18 votes

If you want your children to see a coral reef, join the left

18 comments

  1. [4]
    aphoenix
    Link
    I hate that climate change is a left vs. right issue. It should be a "we die" or "we don't" issue. Science isn't lying about things, and people need to get on board that all the money in the world...

    I hate that climate change is a left vs. right issue.

    It should be a "we die" or "we don't" issue. Science isn't lying about things, and people need to get on board that all the money in the world isn't going to matter much when you fucking die.

    20 votes
    1. Kiloku
      Link Parent
      Science isn't lying, but many people believe scientists are. It's very difficult to get through to those people, and I honestly wouldn't know where to start

      Science isn't lying, but many people believe scientists are. It's very difficult to get through to those people, and I honestly wouldn't know where to start

      4 votes
    2. StellarV
      Link Parent
      I agree but the main issue is capitalism. It's just such an inefficient system of resource management and all about squeezing out short term benefits at the expense of the environment. I guess I...

      I agree but the main issue is capitalism. It's just such an inefficient system of resource management and all about squeezing out short term benefits at the expense of the environment. I guess I wouldn't necessarily say it's a left vs right issue but capitalism has to go if we are to survive and the far left is currently the only group pushing for it.

      3 votes
    3. Octofox
      Link Parent
      To be fair being conservative would mean keeping things the way they are. And currently the way things are means destroying the environment. What needs to be considered is you don't have to be...

      To be fair being conservative would mean keeping things the way they are. And currently the way things are means destroying the environment. What needs to be considered is you don't have to be conservative or progressive on every issue. You can be conservative of who your country lets in while still being progressive about protecting its natural resources.

  2. [2]
    deciduous
    Link
    For a lot of left versus right issues, I can see and sometimes even empathize with arguments from the other side. Even in issues where one is (in my mind) clearly wrong, such as the ICE camps, I...

    For a lot of left versus right issues, I can see and sometimes even empathize with arguments from the other side. Even in issues where one is (in my mind) clearly wrong, such as the ICE camps, I see the moral viewpoints that lead to a worldwide view that supports them.

    But I really can't see the logic behind denying climate change. Nobody gains anything from destroying the earth. People and companies will destroy the earth for extra profit. But what good is profit without a world to live in?

    The only argument I can see in favor of being against measures to combat climate change is a belief that the world is for sure doomed and the actions of just one person won't make a difference. I highly doubt this worldview is common though, as many people are against climate change measures even when they don't benefit from them. To me, it seems to be a combination of, I don't know, deep state conspiracy bs that maybe the "liberals are trying to trick us" and the ultimate "not my problem."

    6 votes
    1. Octofox
      Link Parent
      There are many people who gain from it. And they won't be alive long enough to see any of the repercussions.

      Nobody gains anything from destroying the earth.

      There are many people who gain from it. And they won't be alive long enough to see any of the repercussions.

      7 votes
  3. [10]
    pleure
    Link
    The environment is the one issue that makes it impossible for me to return to liberalism. You could maybe convince me (if you tried very very hard) that welfare capitalism isn't that bad, but when...

    Individual authors of the [IPPC] report have said that the science is “telling us we need to reverse emissions trends and turn the world economy on a dime,” and the report “makes it clear: There is no way to mitigate climate change without getting rid of coal.” Carbon taxes far higher than any previously proposed will be necessary to avoid catastrophe, although even with a gigantic new effort at harm mitigation there may be no hope for the world’s coral reefs.

    ...

    But the IPCC’s report also highlights the limits of weak-willed liberalism. When it comes to carbon taxes it:

    …estimates that to be effective, such a price would have to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton of carbon dioxide pollution in 2030, and from $690 to $27,000 per ton by 2100. By comparison, under the Obama administration, government economists estimated that an appropriate price on carbon would be in the range of $50 per ton.

    While Barack Obama was certainly “concerned” about climate change, he failed to make the case for its importance to the American people. How much have Democrats mentioned this issue? How prominent is it in their public rhetoric? As I have written before, if we actually believe what we say (and what the science says), then even if it’s “politically difficult” it’s morally necessary to put ecological issues at the very top of our agenda, and work tirelessly to convince the public of their significance. The United States has elected a climate-denying lunatic and Brazil may be about to elect a similarly ecologically catastrophic quasi-fascist. These men imperil the earth. But their victory also testifies to the failure of the left to create public understanding around environmental issues. Nobody would vote for these men if they understood what the actual implications were for the future of life. (Okay, some people would still vote for them.)

    Okay, but why is this “socialism or barbarism”? Because you’re never going to accomplish anything so long as the economy is ruled by the pursuit of profit. If you don’t believe me, ask Myron Ebell, the lobbyist appointed by Trump to head his EPA transition team. Have a look at this op-ed Ebell co-wrote about why a carbon tax is a bad idea:

    Despite dubious claims that carbon taxes can avert climate change and promote “renewables,” this misguided policy will only succeed in fleecing Americans struggling to keep the lights on… [E]nergy producers would likely respond to an impending carbon tax by increasing supplies in the here-and-now, crashing the price and encouraging more carbon emissions in the present. Whoops! All of these hypotheticals lead to a sobering conclusion: Economic realities will likely doom a carbon tax to fail. Economies are complex instruments that always defy central planners, derailing even the best-laid plans. Policymakers must steer clear of this poorly thought out proposal that will achieve little at a gargantuan cost. Lawmakers can preserve the legacy of tax reform by avoiding expensive schemes to engineer ecology.

