Social Commitment To Democratic Values Predict Climate Change Concern...

And you clearly haven't been paying attention if you think that any climate change agreement signed is worth the ink on the pages. Or Asia isn't where the focus should be and they have no intentional of abiding by any agreement.
The greatest deficiency with climate change agreements is that none of them have gone nearly far enough.
 
The greatest deficiency with climate change agreements is that none of them have gone nearly far enough.

So you want them to commit to doing more things they have no intention of doing? Nations (including the US) have signed numerous climate change agreements with no intention whatsoever of abiding by them. And certainly haven't done so. See I don't see the point in such agreements. For what they are worth, we could all commit to not using gasoline. It would be just as useful.
 
We know why.

In the US, the right has taken concerted efforts to hide and distort climate change science for decades. And they've added it on to their knapsack of identity politics.

Believing the science that backs man-made climate change is for women, gays, liberals, and Marxists. You can't have a beer with any of these people therefore there's no climate change (or it's natural and not influenced by humans).

Lmao
 
It's amazing how the right has co-opted toxic masculinity against something like the environment.

The argument is something like:

P1: Liberals care about the environment
P2: Liberals are pussies
C: Denying climate change makes me a manly man
Conservatives can be intractable on the issue and its frustrating to see how easily they can be convinced to argue in favor of the interests of a tiny, narrow elite at the expense of virtually everyone else.

But at the same time the left does a horrible job marketing the issue. For one they often approach the issue with a dismissive, condescending stance that turns off many conservatives. In reality, right wingers in many contexts are far more in tune with their natural environment than left wingers who skew far more urban. It really shouldn't be hard to convince hunters and fishermen that protecting the environment is important and yet somehow the left has largely failed to do so.

It seems to me the left has approached this issue under the umbrella of their "pro-science" narrative under which the conservatives are knuckle-dragging science deniers. That's not entirely untrue as right wing think tanks and fossil fuel shills pump out misleading or distorted information. But the reason the rank and file buy into it so easily is because the topic has been polarized and they don't want to agree with the condescending Blue Team and part of the blame for that lies on liberals for patting themselves on the back for driving a hybrid while looking down on the outdoors men who actually appreciate the environment on a personal level.
 
We know why.

In the US, the right has taken concerted efforts to hide and distort climate change science for decades. And they've added it on to their knapsack of identity politics.

Believing the science that backs man-made climate change is for women, gays, liberals, and Marxists. You can't have a beer with any of these people therefore there's no climate change (or it's natural and not influenced by humans).
There are also only two viable parties in the US, so you get the whole package. In many European countries you have multiple options, so you can have a party that is religiously conservative but doesn't hate the environment or want to reduce tax for billionaires. Or a party that supports welfare but not migration.
 
It seems to me the left has approached this issue under the umbrella of their "pro-science" narrative under which the conservatives are knuckle-dragging science deniers.
Liberals have managed to ruin the term Science.
When I was young when somebody mentioned science I thought about Newton laws, Space exploration, Nuclear power etc
It also had an air of seriousness, scientists could be political, of course, like Carl "Nuclear Winter" Sagan, but they didn't do that:

That's Bill Nye the "Science" guy.
Granted, conservatives, more specifically, American Evangelicals, are even worse offenders of science. But scientism is a serious problem, I use the term when people try to equate a science with highly precise results, like Physics, with a social science like Gender Studies to defend a certain political position.
 
Liberals have managed to ruin the term Science.
When I was young when somebody mentioned science I thought about Newton laws, Space exploration, Nuclear power etc
It also had an air of seriousness, scientists could be political, of course, like Carl "Nuclear Winter" Sagan, but they didn't do that:

That's Bill Nye the "Science" guy.
Granted, conservatives, more specifically, American Evangelicals, are even worse offenders of science. But scientism is a serious problem, I use the term when people try to equate a science with highly precise results, like Physics, with a social science like Gender Studies to defend a certain political position.



