in Congress to address the problem, and that's exploring this tension between climate change and the economy. Now, climate change is costing the country and the world billions of dollars in disaster funding and preparation. But Republican messaging to their base has been about the potential short-term cost of climate change.

So we asked if priority should be given to climate change even at the risk of slowing the economy, or to the economy even if it means ignoring climate change. The results really were eye-opening, I thought. Overall, a majority of people said climate change should be the priority, including a majority of independents. But here's the rub - three-quarters of Republicans said the opposite. In fact, as the days have gotten hotter, Republicans have only increased in feeling this way, up 13 points in the last five years.

FADEL: Wow.

MONTANARO: A lot of that could be attributed to the way former President Trump speaks about the climate crisis, you know, the leader of the Republican Party over the last several years. The science is settled. The evidence is clear. But he's downplayed its effects. And we've seen that base that loves him so much seem to really lap up everything he's had to say.

…

[orthoclad]

7. It's about security

The weekly paycheck is immediate and tangible. Until the sky turns orange and sidewalks are 180F, climate change and pollution are invisible threats, seen on graphs or occasional remote fish kills. The weekly paycheck means food, shelter and clothing right now. Propagandists know this and use it.

Security could be had for all if the wealth (aka stolen labor) weren't sequestered in a few hands, and we could lift our heads up above daily struggle to see the horizon. Insecurity yields fear; fear yields rage and conflict; rage and conflict give dictators power. Propagandists, again, know this.

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

17. I don't get this arguement at all

"climate change is costing the country and the world billions of dollars in disaster funding and preparation"

How is it "costing" billions? Money isn't destroyed, and it provides a living for others.

A good example:

When the EPA started regulating coal power plants, the companies had to spend money to clean up particulates and acid rain emissions.

Which power plants are most responsible for creating acid rain pollution?
The biggest sources are coal-burning power plants, factories, and automobiles. When humans burn fossil fuels, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are released into the atmosphere. Those air pollutants react with water, oxygen, and other substances to form airborne sulfuric and nitric acid.

Between 1990 and 2021, annual emissions of SO2 from power plants fell by 94% and annual emissions of NOX from power plants fell by 88%

All that new technology is cleaning the burnt coal is created by new industries, companies, jobs, etc.

IE, the only thing that "cost" money was the huge corporations who now had to pay smaller companies to clean their shit up for the benefit of everyone.

Heck even hurricanes create whole industries to deal with that, so again, where is the "costs" that doesn't end up in other's paycheck?

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Investopedia: The Broken Window Fallacy: Definition and Examples in Economics

The Broken Window Fallacy: Definition and Examples in Economics

…

Understanding the Broken Window Fallacy
In Bastiat's tale, a boy breaks a window. The townspeople looking on decide that the boy has actually done the community a service because his father will have to pay the town's glazier to replace the broken pane. The glazier will then spend the extra money on something else, jump-starting the local economy. The onlookers come to believe that breaking windows stimulates the economy.¹

Bastiat points out that further analysis exposes the fallacy. By forcing his father to pay for a window, the boy has reduced his father's disposable income. His father will not be able to purchase new shoes or some other luxury goods. Productivity has also decreased, as the time the father spends dealing with the broken window could have been put to better use. Thus, the broken window might help the glazier, but at the same time, it robs other industries and reduces the amount spent on other goods.

Bastiat also noted that the townspeople should have regarded the broken window as a loss of some of the town's real value. Moreover, replacing something that has already been purchased represents a maintenance cost, not a purchase of new goods, and maintenance doesn't stimulate production. In short, Bastiat suggests that destruction doesn't pay in an economic sense.

The War Economy
The broken window fallacy is often used to discredit the idea that going to war stimulates a country's economy. As with the broken window, war causes resources and capital to be redirected from producing consumer goods and services to building weapons of war.

…

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

20. An oldie but goodie :)

I guess what I argue is akin to this tale.

I never argue there is a benefit, only that there is minimal total loss other than intangibles (like efficiency or perceived value) - or in the end, the environment destroyed to replace the materials (but that's not where the numbers come from).

"The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business.

So, say in FL, a hurricane takes out a house, its' repairs are a cost to the homeowner (just like the coal company), but a gain to the contractors, plumbers, electricians, store to provide lumber, emergency crews, disposal, etc.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. No, there is actual loss involved here

That’s the thing about fallacies. Frequently, through double-talk, they can be made to appear to make sense.

