A question about climate change/global warming.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
What do you think the reasons are that many people are not willing to consider the possibilities for the human causes for climate change/global warming, despite massive scientific evidence? I'm talking just normal citizens who do not work for the Hoover Institute, Exxon, etc.

I work with several people who refuse to read any articles about it, or even consider ANY information about it, unless its critical of the whole notion. My wife says that most people that she works with are the same (she works in the States...I'm in Canada).
Are they just too lazy? Are they suspicious of any kind of intellectualism? Are they just prone to believe in conspiracy theories?

And I'm not talking here about being being a healthy skeptic. They do not consider ANY of the information.

peepee, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 17:32 (fourteen years ago) link

avoidance of guilt.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 17:33 (fourteen years ago) link

They don't want to have to change what they are doing, or even consider it. It's the "American way" to do whatever the hell you want and damn the consequences. Apparently.

Sara R-C, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 17:34 (fourteen years ago) link

"they can't tell me what to do!"

*shake fist at cabal of liberal scientists*

etc.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 17:36 (fourteen years ago) link

Also, I think there is a suspicion of scientists having some kind of left wing agenda. (And a scary number of people in the US don't understand even the basics of how science works, which doesn't help either.)

Sara R-C, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 17:36 (fourteen years ago) link

I think there's a lot of the "well, even if I make changes, no one else is going to" attitude. It's easier to not do anything :(

Incrementalism is never gonna be sexy.

Maybe if the church got involved there'd be more progress. Going green for Jesus, or something. I think there was a documentary about this on the other day. Though, greeny issues are a bit pagan.

There were some good articles about green issues in the last issue of the Idler, "How to Save the World without really trying". Basically, not treating the world as just a resource.

jel --, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 17:51 (fourteen years ago) link

Doing less is the most noble thing you can do.

jel --, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 17:53 (fourteen years ago) link

I've heard of more evangelical christian churches refocusing on the "stewards of the earth" idea, in Seattle at least.

There's not a lot of direct positive feedback for the actions and efforts of an individual, which makes it hard if not impossible to motivate people to take action. As to not even wanting to know or acknowledge that their choices (added with the choices of others like them) have a global impact, well there's a lot of head-in-the-sand w/r/t science, environment, consumerism, politics - a major part of human nature, we'd just rather not think about it thanks anyway.

Jaq, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:11 (fourteen years ago) link

I think it's absorbing right-wing propaganda, which is of course designed to be the easiest to absorb without even thinking about it. Even the word "environment" begins to take on negative connotations in this light, which is weird, but there you are. "Environment" leads to "protecting" leads to "anti-business" leads to "THEY TOOK AWR JARBS!"

Also, from a purely capitalist, profit-motivated perspective, it really *doesn't* make good sense to take steps to change.

kenan, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:19 (fourteen years ago) link

In the short term, of course.

kenan, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:20 (fourteen years ago) link

Though, I heard those pesky capitalists are planting crops for biofuel which means less hops for beer = increased prices.

jel --, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:23 (fourteen years ago) link

oh great, more corn.

kenan, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:24 (fourteen years ago) link

It never rains but it pours = more evidence of global warming.

jel --, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:24 (fourteen years ago) link

not just avoidance of guilt but also denial re a sense of lifestyle inadequacy. people hate being shown that what they've been doing for so long is wrong (generalisation) as it makes them look foolish/ignorant.

blueski, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:27 (fourteen years ago) link

"Also, from a purely capitalist, profit-motivated perspective, it really *doesn't* make good sense to take steps to change."

I don't think this is entirely true - the profit motive to "go green" has grown incredibly strong over the last few years (similar to agribusinesses' desire to "break into" the hugely profitable organic market). Where there's services/products to be developed and delivered and a simultaneous public clamor for those services/products, there is money to be made.

Speaking from my own personal position in the energy field, I would tell any kid coming up who wants to make a shitload of money to get an energy engineering degree.