Scienticism is the religion of the ultra uber super edgy internet atheist ass holes.
 
We know why.

In the US, the right has taken concerted efforts to hide and distort climate change science for decades. And they've added it on to their knapsack of identity politics.

Believing the science that backs man-made climate change is for women, gays, liberals, and Marxists. You can't have a beer with any of these people therefore there's no climate change (or it's natural and not influenced by humans).
Where Republicans have successfully bamboozled their base is rooted in religion; part of the unfortunate Creationist vs. Science schism that remains more steadfast in this country than others. The most deeply evangelical faction of Republicans are defensive because of the disruption science has exacted on their core values. This is an inevitable progression of understanding and truth, but they aren't wholly without valid reason to be perturbed.

Part of this is the reaction to a prostitution of science by social scientists and pseudoscientists in white jackets; the same well-meaning psychiatric idiots who have tried to classify transgenderism as purely normal and not indicative of a mental disorder in the DSM, for example. Like many mentally ill groups, the struggle should be to remove the stigma associated with the mental illness, not to remove awareness that there is a mental illness in place, and the concern with how best to treat or address underlying causes of the symptom.

Less religious Republicans are skeptical that climate change is as bad as it is made out to be, and that is rooted in a history of valid concern with regard to dunce environmentalists mucking up business without understanding things that concerned them. My home county is a great example. When I was a child I remember they shut down the #1 employer in the county, a lumber sawmill, because they believed it was connected to the increasingly endangered Spotted Owl. It was part of a wider effort in the Pacific Northwest to save the bird. I didn't understand why all the kids at my school were so scared and bummed. I was a kid. I didn't appreciate the impact it had on my community.
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/28/us/10000-are-expected-to-lose-jobs-to-spotted-owl.html

Turns out the nature "experts" were wrong, and the nincompoops didn't understand what was causing the owl's numbers to dwindle. It likely has more to do with the natural predator, the Barred Owl, and possibly also pesticides or poisons using in agricultural, including illegal agriculture like marijuana farming that wreaks massive havoc on California's environment (particularly our water). Truth is we don't really know, still. So they put over tens of thousands of people out of work in the late 80's and early 90's, some of the best blue-collar jobs, then they conserved a whole bunch of land disallowing commercial development of for industries like logging, not to mention cattle ranching, and they did nothing to spare the owl...because they didn't really understand what the fuck they were talking about. Good show!

Generally, I think the EPA is a great force for good, but it has also been a clumsy idiot. Now we're starting to explore how much of this federal environmentalism has resulted in brush overgrowth here in California, and how that has contributed to our wildfires. One of the reasons the Bundy family incurred so much sympathy in rural areas was because how many cattle ranchers know what it's like dealing with sophomoric red tape from bleeding hearts powering agencies like the BLM who imposed their rather silly desire to protect the Sagebrush Grouse at the expense of cattle grazing. That doesn't justify welfare ranching or anything else the Bundy's did, but these valid seats of disgust are what yoke people in the country who actually grow all that food you city folks eat, and know what it takes to do it. I don't care about the Sagebrush Grouse, or preserving it. I care about preserving Salmon and the Bluefin Tuna. Why? Because I eat them.

A combination of these factors negatively influences the perception of climate change here more negatively among Republicans who tend to hold more grounded, practical, pro-business positions. On the one hand, you have well-meaning experts who understand quite a lot, but not enough to really understand what they are talking about, and on the other, you have mentally deranged bleeding hearts like those people at PETA who care more animals than they do about people. This sows doubt.

On top of that, we have allowed our scientific education at the primary & secondary level to erode horribly over the past 30 years because we don't have the spine to tell parents their kids are getting failing grades because it's what they earned. There is a noble American desire here to not let school performance dictate someone's future, the way you observe in too many Southeast Asian cultures, when obviously school shouldn't define your life, which I perceive as a blue-collar capitalist sensibility on the right, and this got married to the liberal "every child is a snowflake" attitude, as well as their desire to neutralize the advantage of social capital wherein wealthy groups' kids (i.e. whites) tend to do better in school, and the deformed baby from these good intentions has been our approach to education where we constantly lower standards; reflecting the same canker you are observing with women and basic training minimums in the military.

