Why Americans don't care about climate change. An interesting theory.

Prove the problem is not manmade then. I invite you to link a credible source to back your statements.

no, come on, be honest. the comparison i would make is "covid." unless we have massive die off you don't care. 1% of us are disposable to the virus gods. you don't think you should have to lift a finger til it's small pox or the plague.

after tropical storm beryl hit texas, dozens of people died from heat exposure trying to survive in homes without power and AC when temps were pushing 100F. CDC believes thousands of people die from heat each year. the deal is at those numbers you don't care. but people are dying. there is a survivability difference when it's low 80 high 100 vs. low 70 high 90. which is basically what i have seen.

here is what you are missing. if you thought things got awkward during covid, modern society would implode at 30% mortality. at the level at which you want to take action society would break down. society could survive in the smallpox or plague eras because joe public lived on a farm and could make his own food and survive if he stayed healthy. as you saw with empty covid shelves we have suburbanized and the machine has to keep rolling to feed us all. the machine will break long before you are willing to get off your tookus. water supplies may get unreliable. power and other infrastructure may get strained and fail. crops may get scorched. storms may repeatedly come through and trash coastal areas.

same story with the heat. we are not done with warming or increasing storm damage. if we maintain the status quo it will get even hotter. we will see if at the point you are willing to act, it can be stopped or there is workable society is left.

Pretty fuzzy reasoning, but your slant is clear.

"that us westerners buy" is correct grammar. They said us then a group so it is correct. As opposed to "we westerners buy" which I think is incorrect but not positive on that one.

spare me the bs. the fact it is either 80F low 100F high all summer where i live (or constantly stormy in wetter years) -- when the average temp used to be 93 -- is not a "marxist plot." the fact the storms are worse than i have ever seen, and like 3 times in 7 years and not once a decade like it used to be, is not made up.

if you don't like the political nature of the solutions then give me a capitalist answer where we acknowledge reality.

i thought the right wing were the "survival" folks who used to stand for "eat your moral veggies." what has happened politically is the oil industry owns the american right wing, and politics have tilted over to "eff it all" libertarianism. i want to do what i want and the world can burn, which it will hopefully do after i die, so not my problem.

Let me rephrase. Young people will have to deal with this however he was blaming and attacking them for wanting to solve the problem.

this is not a science discussion. this is a dubious logic chain uttered in politics. 17th century mentality, i can connect a sentence and claim something, meets 21st century science and data collection. we know from data your logical theory is scientifically false. QED.

it's kind of like you can argue people should be allowed to smoke. that's sitting in ancient political theories. that's not what science says at all. science says allowing it is irredeemably stupid. it's about whether we let the place burn down because you want to feel free until it does.

re "young people," the fundamental flaw of libertarianism on this issue is it will fail to preserve meaningful liberty down the road, so as to selfishly seek to exercise it now. when climate gets nasty and resources dwindle, we will either see authoritarianism seek to control the resources, or we will see complete breakdown, ie "liberty with teeth." most libertarians aren't prepared like preppers if that happens. they want no taxes or regulations but somehow still suburban peace. if the power is off and the water and food dwindling or competed for, the cute version of libertarianism fails and it becomes preppers trying to survive while bandits try to steal their things.

Can anyone tell me the estimated carbon footprint of the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference, which is scheduled in November in Baku, Azerbaijan?

Why can't the conference be done over the Internet?