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:27 (fourteen years ago) link

people hate being shown that what they've been doing for so long is wrong (generalisation) as it makes them look foolish/ignorant.

see also 'Creationists' and what have you

blueski, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:29 (fourteen years ago) link

Speaking from my own personal position in the energy field, I would tell any kid coming up who wants to make a shitload of money to get an energy engineering degree.


As someone with a family member who is CLEANING UP on methane digesters, I concur.

Laurel, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:35 (fourteen years ago) link

Coco from Man or Astro-man? went into biodiesel.:

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A13678

jel --, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:39 (fourteen years ago) link

He makes fuel outta grease from restaurants.

jel --, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:40 (fourteen years ago) link

there's a documentary about some all-girl punk band touring the country doing that

Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:43 (fourteen years ago) link

Absolutely Shakey (and Laurel). There's enough momentum behind "green" "renewable" energy right now for people to make serious $$$ for the next decade, minimum. Chemical engineers who focus on organic (hydrocarbons), physicists, even the traditional electrical and mechanical engineering disciplines - all will be in demand, especially with minors in environmental sciences or policies.

Jaq, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 18:43 (fourteen years ago) link

ahh, see, my dad has worked for years for a company in south Texas that helps refineries fix leaks and comply with EPA regulations. The oil dudes think of my dad as a necessary evil. He is not loved by his clients. My dad, by way of commiseration, perhaps, believes that the EPA is stupid and corrupt and that there is nothing wrong with the environment whatsoever.

kenan, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:00 (fourteen years ago) link

the guilt-avoidance and admitting-wrong things are pretty otm, at a deeper level than the r-w talking points thing (which flows out of the first two), but there's at least two other factors i can think of. one is related to the lifestyle thing, but goes a bit deeper - a major change in the social fabric in response to this would deny some people a sense of meaning/purpose in life - it would eliminate not just the existence but the social utility/status of their jobs/defining leisure activities (compare the sagebrush complaints about the spotted owl and horny lizard or whatever it was). the other is that it requires people to think on a macro level, about the world as a system, etc., which many people are unwilling to do/uncomfortable doing probably for a variety of reasons but one big one might be that it makes them feel very small and without much agency in things.

gabbneb, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:09 (fourteen years ago) link

the EPA is stupid and corrupt

As with any govt agency, I don't doubt there's truth in this.

Jaq, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:12 (fourteen years ago) link

Also, the simple things each of us can do seem so inconsequential, the bigger things (like putting up a solar panel or windmill) are costly. It all seems so hopeless. Those on the right have a kneejerk reaction to doom-and-gloom. Those who accept the problem tend to bicker about what's worse and better (paper vs. plastic, dishwashers vs. hand-washing dishes). There was a story in our local paper about houses here installing copper tubing in the ground to harness geothermal energy. I sent the article to a family friend who is making building plans - his response was that the enviromental footprint of the copper tubing and excavators and digging outweighed the use of conventional energy systems. It all just gets so confusing that it's easy to throw one's hands up in the air and go for a nice aimless drive while it's still possible.

Maria :D, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:19 (fourteen years ago) link

This is all reminding me of when I was in college - my Dad (sort of a country club Republican sort) was pretty annoyed with my going to marches and similar activities. "You young kids think that you can change things..." was I think what he said.

I think it is really bizarre to see people - like him - in their early 60s now - who lived through huge social changes (like, say, the Civil Rights movement) who still don't think that things can be changed. (Of course there is also the fact that a lot of them didn't feel comfortable with those changes and definitely don't want any more change.)

Sara R-C, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:23 (fourteen years ago) link

There are a lot of younger people who now have this very romantic notion about the old days, before styrofoam and disposable everything. I think that's partly why baking and knitting have become so hip - the return to traditional crafts and a simpler day. Too bad there's not really any going back. I'd like to see a return to sustainable ways, but without the sexism and repression of the olde days. Is it hip yet for boys to darn socks?