Let's think about this for a moment. Imagine the value of an entire building. Now, break a window. The value of the building has been decreased. You cannot wave your hand and bring back that value.

If the shopkeeper pays the glazer for a new pane of glass, and the labor to install it, that money comes out of the shopkeeper's wallet.

Why not short-cut the whole window thing. If the glazer simply stole the money from the shopkeeper's wallet, would that be good for the economy?

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

23. Fun thought experiment

"Let's think about this for a moment. Imagine the value of an entire building. Now, break a window. The value of the building has been decreased. You cannot wave your hand and bring back that value." - but the value is the building minus a window cost. Replacing the window makes it whole again.

If the shopkeeper pays the glazer for a new pane of glass, and the labor to install it, that money comes out of the shopkeeper's wallet. - yes, so the shopkeeper loses money equal to the gain the glazer receives that he wouldn't have had otherwise. So the village isn't "out" money as a whole, but as I mentioned, may be out some sand to create more glass? The tailor would now sell his suit to the glazer instead of the shopkeeper.

Why not short-cut the whole window thing. If the glazer simply stole the money from the shopkeeper's wallet, would that be good for the economy? - I never said anything like that. I simply said you can't just look at who loses if you don't also look at those who gain. If her stole the money, it wouldn't hurt or help the village economy, you just wouldn't have a broken window. No money is created or destroyed.

In fact, since the velocity of money increased, maybe the economy based on GDP numbers may have in fact been bettered, but that's a whole other day

Enjoyed the discussion, thank you!

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. Making it more personal

A while ago a kid stole my bicycle.

I’ll spare you the saga. I’m now riding a 50-year-old bicycle I had before acquiring this one. I will not be buying a new one. I suspect the “missing” one wound up in a nearby pond, to cover the crime.

Now, I’m out a bicycle. Right? Assuming that I’m correct, and the bicycle is now in the bottom of a pond, the world is out one bicycle.

End of story.

There is no scenario under which this is a break-even situation. No money will magically appear to stimulate the economy.

[honest.abe]

15. It's going to take a massive global catastrophe to get everyone's attention.

Then some sort of “Manhattan Project” approach will be implemented. Not sure what that would be but I think there will be enough incentive to do something big.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. By the time the "massive global catastrophe" occurs, it will be too late for a Manhattan Project

The “Massive Global Catastrophe” will likely be some sort of “tipping point” and the thing about “tipping points” is, they can’t be reversed.

Imagine you have a glass of water at the side of a table. You can push the glass partway off of the table, and it will remain stable. You can keep pushing it, a little further, and a little further, and the glass remains stable, until, at some point, you push just a little further, the glass begins to tip, and quite suddenly falls off the table, onto the floor, where it breaks.

You cannot untip the glass at that point. You cannot refill it with water. You can put the broken shards on the table if you like, but they’re never going to be a glass again.

Columbia Climate School: How Close Are We to Climate Tipping Points?

BY RENEE CHO | NOVEMBER 11, 2021

…

What are the tipping points? And how close are they?
A tipping point is the point at which small changes become significant enough to cause a larger, more critical change that can be abrupt, irreversible, and lead to cascading effects. The concept of tipping points was introduced by the IPCC 20 years ago, but then it was thought they would only occur if global warming reached 5°C. Recent IPCC assessments, however, suggested that tipping points could be reached between 1°C and 2°C of warming.

Here are the major climate tipping points.

Greenland ice sheet

The Greenland ice sheet contains enough water to raise global sea levels by over 20 feet and its melting is accelerating. From 1992 to 2018, it lost close to four trillion tons of ice. While its disintegration is not likely to be abrupt, there could come a point beyond which its eventual collapse is irreversible for millennia.

A new study found that ice-sheet height and melting rates in the Jakobshavn basin, one of the fastest melting basins in Greenland, are destabilizing the ice sheet. Most of the melting occurs on the ice surface because of warming temperatures, but as the height of the ice sheet is reduced, the surface is exposed to warmer air at lower altitudes, which further speeds melting.

…

See Also: https://democraticunderground.com/1127165954

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

21. I like to compare tipping points to chemistry

like activation energy - how much of a spark do you need to get a fire going

or

It's 31 degrees F outside, and the lake is frozen. 33 degrees outside, it water.

It doesn't take much for a cascading event to occur when you can find these interconnected relationships.