Asking for a Friend!

what part of my reasoning is supposedly fuzzy? after the recent tropical event here, the lights were off 1-2 weeks. the lights being off ruined all food in fridges and freezers, i had prepared and had MRE/spam/canned veggies, but it stretched on for weeks. some people died from the storm. more died from heat afterwards because it was hot and no power or AC, and in a general power failure there isn't some plan B with power instead where you can cool off. your only hope is you or family has a generator and stocked up on food. it took a week after power came on for grocery supplies to restore. some stores would open back up but have nothing cooled as it had all spoiled.

the fundamental flaw in how covid was understood is silly people see lockdowns as government causing problems as opposed to trying to stop the above sort of breakdown.

y'all contradict yourself. you lionize mr. EV mfr. because he makes money and votes GOP. you leave out he found a market for environmentally helpful products. the bigger growing sector in texas electricity production has been wind power.

i don't see society shifting back to agrarianism, ergo, there is money to be made with future minded products. there is currently money to be made off fossil fuels but eventually that dries up as those nonrenewables do. at that point exxon has either diversified or goes away.

a lot of this, buried in your rhetoric, is oil companies who want their current profit levels and centricity in the discussion. they want the shift decades away, not now when they risk being bankrupted for not anticipating progress.

i mean you folks are attacking ESG investing but over the long term people invested in fossil fuels will be broke. so it is actually long term wise to anticipate future tech.

just like the way to make money on the stock market today is computers, etc. apple. 50 years ago it would have been steel, auto makers, consumer product makers, etc. now it's gadgets, software, apps.

you are confusing the conservative penchant for endorsing regressive policies favoring their donors, who might run an oil company, with that being a wise investment for the future economically. if oil dries up and they aren't into solar or wind or hydrogen or something new, they go broke as do their stockholders. that they are trying to capture government, or at least a party in it, to fend off the speed of the inevitable, doesn't make it good policy or economic sense over a decades-long timeframe as opposed to next week.

this is nonsense. government regularly steps in and says, i don't care what people "want," you'll put seat belts in cars, and they will wear them. you're burying some sort of total liberty myth in your story.

also, the cultish way in which the american right adopts every heterodox, contradictory idea trump has, follows his whims around, suggests other than the public alone comes up with grassroots ideas what they want. to me it's a feedback loop. sometimes people drive it. sometimes they are told to wear a seatbelt.

last, the largest emitters are mfrs. the game is to aggregate all of us to make it not their fault. but in aggregate with them included, they dwarf what i do. their choices create the aggregate trajectory. most of us will go along. if cars become more fuel efficient we buy those. only a few idiots buy gas hummers (or these days ugly cybertrucks) on purpose to make some sort of weird political point.

Where in anything I've posted here have I said anything about covid? I'm not going to argue with someone who is trying to argue with me about something I never said.

guess you missed the breakwater and the seawall.

rookie.

that aside, the man is from hawaii -- political bs aside -- and i catch myself wanting a beach house once in a while knowing it might end badly. it's not his only house so it's a side risk.

and here comes the STEM-illiterate guy who confuses C with F and that 1.5C is closer to 3F.

and my personal experience is temps are up here 5-10F in about 40 years. if that trajectory continues we have problems.

you are basically taking advantage of lowball estimates if we do everything positive possible, which are lowend compared to doing jack squat.

the irony of this silly thread is the oil companies' scientists themselves studied the issue 1950-1980 and determined we would have warming. this was a subject of intense oil company interest during the arab oil embargo of the 1970s. did they need a plan B? did exxon need to get into some other energy form to survive? the science fit their needs when the future was uncertain. ok, is what i am doing heating the planet? the embargo then ended and around the gulf war oil got cheap. plan B was no longer necessary. they muzzled the 1950s-80s studies and got the PR machine going for oil again.

the PR machine is now going 100 mph and some people are gullible. the same companies pushing these narratives backed science studies saying the opposite in 1950-80.

it's in the sacramento bee, they won a pulitzer for the series.

Americans don't care about climate change because the ones who could affect it are so rich it doesn't effect them and the rest are too poor to do anything. Turning your lights off is going to do jack to prevent climate change. For 90% of Americans, driving is by far the fastest, cheapest, and most effective way to get around.

For political issues, most Americans have something too pressing whether its preserving democracy, reproductive rights, taxes, inflation, etc. to vote based on the planet's health.

This is such a falsehood that even you do not believe it.