Maria :D, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:29 (fourteen years ago) link

Boys are genetically predispositioned not to darn.

kenan, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:34 (fourteen years ago) link

I forgot they found a chromosomally linked gene for aversion to needlework. Silly me.

Laurel, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:39 (fourteen years ago) link

My two bits on this:

1. conservative types tend to not believe in systemic/complex causation rather than direct causation. (i.e. you're poor cuz you're lazy and it's your own fault and responsibility, not b/c you're in a system that's fucked)

2. american politics are extremely tribal right now, and agreeing with anything of this stuff is akin to casting your lot in with the dirty hippies. Plus, empiric & objective science has been attacked enough lately so that you can project your political thinking onto scientists, since scientists are all biased and only want a certain political output, and want to silence all dissenting opinions.

It's kinda fun how it's a big shitpile of these folks suddenly seeing the validity of debate, an inability or deliberate decision not to understand how science actually works, and disingeniousness in wanting to put forth a "serious alternative answer," as opposed to trying to scramble around for anything to cudgel the other side.

It's a lot like the intelligent design folks who want their shit taught alongside evolutionary biology as equally valid, yet spend all their money on shit-stirring p.r. instead of actually producing any research(check the budget of Seattle's Discovery Institute), and indeed openly attack those(sincerely interested or not) who want them to publish their research so it can be checked out. The authoritarian folks are now battling the authoritative folks(the ones who actually know their shit and can call others on it).

kingfish, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 20:13 (fourteen years ago) link

In other words, that traitorous hypocrite Gore and those dirty america-hating hippies are fer it, the Leaders I trust aren't and tell me I shouldn't be either, so i'm agin' it.

That kinda thing.

kingfish, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 20:15 (fourteen years ago) link

This is becoming less and less of a left vs right wing phenonmenon, as shown by the number of posts on The Corner (like those by Jonah Goldberg) acknowledging that global warming is real. The ones who believe simply distrust Gore-ist alarmism (OMIGOD MILWAUKEE WILL BE UNDERWATER IN 20 YRS).

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 20:25 (fourteen years ago) link

But there's still plenty of folks who attack Gore just for being Gore, which is a political thing, not with the science of it; see all the increased attacks & talking points in the last two days.

hell, there's some douche on Ed Schultz's show right now going off on him.

kingfish, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 21:12 (fourteen years ago) link

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c90/gradygillan/gwarming.jpg

g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 21:18 (fourteen years ago) link

http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/761536.gif

g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 22:19 (fourteen years ago) link

Things I've heard people say:

"Don't get me started on environmentalists! Soon denying global warming'll be like denying the holocaust. It'll be all "How dare you say it doesn't exist blah blah" (same bloke blamed "this PC world in which we live" for the rise in health and safety measures - my boss blamed lawyers. I think I agree with my boss)

"They ask me to switch off my TV instead of leaving it on standby, saying it saves energy, but have they considered that that so-called "wasted" energy is actually helping to heat my house?"

the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:23 (fourteen years ago) link

These are also the kind of people who have an incredibly high suspicion of scientists, doctors and other professionals. "What's he talking about?! These people! He's not a proper scientist!" etc.

the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:26 (fourteen years ago) link

"The cost of recycling is actually greater than the damage done"

the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:27 (fourteen years ago) link

Recycling IS very expensive and energy-intensive, though

How about Ken Livingstone, eh??

Cleaning up the Big Smoke: Livingstone plans to cut carbon emissions by 60%

and presumably some of the experience gained with this long-term initiative can be imparted to Venezuela through Ken's expertise-in-exchange-for-cheap-oil-for-poor-Londoners deal he struck with Chavez:

Livingstone seals Venezuelan fuel deal

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:53 (fourteen years ago) link

interesting!

blueski, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 13:08 (fourteen years ago) link

follow up information to all those attacks against Gore over the last two day, from the " Tennessee Center for Policy Research" to every rightwing radio show and blogger out there

kingfish, Thursday, 1 March 2007 00:21 (fourteen years ago) link

I suspect the biggest reason is that too many people have been preaching catastrophe from too many angles for too long. People are incurious about all sorts of subjects that could be deemed vital or essential. Picking "humans cause global warming" as a topic is really kind of pointless, unless you happen to be a big believer in it. If it's your dogma, then it suddenly it's unreasonable that others don't share your enthusiasm, wonder, or abject fear. Abortion, Iraq, Putin whoring himself around the Middle East, poverty, saving the whales...everyone's got a cause that someone else doesn't care about.

