Why is the climate change debate a political one in the United States?
- Thread starter kilofoxtrot
- Start date
sting7k
Well-known member
sting7k
Well-known member
There is a difference between these things and climate change. For each of these things there was a direct immediate cause that we could observe as a direct result of the introduction of said thing.
CFCs -> Destroys Ozone.
DDT -> Bioaccumulates up the food chain. Most visible effect; weakened eggshells of eagles.
Tabacco -> Causes cancer, smells bad, stains from smoke and tar are visible.
Climate Change -> The Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. Over the course of this time the plant has undergone many many many climate changes. Entire species have gone extinct many many many times. Planetary forces are bigger and stronger than anything we can ever produce. The make up the atmosphere has changed many times as well. The green house gas effect does exist. But on a planetary scale we really have no idea what could or might happen. We have no way to directly determine if rising green house gases are causing what we are seeing.
I'm not against conservation or reducing green house gas emissions at all. I am all for it and preserving our planet as best we can. But it really is not as cut and dry as it may seem; IMHO.
I am but a humble molecular biologist; aka scientist.
Amamba
Well-known member
It's about jobs and profits. Many seem to think, right or wrong, that trying to impose much stricter regulations would cost hundreds of billions and will only end up in rising costs, lost jobs, decreased profits and pushing the remaining manufacturing to China, India and whoever else can build it cheaper and without much regard for environment. Also there's no consensus among scientists on what needs be done (nobody except a few nut cases really doubts that the climate is changing, the question is what's driving it and what can be done about it). So, without forcing the major developing countries like China, India, Brazil to adapt the same stringent standards, the push to curb emissions in the US will only lead to the implosion of US manufacturing without much real impact on the problem itself. And good luck trying to force China to stop polluting.
Unfortunately, there's really not much worldwide political will to fix this - a lot of push comes from countries that had already heavily invested in green technologies, for other reasons (many Western European countries) or countries that gave up their manufacturing long ago.
Put it this way - Germany is all for more stringent worldwide environmental regulations, it also happened to have some of the greenest manufacturing in the world. So not only it is doing the morally right thing, but it is also posed to rip the benefits by becoming more competitive overnight if the Kyoto is ratified and made into international law (they already spent the money, but US would need to spend mucho $$$ to catch up). But China needs to spend $$$$$$$$$ and it's not going to. So Germany is all for this, US is resisting this, China pays lip service to this issue while it continues poisoning it's own air and land and water (although they are starting to push it outside of major metro areas, as people in Shanghai are now wealthy enough, make money in sales, management and finance, and don't want to live with the smog anymore - they would rather let the provinces breathe it.).
Unfortunately, there's really not much worldwide political will to fix this - a lot of push comes from countries that had already heavily invested in green technologies, for other reasons (many Western European countries) or countries that gave up their manufacturing long ago.
Put it this way - Germany is all for more stringent worldwide environmental regulations, it also happened to have some of the greenest manufacturing in the world. So not only it is doing the morally right thing, but it is also posed to rip the benefits by becoming more competitive overnight if the Kyoto is ratified and made into international law (they already spent the money, but US would need to spend mucho $$$ to catch up). But China needs to spend $$$$$$$$$ and it's not going to. So Germany is all for this, US is resisting this, China pays lip service to this issue while it continues poisoning it's own air and land and water (although they are starting to push it outside of major metro areas, as people in Shanghai are now wealthy enough, make money in sales, management and finance, and don't want to live with the smog anymore - they would rather let the provinces breathe it.).
Last edited:
the_tech_eater
Well-known member
Amamba
Well-known member
Oh, please. The global warming is real.
The man made contribution to it is real,too. No question about this.
The impact of man vs forces of nature is unknown and subject to much speculation. The scientists are only beginning to comprehend the forces behind GW. It's only natural that there's much speculation and the models are changing and evolving.
The ability of governments to stop global warming with regulation is very questionable.
The political will to do it is simply not there. Not only in the US. The US is just the loudest and has very visible nuts, as usual. But China doesn't want to impose restrictions on it's manufacturing or spend the money required to really modernize it's industrial base, save for cleaning up a few major centers. It wants to remain the competitive low cost producer. So does Brazil. Russia stands to gain from global warming massively - warmer Siberia, disappearance of much of the permafrost that's covering enormous areas, clearing up of the Northern sea routes which are currently frozen most of the year. What's not to like ? Except they are smarter then the US politicians, or less visibly stupid, and do lip service to the cause. Europeans are probably all for it, as they have less manufacturing left, have much more eco friendly populace, much more stringent enviro laws, already spent the money and their corporations will benefit if their competitors will now be forced to play a very expensive catch up. But force them to double or triple the severity of emission restrictions, without any reciprocity from the Chinese, and the European manufacturers will whine just as loudly as the US ones do.
Last edited:
The will to protect profits is as strong as the will to make them....... which is exactly why the tobacco industry tried to discredit the medical community when first confronted with smoking's effect on lung health, and later denying the purpose of adding nicotine to cigarettes.