    Beware this species of conservative argument, which uses capitalism’s sociopathy as the justification for not trying to restrain capitalism’s sociopathy. If you try to regulate carbon, the costs will just be passed on to poor people and energy companies will actually release more carbon. Ebell’s entire argument throughout the op-ed is that carbon taxes “won’t work.” But why won’t they work? They won’t work because capitalist enterprises are monstrous institutions, that would rather boil the planet alive than take a financial hit. As I say, this is a common kind of argument on the libertarian right: if you try to regulate housing conditions, landlords will just pass the increased maintenance costs onto renters, or if you raise the minimum wage, employers will just fire a bunch of people and make the remaining ones work harder. In each case, the argument amounts to: capitalists will never, ever submit to measures designed to mitigate the negative impacts of their profit-seeking. Ebell doesn’t even pretend that there is a free-market way to change emissions. Of course, he doesn’t think there is a climate crisis, but he’s pretty clear that if there was one, under capitalism we would be doomed.

    The world is not a hopeless place. Pessimism is suicide. The conclusion of the IPCC scientists is that “it could be done, but it would require rapid action now. It would mean significant changes in all sectors of society. We would also need to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.” The question now is how to get the necessary political power. There is no hope in centrist politicians who take money from the very companies they need to fight, and who are only capable of proposing the mildest and most incremental solutions. There is obviously no hope on the right, which will justify literally anything the market does, even if it ends up killing us all. Only the left has the sense of urgency and the political agenda capable of making the radical changes necessary. Without it, we surrender to the Trumps and Bolsonaros. Now more than ever, it’s socialism or barbarism.


    The environment is the one issue that makes it impossible for me to return to liberalism. You could maybe convince me (if you tried very very hard) that welfare capitalism isn't that bad, but when it comes to addressing climate change liberalism offers no solutions.

    5 votes
    1. [8]
      Pilgrim
      Link Parent
      I'm not sure how your comment relates to the text you quoted. Can you help me better understand?

      I'm not sure how your comment relates to the text you quoted. Can you help me better understand?

      4 votes
      1. [7]
        pleure
        Link Parent
        What do you mean? The article (and hence the quote) is about how the left are the only ones with even a hope of preventing climate disaster due to the selfishness of the right and the milquetoast...

        What do you mean? The article (and hence the quote) is about how the left are the only ones with even a hope of preventing climate disaster due to the selfishness of the right and the milquetoast attempts of the liberals. My comment is about how the liberals' failure on climate issues has forced me to the left.

        5 votes
        1. [3]
          matth
          Link Parent
          The confusion is probably because most people are used to equating "the left" with liberalism. Read that way, your comment sounds like you're saying you're going right because liberals are bad at...

          The confusion is probably because most people are used to equating "the left" with liberalism. Read that way, your comment sounds like you're saying you're going right because liberals are bad at addressing climate change, which is absurd.

          9 votes
          1. [2]
            EightRoundsRapid
            Link Parent
            That's a US thing though, not a most people thing.

            most people are used to equating "the left" with liberalism

            That's a US thing though, not a most people thing.

            6 votes
            1. Fiestaman
              Link Parent
              I believe most people on this site are American.

              I believe most people on this site are American.

        2. [3]
          Pilgrim
          Link Parent
          Ah, I read "liberals" and "the left" as the same thing so I was not catching that distinction.

          Ah, I read "liberals" and "the left" as the same thing so I was not catching that distinction.

          2 votes
          1. [2]
            edward
            Link Parent
            That confusion is unfortunately common in the US. Mainly because we don't have much of an actual left, so liberals are "the left".

            That confusion is unfortunately common in the US. Mainly because we don't have much of an actual left, so liberals are "the left".

            4 votes
            1. Pilgrim
              Link Parent
              Got it. I'll try to think more globally :)

              Got it. I'll try to think more globally :)

              1 vote
    2. edward
      Link Parent
      This sentence isn't even limited to climate issues, it works for many issues. A big one I can think of is healthcare, Obamacare is a mild and incremental solution put in place by someone who took...

      There is no hope in centrist politicians who take money from the very companies they need to fight, and who are only capable of proposing the mildest and most incremental solutions.

      This sentence isn't even limited to climate issues, it works for many issues. A big one I can think of is healthcare, Obamacare is a mild and incremental solution put in place by someone who took money from healthcare companies.

  4. drakinosh
    Link
    Indeed, while I am wary of the mindless 'progressiveness' of the west(being blindly open minded), climate change is one of the things that can get me to immediately support the left. We need to...

    Indeed, while I am wary of the mindless 'progressiveness' of the west(being blindly open minded), climate change is one of the things that can get me to immediately support the left. We need to protect the world, people. First step, remove the dependency on oil, and dismantle toxic industries in China, USA, and other places.

    5 votes
  5. OzPoider
    Link
    Anyone left or right, is welcome to come to my place at Cairns, Qld, and see the Great Barrier Reef! You won't find a better place to scuba dive and see such awesome coral; as well as other...

    Anyone left or right, is welcome to come to my place at Cairns, Qld, and see the Great Barrier Reef! You won't find a better place to scuba dive and see such awesome coral; as well as other attractions like all the pelagic fish, some wrecked boats/ships and other sea life like turtles and rays year round. As well as whales and their baby calves seasonally! :-)