« cherry picking for fun and profit | Main | It's actually about a boat in Scotland: an open thread »

January 11, 2025

Comments

I wish the problem here was as simple as saying "climate change" instead of "global warming".

The reason people in this country have not taken effective measures to deal with this, in spite of it being a matter of public discussion for the last 40 years, is that Americans have an extraordinary sense of entitlement and consider proposals that will require them to make any kind of change to their preferred way of life to be somewhere on the spectrum between foolishness and an outrage.

That, plus many many millions of dollars spent, by folks who have a vested interest in making sure the oil currently in the ground does not stay there, to persuade them that no change is needed. Or, more significantly, money spent to persuade people who are in a position to champion the kinds of broad social and infrastructure changes that would be needed to address it effectively that they should basically do nothing and get in the way of folks who actually do want to do something.

It may seem kind of reductionist to say that our inaction is a function of greed and willful ignorance, but to be honest I think it actually explains a lot.

Have various vested interests pushed hard to prevent action? Sure. But note that a significant part of their push (at least the parts I've seen) involves pointing to the lack of warming in peoples' personal experience.

Are Americans entitled? Many of us. On the other hand, we've also demonstrated a capacity to dig down and get stuff done, once we're convinced it is necessary. We may not love it, be we can and have done it.

But the thing is, the case has to be made convincingly. Putting it in terms that conflict with their personal experience only makes it harder to convince them. And easier for those opposing action.

Note also that it matters not at all that the problem has been talked about for 40 years. Because it's been discussed counterproductively.

Reports from the IPCC are often cited, not just by alarmists but also by denialists. (Global warming denialism is a cottage industry, like christian apologetics.) The denialists know perfectly well that the IPCC, established 1988, is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The alarmists may be wrong, on PR grounds, to say "global warming", but the denialists say it with cynical intent.

Denialists know that most Americans are indifferent to the fact that when it's winter in Georgia it's summer in Australia. But then, many Americans are indifferent between democracy and kleptocracy. The denialists, like the MAGAts, are just better at PR than the alarmists. And they have more money behind them, to exploit that indifference.

You may be right, wj, to say that humanity's survival depends on finding just the right branding to sway people who need a whack upside the head. If so, we're doomed. But the professional denialists will die rich, so that should be some comfort.

--TP

It is my impression that a lot of people did change from talking about "global warming" to talking about "climate change" quite a long time ago. However, given the effectiveness of the right wing noise machine (a quaint name, it seems in retrospect given the polluted, bot-driven, and degraded discourse the internet has made possible), I doubt that any intentionality about careful phrasing on the part of non-denialists would have made, or will ever make, much difference.

Embedded in this press briefing by Bush II's press guy Ari Fleischer is the heart of the matter (from 2001):

Q:Is one of the problems with this, and the entire energy field, American lifestyles? Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country. What we need to do is make certain that we're able to get those resources in an efficient way, in a way that also emphasizes protecting the environment and conservation, into the hands of consumers so they can make the choices that they want to make as they live their lives day to day.

Bush the elder also touted the “American way of life” line. Which kind of gets to the issue of entitlement - the rest of the world can burn as long as we can live the way we’re accustomed to.

We are all culpable to some degree, but it’s hard to make the kinds of changes that are needed as a purely private effort.

Damn straight our fires just to the north are a result of climate change, and when the full effects of all of those houses being gone hit the rest of the SoCal housing market, there is going to be a big round of climate migration coming. You can't lose that many houses in an already tight housing market and not have it push people out of the region. And it will be interesting to see what happens with people's insurance when it comes time to rebuild. I'm betting that a lot of those houses just won't be able to get anything like affordable insurance for rebuilding.

As for the second part, the problem we have is not one of poor rhetorical choices or poor branding on the part of scientists and activists. I don't think that changing the phrase being used would have any effect when we have a RW media whose entire purpose is to demonize and attack the ideas that get in the way of their own agenda. Brian Calvert, editor of High Country News, summed it up quite well in his editor's note for the August 2019 issue:

In June 1988, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified before a congressional committee, where he announced, with 99% certainty, that human-caused global warming was real. A year later, the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group formed by fossil fuel companies, began a determined effort to stymie climate action. Hansen, being a scientist, based his testimony on scientific fact. The GCC lobbyists, being slimeballs, based their efforts on telling stories - including, incredibly, the 1992 release of a video claiming that adding C02 to the atmosphere would boost crop yields and end world hunger.