In 1953 the tobacco industry hired Hill & Knowlton to help counteract findings that suggested cigarette smoking led to lung cancer.
History is repeating itself.
The onus to protect these profits dwarfs the potential profits of those who oppose them.
In 1953 the tobacco industry hired Hill & Knowlton to help counteract findings that suggested cigarette smoking led to lung cancer.
History is repeating itself.
The onus to protect these profits dwarfs the potential profits of those who oppose them.
Why is the "debate" a political one? Because the truth falls somewhere in between opposing opinions.
Amamba
Well-known member
Remember the US steel industry ? It's OK, most people don't.
You can still feel the devastation the collapse of it left behind, 40 years later, if you go to places like Youngstown.
Yes it is all about profits. Unfortunately, the profits are tied to jobs. I want my kids to live in a livable world. I also don't want them to be poor and miserable. Without forcing China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and other developing countries to adapt - and stick to - the same strict regulations, all we'd achieve is to destroy our jobs - and the global warming will just happily march on. Unlike tobacco, which was just a segment of the economy, and had clear dangers and clear solutions, GW is very poorly understood, the solutions are far from clear, and the global cooperation is guaranteed not to happen.
So yes, the US has very vocal and often very weird deniers. It's very visible in it's resistance to the proposed solutions. The other countries are much better at PR. But they aren't any more willing to destroy their economies as the US is to destroy ours.
You can still feel the devastation the collapse of it left behind, 40 years later, if you go to places like Youngstown.
Yes it is all about profits. Unfortunately, the profits are tied to jobs. I want my kids to live in a livable world. I also don't want them to be poor and miserable. Without forcing China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and other developing countries to adapt - and stick to - the same strict regulations, all we'd achieve is to destroy our jobs - and the global warming will just happily march on. Unlike tobacco, which was just a segment of the economy, and had clear dangers and clear solutions, GW is very poorly understood, the solutions are far from clear, and the global cooperation is guaranteed not to happen.
So yes, the US has very vocal and often very weird deniers. It's very visible in it's resistance to the proposed solutions. The other countries are much better at PR. But they aren't any more willing to destroy their economies as the US is to destroy ours.
HAWK
Well-known member
These type of debates can not be won. No matter how hard you try.... Politics and religion you will wear the color off your iPhone keypad trying to get your point across.
Amamba
Well-known member
I
Does warmer necessarily mean not livable ? Are you familiar with the history of Greenland ?
Anyway, my point is, it would take the coordinated earnest worldwide effort to try & reduce emissions, with uncertain outcome even if it does happen, in reality this is not going to happen, and while there's plenty of very entertaining deniers of the obvious in the good old US, they are only a small part of the global problem.
For example, look at Norway. A green, Eco friendly, tree hugging European country, right ? Except when it comes to their own interests. They refuse to ratify the global moratorium on whaling, unlike the evil US. Of course whaling is the important part of Norwegian economy, not so in the US.
Yes it's an imperfect world. No need to single out just one country, unless it's the one that contributes by far the most to the problem. Which I don't think the US does.
Does warmer necessarily mean not livable ? Are you familiar with the history of Greenland ?
Anyway, my point is, it would take the coordinated earnest worldwide effort to try & reduce emissions, with uncertain outcome even if it does happen, in reality this is not going to happen, and while there's plenty of very entertaining deniers of the obvious in the good old US, they are only a small part of the global problem.
For example, look at Norway. A green, Eco friendly, tree hugging European country, right ? Except when it comes to their own interests. They refuse to ratify the global moratorium on whaling, unlike the evil US. Of course whaling is the important part of Norwegian economy, not so in the US.
Yes it's an imperfect world. No need to single out just one country, unless it's the one that contributes by far the most to the problem. Which I don't think the US does.
hydrogen3
Well-known member
It is quite amusing how the global warming propaganda machine works. Oh wait.. The Earth "has not warmed for the last 17 years. so now it's climate change....
The propaganda machine works
The propaganda machine works
kch50428
Well-known member
My theory on human activity causing climate change.... If it were indeed true, none of us would be here. Because humanity, as a whole, is a fallible lot and things would have been screwed up way beyond habitability long before now.
So why is there less Polar ice during the summer every year? Can you explain? or is it more propaganda and not really happening?
A better question for you...... what makes ice melt?????
kch50428
Well-known member
You understand that the DailyMail is a TABLOID?
Is this how you get your information? I will try to find an article from the National Inquirer to refute your source.
kch50428
Well-known member
You understand that the DailyMail is a TABLOID?
Is this how you get your information? I will try to find an article from the National Inquirer to refute your source.
I bet you believe MSNBC is a viable news source... The National Enquirer has been correct on things, and whacked on others...
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
-
The iMore 20K / 50K Post Challenge - Are you up for it?- Started by Jaguarr40
- Replies: 31K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram