The Republican Party is known as the party of Big Business®, and Big Business® has been preparing for the effects of climate change for a while now. I feel the denial Republican party members...
The Republican Party is known as the party of Big Business®, and Big Business® has been preparing for the effects of climate change for a while now.
I feel the denial Republican party members display is only a shallow mask meant to appeal to Joe Nobody voters who don't want any part of this liberal environmental bullcrap. A position held to be a differentiator between them and the Democratic party. As the issue becomes more pressing, though, it seems like they're beginning to feel more relaxed about taking the mask off and saying "hey, it's just good business sense to prepare for this stuff. You can still vote for us because we're good business people!"
I don't know, why would it work any differently than any other group that tactically disregards expertise until there's enough genuine believers for that to be the party line?
I don't know, why would it work any differently than any other group that tactically disregards expertise until there's enough genuine believers for that to be the party line?
$$$ and old people dying off. Republicans rely on donors, especially corporate ones, and less and less big corporations are on the climate-change denial side these days. They can't keep relying on...
$$$ and old people dying off. Republicans rely on donors, especially corporate ones, and less and less big corporations are on the climate-change denial side these days. They can't keep relying on the coal companies to keep them afloat forever, and even the major oil companies are heavily investing in renewable energy these days since they see the writing on the wall. So IMO at some point the Rs are going to have to drop the facade of being climate deniers or they will lose relevance as a party, especially as the demographic shift continues, since climate denial is rather rare in anyone ≤Gen X.
i'm skeptical the republicans are going to ultimately lose relevance for the simple reason that pretty much every generation since the millennials has gotten significantly more liberal, and...
i'm skeptical the republicans are going to ultimately lose relevance for the simple reason that pretty much every generation since the millennials has gotten significantly more liberal, and republicans are seeing the same thing happen to them even as the party gets more right-wing as a whole. even though you're seeing young conservatives being personified in dipshits like ben shapiro, milo yiannopoulos, candace owens, and charlie kirk, you're also seeing self-identified young republicans shift significantly to the left on a lot of issues like climate change and LGBT rights and buck the ideas of their parents. it's a bizarre, contradictory set of shifts, but i imagine the one based on demographics over party/ideological insularity is likely to ultimately win out.
now, how quickly it'll take for that to happen is completely up in the air, and that's what i think will matter in the long run which will determine what you're talking about. if the youth take over either in voting or in the party itself in relatively short order, the republicans are probably going to shift back to the left a bit and be fine. if the youth get stonewalled, the republicans are going to probably be in for a bad time, because appealing to an increasingly small and insular set of voters (most of whom are old, white, rich, and out of touch with the issues of their children and grandchildren) only works as long as those people are alive to vote--and increasingly, they're not. this is especially true if the suburban shift we saw in 2018 sticks--republicans have really no winning coalition in the house or in the presidency (they might not even have it in the senate, honestly) with an alignment of votes like that. if those things remain constant, then we might see an increasingly irrelevant republican party and an unlikely-but-not-improbable chance of them gradually falling to another party.
This wikipedia article is a decent jumping off point. Maybe checkout this image as well. For a good accessible book on climate change I recommend Without the hot air by the late David Mackay. It's...
For a good accessible book on climate change I recommend Without the hot air by the late David Mackay. It's a little dated now but still incredibly informative.
I've seen several comments on other sites saying that China needs to get their act together more than the US does, or whatever is done won't matter in the end.
The answer to this statement is not simple since both countries are very interconnected. A big part of this is whether the measurement is total emissions or emissions/capita.
I usually think per capita statistics are more telling, but in the case of something that effects everyone globally I think gross (or net?) output is a much more useful benchmark to work from.
I usually think per capita statistics are more telling, but in the case of something that effects everyone globally I think gross (or net?) output is a much more useful benchmark to work from.
While the policies of a country with a greater contribution would have a greater impact, a larger population is expected to have a greater carbon footprint.
While the policies of a country with a greater contribution would have a greater impact, a larger population is expected to have a greater carbon footprint.
The Republican Party is known as the party of Big Business®, and Big Business® has been preparing for the effects of climate change for a while now.
I feel the denial Republican party members display is only a shallow mask meant to appeal to Joe Nobody voters who don't want any part of this liberal environmental bullcrap. A position held to be a differentiator between them and the Democratic party. As the issue becomes more pressing, though, it seems like they're beginning to feel more relaxed about taking the mask off and saying "hey, it's just good business sense to prepare for this stuff. You can still vote for us because we're good business people!"
I don't know, why would it work any differently than any other group that tactically disregards expertise until there's enough genuine believers for that to be the party line?
$$$ and old people dying off. Republicans rely on donors, especially corporate ones, and less and less big corporations are on the climate-change denial side these days. They can't keep relying on the coal companies to keep them afloat forever, and even the major oil companies are heavily investing in renewable energy these days since they see the writing on the wall. So IMO at some point the Rs are going to have to drop the facade of being climate deniers or they will lose relevance as a party, especially as the demographic shift continues, since climate denial is rather rare in anyone ≤Gen X.
Wouldn't be the first time a Party lost relevance.
i'm skeptical the republicans are going to ultimately lose relevance for the simple reason that pretty much every generation since the millennials has gotten significantly more liberal, and republicans are seeing the same thing happen to them even as the party gets more right-wing as a whole. even though you're seeing young conservatives being personified in dipshits like ben shapiro, milo yiannopoulos, candace owens, and charlie kirk, you're also seeing self-identified young republicans shift significantly to the left on a lot of issues like climate change and LGBT rights and buck the ideas of their parents. it's a bizarre, contradictory set of shifts, but i imagine the one based on demographics over party/ideological insularity is likely to ultimately win out.
now, how quickly it'll take for that to happen is completely up in the air, and that's what i think will matter in the long run which will determine what you're talking about. if the youth take over either in voting or in the party itself in relatively short order, the republicans are probably going to shift back to the left a bit and be fine. if the youth get stonewalled, the republicans are going to probably be in for a bad time, because appealing to an increasingly small and insular set of voters (most of whom are old, white, rich, and out of touch with the issues of their children and grandchildren) only works as long as those people are alive to vote--and increasingly, they're not. this is especially true if the suburban shift we saw in 2018 sticks--republicans have really no winning coalition in the house or in the presidency (they might not even have it in the senate, honestly) with an alignment of votes like that. if those things remain constant, then we might see an increasingly irrelevant republican party and an unlikely-but-not-improbable chance of them gradually falling to another party.
This wikipedia article is a decent jumping off point. Maybe checkout this image as well.
For a good accessible book on climate change I recommend Without the hot air by the late David Mackay. It's a little dated now but still incredibly informative.
The answer to this statement is not simple since both countries are very interconnected. A big part of this is whether the measurement is total emissions or emissions/capita.
I usually think per capita statistics are more telling, but in the case of something that effects everyone globally I think gross (or net?) output is a much more useful benchmark to work from.
While the policies of a country with a greater contribution would have a greater impact, a larger population is expected to have a greater carbon footprint.