And really, you can't blame people for being at least a little bit jaded, non-plussed, or even cynical on this topic.

Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 1 March 2007 01:35 (fourteen years ago) link

Ah......sure I can.

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:07 (fourteen years ago) link

......so we're only capable to worry about one cause?

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:09 (fourteen years ago) link

we can have as many causes (and crisis) as we want. Some have many, some have few. People have jammed their heads in the sand for eons for a variety of issues.

Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:35 (fourteen years ago) link

But then why choosing to jam their heads with such an energetic response against it?

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:48 (fourteen years ago) link

Instead of consulting a message board of what amounts to like minded people on this subject, maybe it would be more productive to sit down with these people and ask them why it is they think the way they do. That way, you wouldn't have to speculate. Maybe it's your approach to the subject that makes them wave you off. Maybe they'd be willing to consider your perspective on different terms. Are you out to change their mind or simply expose them because you think they are idiots? How is it "energetic" to merely refuse to consider possibilities of humans causing global warming? Sounds pretty passive to me.

Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:26 (fourteen years ago) link

Ouch!

I'm consulting a message board right now, because I'm at home, and the two people who live in this house have questions, and y'all MIGHT have some insight.

I do not argue with these people. I am calm and non-judgemental with them. I ask them questions. The thing that always gets me , though, is a lack of willingness to read something, or watch something, etc. I get along with these people. We talk in a friendly manner about all kinds of things everyday.

I have asked them why they're so bitterly opposed to the concept, and they usually have no answer except "It's a bunch of bull!", as if they'd rather not discuss it unless we're in agreement that it is a bunch of bull.

Dan, please don't project those nasty traits onto me.

(Am I comming across in a nasty way on this thread?)

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:36 (fourteen years ago) link

JUst spent a lot of the weekend in From The Ground uP webinars I think a lot of which were recorded and are now up on youtube,
Had some interesting stuff in over the days i caught.

Stevolende, Tuesday, 17 November 2020 11:47 (three months ago) link

Still, at least the Trump admin will be gone soon, and Biden has appointed a true fighter for the environment to be the White House liaison between business and "climate change activists".

During his 10 years in Congress, Rep. Cedric Richmond has received roughly $341,000 from donors in the oil and gas industry — the 5th highest total among House Democrats. That includes corporate political action committee donations of $50,000 from Entergy, an electric and natural gas utility; $40,000 from ExxonMobil; and $10,000 apiece from oil companies Chevron, Phillips 66 and Valero Energy.

Richmond has raked in that money while representing a congressional district that is home to 7 of the 10 most air-polluted census tracts in the country.

Richmond has repeatedly broken with his party on major climate and environmental votes. During the climate crisis that has battered his home state of Louisiana, Richmond has joined with Republicans to vote to increase fossil fuel exports and promote pipeline development. He also voted against Democratic legislation to place pollution limits on fracking — and he voted for GOP legislation to limit the Obama administration’s authority to more stringently regulate the practice.

@oneposter (💹) (sic), Wednesday, 18 November 2020 01:15 (three months ago) link

three weeks pass...

Studies in the last decade have suggested that global warming is exacerbating the effects of El Niño and La Niña events.

Today the Bureau of Meterology announced Australia is facing three-times the normal threat level of deadly rain and cyclones to end 2020.

― erratic wolf angular guitarist (sic), Wednesday, August 19, 2020 7:21 AM (three months ago)

welp

Byron Bay Beach is almost gone, as Parts of QLD and NSW continue to be battered by wild weather, with warnings of king tides, damaging winds and heavy rainfall. Authorities are warning people to stay home as the worst is yet to come. pic.twitter.com/w4Jk3hOGbl

— The Project (@theprojecttv) December 14, 2020

huge rant (sic), Tuesday, 15 December 2020 01:55 (two months ago) link

https://i.imgur.com/LKKQ4st.png

huge rant (sic), Tuesday, 15 December 2020 01:58 (two months ago) link

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/15/china-scaling-up-weather-modification-programme-we-should-be-worried

It's a slim nothing of a piece but why is it that this geoenginnering programme is attacked when it's China carrying out the project?

xyzzzz__, Tuesday, 15 December 2020 21:38 (two months ago) link

China having the capacity to do it is not so much the problem as is the question of whether the decision whether to use that capacity will be a joint decision of the world or a unilateral decision of the Chinese government. Making massive investments in a technology usually leads to using it. See also: every weapons program ever.

Respectfully Yours, (Aimless), Tuesday, 15 December 2020 21:45 (two months ago) link

That's not part of the worry of the writer which seems to be worrying about it because it's China. Its not that far removed from anti-China conspiracy that we've seen this year, even if the tone is libersl-style cincern.

And it's not like it has to be a joint decision. Countries pursue their own weapons programs all the time no matter how dangerous that might be.

xyzzzz__, Tuesday, 15 December 2020 22:42 (two months ago) link

*liberal-style concern

xyzzzz__, Tuesday, 15 December 2020 22:43 (two months ago) link

Countries pursue their own weapons programs all the time no matter how dangerous that might be.

And I'm sure you can't see how any problems can come of that.

Respectfully Yours, (Aimless), Tuesday, 15 December 2020 22:48 (two months ago) link

whenever I read about weather manipulation, geo-engineering, etc. by any state or body the only thing I think is "come the glorious kaczynskian revolution, death to technophiles"

Babby's Yed Revisited (jim in vancouver), Tuesday, 15 December 2020 22:51 (two months ago) link

It's a very Silicon Valley solution, at first. but that isn't even the tone The Guardian is taking, and I wonder what the difference would be in coverage with the couple of geo-enginnering projects I've read about that are based in the West.

And I'm sure you can't see how any problems can come of that.

― Respectfully Yours, (Aimless), Tuesday, 15 December 2020 bookmarkflaglink

There are problems with doing nothing. It's pretty clear the Paris accord isn't enough and that kind of long drawn out negotiation can't be the only way either. Whether you and I have a problem isn't the issue. China is doing it and the West can't do much about it, they won't throw sanctions like they could if Iran was doing it instead.

xyzzzz__, Tuesday, 15 December 2020 23:03 (two months ago) link

AFAICT from the article, China isn't stratospheric albedo engineering. They're experimenting with the same cloud seeding they used to help clean up the air, and prevent event delays, for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. This perhaps also has some application in reducing tropospheric particulate pollution,

A Like Supreme (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 15 December 2020 23:29 (two months ago) link

Stratospheric albedo engineering is a much harder problem. Only in the Arctic/Antarctic is the tropopause at a low enough elevation for commercial jets to deposit sulfates, and while that may help with sea-ice loss/Arctic amplification, the places that will want geoengineering later this century are the nations at tropical latitudes, as they'll be starving. I'm sure places like India and Brazil are looking at papaers like this one for their gameplan.

A Like Supreme (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 15 December 2020 23:35 (two months ago) link

Called it 😎 https://t.co/e1kSLeTahE

— Ketan Joshi (@KetanJ0) December 15, 2020

huge rant (sic), Wednesday, 16 December 2020 09:07 (two months ago) link

DID YOU KNOW a girl from the sunrise movement in philly was a contestant on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy? This is what she had to say about driving: https://t.co/faA5cPOst7 pic.twitter.com/kH1zqeQ40k

— N I C 🌨 L E (@nicoleamurray) December 16, 2020

“Big” Don Abernathy, Thursday, 17 December 2020 09:00 (two months ago) link

She's right? If that's supposed to be a gotcha, it's pretty weak bullshit

"Bi" Dong A Ban He Try (the table is the table), Thursday, 17 December 2020 16:31 (two months ago) link

I don't think that was supposed to be a gotcha, it think it's just a boost for a smart way to talk about climate change - putting the focus on the largest companies who generate GHGs, rather than the individual actions of billions of people, all in different socioeconomic circumstances.

Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 December 2020 16:36 (two months ago) link

Karl, the rest of the thread makes it clearly a gotcha

loose Orwellian mobs (rob), Thursday, 17 December 2020 16:47 (two months ago) link

haha, that's sad, on my part. I actually did read more of that thread, and even retweeted the little cartoon she did a few posts later. i guess what's confusing me is that the way the sunrise movement person who happened to be on queer eye talked about climate change strikes me as a reasonable way to talk to some people about climate. you use different messages for different people. also, the environmental movements have spent 60+ years trying to get people to think about personal consumption choices. i am all for that, and i am all for personal responsibility and try to practice it myself to the degree that i can. but regardless, doing that alone has been a failure. so i actually think it's smart to focus on the producers of GHG, even though obviously we all as consumers we have a role to play as well.

honestly, though, i am having a lot of trouble these days understanding what people are actually saying or what they mean. especially when sarcasm is involved. when i point a finger at other people there are three pointing right back at me, i mean, i spend 90% of my ilx time playing a character that isn't me (there is no me), and i have willingly confused people here literally hundreds of times in the pursuit of making myself laugh, which is fucking crazy. so yeah, 3 fingers back at me. but still, the pointer finger pointing, outwards, at the world

Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 December 2020 17:16 (two months ago) link

also, this show is sponsored by a car company, w/c is trying to sell cars, a transportation system which is unsustainable. "driving is fine, actually," is a really good slogan for the fossil fuel industry which would love to sell you more gas.

— N I C 🌨 L E (@nicoleamurray) December 17, 2020

“Big” Don Abernathy, Thursday, 17 December 2020 17:19 (two months ago) link

also, not a criticism of big don or good ol' @nicole for posting that, but pulling up an old episode of queer eye which includes a person that's affiliated with an environmental org doesn't really...mean anything? who is that girl? is she the leader of the philly chapter? or is she assistant vice-treasurer? are activists expected to be greta thunberg in all contexts and always get the messaging perfect for nicole?

Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 December 2020 17:20 (two months ago) link

eh, it's a good conversation to have (one i've had a million times), but i can't get worked up over a rando activist not speaking perfectly on a tv show that isn't about the environment. if the goal is to capture a moment of hypocrisy in the environmental movement (she's on a show that is sponsored by a car company, telling people it's ok to drive!) then great, i have a new idea for a massively popular social media account where i will capture moments of hypocrisy in the environmental movement. each day will start out with an examination of how i myself am hypocritical. then i will get up and walk into my kitchen and capture the hypocrisy in my purchasing decisions. then i'll get on ilx and say something that wasn't perfect, and i'll call that out. then i'll walk outside and capture all the hypocrisy, everywhere, all around us, on every single hectare in the country. even the squirrels in the deepest woods will be interrogated, and they are far from innocent

Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 December 2020 17:23 (two months ago) link

i just hope there aren't any other environmental activists who haven't said the right thing according to everyone else

Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 December 2020 17:24 (two months ago) link

It’s indicative of how way too broadly and readily people still will reference that “100 corporations are responsible for it all” talking point from an article a few years back. Even putting aside the fact that some of those companies are state owned it’s probably bad to eliminate consumers from the dynamic.