So I always find it funny when liberals act so surprised that the Republicans who are extremely wealthy, and don't care about the environment, are able to deceive their base into believing this is another false alarm. The truth is the often irrational, clumsy, and destructive history of the American liberal platform has played a strong role in tilling the soil for these seeds to be planted.
 
We know why.

In the US, the right has taken concerted efforts to hide and distort climate change science for decades. And they've added it on to their knapsack of identity politics.

Believing the science that backs man-made climate change is for women, gays, liberals, and Marxists. You can't have a beer with any of these people therefore there's no climate change (or it's natural and not influenced by humans).

You are right. The problem we have in the US, is that when you will say this most on the left agree, but if someone from the right points to bias media coverage, all of a sudden their are questions from the left on whether media bias even exists, and vice versa.

It is truly amazing how the partisans have become logic Gumby's. They are able to twist and distort reality to fit their narrative. That is what this study is describing.

Media bias is distorting our democracy.
 
Because some parties value freedoms and some value control. I don't know of many people who straight up don't think the earth is getting warmer, it's where that somehow translates to us owing the government more money that people jump ship. If it was "here's this information that you should take into account with some of the decisions you make", I think most people would be on board, but more taxes, regulations, and mandates is where they lose me. At least get one of the predictions right before you start forcing more shit on your citizens.
Keep on living up to that username, dude. Way to go.
 
Conservatives can be intractable on the issue and its frustrating to see how easily they can be convinced to argue in favor of the interests of a tiny, narrow elite at the expense of virtually everyone else.

But at the same time the left does a horrible job marketing the issue. For one they often approach the issue with a dismissive, condescending stance that turns off many conservatives. In reality, right wingers in many contexts are far more in tune with their natural environment than left wingers who skew far more urban. It really shouldn't be hard to convince hunters and fishermen that protecting the environment is important and yet somehow the left has largely failed to do so.

It seems to me the left has approached this issue under the umbrella of their "pro-science" narrative under which the conservatives are knuckle-dragging science deniers. That's not entirely untrue as right wing think tanks and fossil fuel shills pump out misleading or distorted information. But the reason the rank and file buy into it so easily is because the topic has been polarized and they don't want to agree with the condescending Blue Team and part of the blame for that lies on liberals for patting themselves on the back for driving a hybrid while looking down on the outdoors men who actually appreciate the environment on a personal level.
That's a fair critique on liberals, but part of the reason for the condescension is because of the willful ignorance on behalf of conservatives. At some point, they realize attempts to educate or convince are wasted effort. Condescension will naturally follow.
Its a cycle, but it has to be the conservative that breaks it if we want progress.
 
Why is it more party affiliated in the U.S.?

Because there has been a concerted effort by the right wing (to be seen separately from the GOP) to denigrate any science that suggests that their actions/behaviors have negative consequences to others.

The same reason I'm not surprised that a commitment to democratic values in other countries predicts belief in climate change. The core concept of climate change is that we're doing something that is harming the Earth and other people. And any responsible person hearing that will say "I don't want to keep harming others so I'm okay putting some restrictions on my actions." Democratic values are predicated on the same core "group" over "individual" valuations. We're fine with laws that somewhat restrict our personal actions if it betters the community at large.

But when people stop caring about the community at large they're not going to be okay with restrictions on themselves that transfer benefits to an abstract other.


What is worse though? Not signing the agreement or signing it and not fulfilling your obligation? Talk is cheap. There is a continuous history going back to at least Kyoto where countries don't meet standards. It is virtue signaling, nothing more.


A pair of studies in Nature have said that as of 2017, none of the major industrialized nations were implementing the policies they had envisioned and have not met their pledged emission reduction targets,[79]


In addition, an MIT News article written on April 22, 2016 discussed recent MIT studies on the true impact that the Paris Agreement had on global temperature increase. Using their Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) to predict temperature increase results in 2100, they used a wide range of scenarios that included no effort towards climate change past 2030, and full extension of the Paris Agreement past 2030. They concluded that the Paris Agreement would cause temperature decrease by about 0.6 to 1.1 degrees Celsius, with only a 0.1 C change in 2050 for all scenarios. They concluded that, although beneficial, there was strong evidence that the goal provided by the Paris Agreement could not be met in the future under the current circumstances.[83]

A 2018 published study points at a threshold at which temperatures could rise to 4 or 5 degrees compared to the pre-industrial levels, through self-reinforcing feedbacks in the climate system, suggesting this threshold is below the 2 degree temperature target, agreed upon by the Paris climate deal. Study author Katherine Richardson stresses, "We note that the Earth has never in its history had a quasi-stable state that is around 2C warmer than the preindustrial and suggest that there is substantial risk that the system, itself, will 'want' to continue warming because of all of these other processes – even if we stop emissions. This implies not only reducing emissions but much more."[84]

At the same time, another 2018 published study notes that even at a 1.5C level of warming, important increases in the occurrence of high river flows would be expected in India, South and Southeast Asia.[85]Yet, the same study points out that under a 2.0C of warming various areas in South America, central Africa, western Europe, and the Mississippi area in the United States would see more high flows; thus increasing flood risks.

Lack of binding enforcement mechanism[edit]
Although the agreement was lauded by many, including French President François Hollande and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,[66] criticism has also surfaced. For example, James Hansen, a former NASA scientist and a climate change expert, voiced anger that most of the agreement consists of "promises" or aims and not firm commitments.[86] He called the Paris talks a fraud with 'no action, just promises' and feels that only an across the board tax on CO2 emissions, something not part of the Paris Agreement, would force CO2 emissions down fast enough to avoid the worst effects of global warming.[86]
 
The greatest deficiency with climate change agreements is that none of them have gone nearly far enough.

And they haven't been executed. Most countries don't even meet the standards that don't go "nearly far enough." The biggest problem seems to be a binding enforcement mechanism.
 
The mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanour changes.

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud
 
Our grandchildren will pay dearly for this generation's idiocy.
 
That's a fair critique on liberals, but part of the reason for the condescension is because of the willful ignorance on behalf of conservatives. At some point, they realize attempts to educate or convince are wasted effort. Condescension will naturally follow.
Its a cycle, but it has to be the conservative that breaks it if we want progress.
I disagree, its starts with liberal condescension. A friend of mine from a conservative family once told me that to convince them you have to at least show a minimum amount of respect for them and their position. Liberals almost never do this, especially not on this issue. So many conservatives, feeling disrespected and dismissed, just dig in their heels and stick up their finger. Like I said, conservatives are far more likely to be hunters and fisherman, Americans who are actually in tune with the environment, it really shouldn't be that hard to convince them of its importance.
 
I disagree, its starts with liberal condescension. A friend of mine from a conservative family once told me that to convince them you have to at least show a minimum amount of respect for them and their position. Liberals almost never do this, especially not on this issue. So many conservatives, feeling disrespected and dismissed, just dig in their heels and stick up their finger. Like I said, conservatives are far more likely to be hunters and fisherman, Americans who are actually in tune with the environment, it really shouldn't be that hard to convince them of its importance.
They don't get to say "facts don't care about their feelings" to liberals, then get indignant when people tell them they're full of shit.
 
Our grandchildren will pay dearly for this generation's idiocy.
As we are paying for some of our grandparents problems and each generation will be on the hook for the previous.
That is the precise reason we should fight the wilfully ignorant right on this.
 
Back
Top