“Big” Don Abernathy, Thursday, 17 December 2020 17:29 (two months ago) link

yeah, i don't know. it still seems ridiculous to me. don't get me wrong, i'm not crying too much for this rando that got picked on by another rando named nicole, but i'm imagining having that same level of scrutiny from some internet rando named @nicole, honed in on me, and then spread across the world to conversations like this, and how angry i would be. like, i think if nicole picked on me for not being perfect in my messaging i'd be tempted to tell her to fuck off for life.

and all of ^that^ x10000000 when the "criticism" is actually very subjective and not at all clearly correct

Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 December 2020 17:42 (two months ago) link

has nicole ever spoken imperfectly? maybe she should be the focus of a viral tweet

Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 December 2020 17:42 (two months ago) link

since every week i must bring up my parents in an unrelated context, i think:

- when i repeatedly called out my dad for being a wannabe neo-eugenicist, a bigot, a homophobe and an active promoter of hatred against LGBT+, as well as dangerously dumb, hypocritical evangelo-fascist (a term carefully applied, as my dad believes that bernie sanders is an "islamofascist", his only defense was "you should think about not being so hard on me". i did think about that, and decided yes, i should be very hard on him. incredibly hard.
- later, it made me think about who i should NOT be hard on. i should not be hard on people whose hearts are in the right place, who are trying to do the right thing, who are still trying to learn.

that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize language or messaging or tactics or whatever, but the whole twitter call-out thing gets especially gross when applied against true randos who are on the right side. i mean, go for it, but make sure you spend the other 99.5% of the time calling out the people and organizations and systemic infrastructure that are actually the problem

Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 December 2020 17:50 (two months ago) link

i think a version of this has probably already played out on the sanders/biden threads, re: the value of intra-left squabbling, so i guess i'm not saying anything useful. it would just be cool if @nicole would go take a shit on exxon instead

Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 December 2020 17:51 (two months ago) link

Yeah I see what you’re saying, I think that’s fair. Especially since the follow up posts go into the show’s corporate sponsorship. The producers role and editing decisions is probably where the initial focus should probably be if we’re criticizing the highlighting of a message to a broad audience like that.

“Big” Don Abernathy, Thursday, 17 December 2020 17:54 (two months ago) link

yeah, definitely. who knows what the activist said before or after that clip that was edited out. if you hung out with me all day, you'd get 100 different "of course if there was better investment in public transport and smart city planning, we wouldn't have to be so reliant on cars still" and "yeah, they should hold a 'top 70 companies' party and then send that party to the bottom of the ocean lol" soundbites which would never be aired on whatever network owns queer eye. but you might also catch a couple sentences where i say something like @nicole's tweet above, something that feels good and comforting to the everyday person watching the show who isn't anti-environment, exactly, while also allowing the activist to get a "message" across that is vague enough to make it through network censors looking to scrub anti-corporate messages.

Karl Malone, Thursday, 17 December 2020 18:05 (two months ago) link

Just to clarify that I think the queer eye person was right and Nicole is wrong.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about consumer choices, but tbf, it seems pretty absurd and cruel to blame people who are just trying to survive for their own sad fates that will be the result of catastrophic climate change.

"Bi" Dong A Ban He Try (the table is the table), Saturday, 19 December 2020 13:31 (two months ago) link

No Nicole is right in the sense that the “100 corporations are entirely responsible for it” talking point is dumb.

“Big” Don Abernathy, Saturday, 19 December 2020 16:17 (two months ago) link

God you're such a tiresome waste of fucking space.

"Bi" Dong A Ban He Try (the table is the table), Saturday, 19 December 2020 17:28 (two months ago) link

"objective reality is dumb because I want to shift blame from corporations onto consumers" gtfoh with that absolute bullshit

"Bi" Dong A Ban He Try (the table is the table), Saturday, 19 December 2020 17:30 (two months ago) link

"X corporations" is the 99% vs 1% of climate change iow it's not totally true but it's a slogan not an analysis. it's at least better than calling for more ethical consumerism. of course the real problem is capitalism but people turn off as soon as you say that

what is the point about some of the companies being state owned supposed to mean?

Left, Saturday, 19 December 2020 20:06 (two months ago) link

one month passes...

we did it!

"The rate of ice loss is now in line with the worst-case scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading authority on the climate." https://t.co/lq1IqMdW0e

— Jason Hickel (@jasonhickel) January 25, 2021

satanist of size (map), Monday, 25 January 2021 20:25 (one month ago) link

lol 👏 we're 👏 all 👏 gonna 👏 die

shivers me timber (sic), Monday, 25 January 2021 20:41 (one month ago) link

The seven hottest years on record are the last seven years.

Respectfully Yours, (Aimless), Monday, 25 January 2021 20:50 (one month ago) link

This is a really powerful article about two of my college singing friends:

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-crisis-is-worse-than-you-can-imagine-heres-what-happens-if-you-try

Hello Nice FBI Lady (DJP), Tuesday, 26 January 2021 13:23 (one month ago) link

Good article - also apparently your college friends live a couple miles away from me.

Elvis Telecom, Tuesday, 2 February 2021 01:53 (one month ago) link

And me!

nickn, Tuesday, 2 February 2021 02:34 (one month ago) link

The price of solar electricity has dropped 89% in 10 years

In 2009, building a new solar farm was 223% more expensive than building a new coal plant. Now, it’s flipped.

shivers me timber (sic), Friday, 12 February 2021 05:49 (two weeks ago) link

then again

CHEVRON OIL SPILL: State emergency officials say a pipeline containing a mixture of oil and gasoline is leaking 5 gallons a minute into the San Francisco Bay. #oilspill https://t.co/B3osX1POEN pic.twitter.com/pkJ5W90dzM

— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 10, 2021

shivers me timber (sic), Friday, 12 February 2021 06:53 (two weeks ago) link

not good, of course. was just looking up BP Horizon, and i believe it came out to around 1000 gallons per second, for the 5 months before the leak was first sealed.

Zach_TBD (Karl Malone), Friday, 12 February 2021 21:47 (two weeks ago) link

sorry 1000 gallons/minute, i meant, not per second. but yeah, it's crazy to look at what 5 gallons/minute does and imagine the scale of BP Deep Horizon

Zach_TBD (Karl Malone), Friday, 12 February 2021 21:48 (two weeks ago) link

love 2 be in the little poo-colored river that is "normal temps"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuXj0cYXcAYwAaI?format=jpg&name=small

lord of the ting tings (map), Tuesday, 16 February 2021 19:33 (two weeks ago) link

A gas tanker & icebreaker made it from China to Yamal in the 1st transit of the Northern Sea Route in February, "confirming that year-round safe navigation is possible," Russia says. There's no multi-year ice left there. @BarentsNews https://t.co/57fCekHYZL pic.twitter.com/PgO45fjN9V

— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) February 21, 2021

Reminder that oil companies have been preparing for this moment, redesigning tankers, drilling equipment, and offshore platforms for a melting Arctic since the 1970s. A quick thread of their patents: https://t.co/qMX2Vls7BI

— Amy Westervelt (@amywestervelt) February 21, 2021

stilt in the wings (sic), Tuesday, 23 February 2021 08:35 (one week ago) link

finding a lot of stuff about a "new cold war" with china and maybe russia over these resources... all expansion / extraction already being justified because the other guys are doing it anyway and we can't be outcompeted (i can imagine environmental or human rights arguments being brought in for audiences less receptive to that cynicism)

not as much stuff about this as colonialism although some pro-exploitaion types are explicitly calling it a frontier

Towards a Britain-Free Planet (Left), Tuesday, 23 February 2021 09:09 (one week ago) link

so when is that massive wave of ecoterrorism they were fearmongering about for decades going to kick in, because it will but it's very late

Towards a Britain-Free Planet (Left), Tuesday, 23 February 2021 09:11 (one week ago) link

Australia has adjusted emissions records to reflect (some of) the greater warming impact of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. It added the equivalent of an extra six months' worth of national CO2 emissions to the accounts overnight. https://t.co/lsCSG8GSc5

— Adam Morton (@adamlmorton) February 26, 2021

grab bag cum trash bag (sic), Saturday, 27 February 2021 07:21 (five days ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.