Thirty years later, we are still fighting stories with facts, and the results have been underwhelming. While it is easy to get frustrated by this state of affairs, it is also easy to understand why it's happening. Global warming is a human-caused phenomenon that exceeds the human capacity for understanding. The typical institutions that we rely on to guide government policy - science and journalism - have not been fully up to the task.

If I had to point to the one thing that most gets in the way of us doing better, it's not the language that we use to describe climate change, it's the way in which government and media has naturalized the idea of a growth-based capitalist economy to the point that any policy that does not lead to economic growth gets treated as if it is unthinkable. In order to get past the stage of fighting stories with facts, we have to find ways to get people to believe stories in which the public doesn't give into the prisoner's dilemma and we actually choose our wellbeing over destructive modes of capitalism.

The fact that our politicians have to adopt priorities that pay off in 2-6 year windows and have to beg for money in order to get re-elected doesn't help either.

And now social media has made all of those things even worse.

government and media has naturalized the idea of a growth-based capitalist economy to the point that any policy that does not lead to economic growth gets treated as if it is unthinkable.

The problem I see with that view is that lots of the things which would address global warming will lead to economic growth. Different parts of the economy than some are accustomed to. But growth nonetheless.

Sure, there are rants about restricting consumption in various ways.** Which help with the denialist propaganda already noted. But the reality is, the average American could care less whether he consumes vast amounts of gasoline, or coal or gas fired electric power. He cares if he has to spend more each month on either one. But as long as his car can travel as far, as long as his house stays as cool (or warm), and it costs no more? He is indifferent to how it happened. The producers of that gas and coal care deeply. But the voters? Not so much.

** Mostly, to be frank, from the far left. Have I said "counterproductive" before? Not to mention unnecessary . . . except for those enamored of self-flagellation. Sure, cutting consumption while doing nothing else would work. But why? Other than virtue signalling.

Your comment, wj, is an example of what I am talking about. You just came in and reframed my comment back into alignment with the prevailing economic paradigm and turned it into an implicit criticism of the left as natural as breathing.It's a helluva habit of mind to break.

There are plenty of areas of economic activity that can and should grow. There are many things we can agree to do that will improve our collective lives and create economic benefits at the same time. But the models that measure economic health by looking at what we produce and are agnostic to whether or not those economic inputs are within the limits of our environmental boundaries have to change.It's probable that means that our overall growth needs to slow down and realign, even if that means that corporations need to reduce their shareholder value to realign with those limits.

We are on the same page here, but you immediately started filling in an argument based on 40 years of pro-growth mythology that gets taken as our baseline for society. That's why our stories need to change.

Unrelenting growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell.

"Economic growth", like "global warming", may or may not make a practical difference in the life of the average person. Yet "economic growth" is a shibboleth and "global warming" is bad PR.

It's fine by me if pious obeisance to the shibboleth results in a more sustainable world, BTW. A more-equitable world would be even better -- even if it featured no "economic growth" at all. Millions of people enjoying greater comforts even if the likes of Bezos and Zuckerberg have to make do with smaller yachts might be a world of low (or no) "economic growth", but why would that be bad?

--TP

You just came in and reframed my comment back into alignment with the prevailing economic paradigm and turned it into an implicit criticism of the left as natural as breathing.It's a helluva habit of mind to break.

Apologies. I certainly did not intend to "reframe" your comment. Misunderstood it, perhaps.

As for my criticism of the far (note: far) left, I have heard that exact proposal for addressing climate change. From people who described themselves as on the left of the left. Most of the liberals/progressives I know have more sense. Albeit less strident voices.

No need to apologize, wj, I'm just pointing out how hard it is to talk about public prosperity without falling into the widely accepted framing of that prosperity in terms of productivity and economic growth. We have to think very hard and be very precise and selective with our language in order to avoid turns of phrase that we are preconditioned to refute.

I don't agree entirely with Mark Fisher's arguments in Capitalist Realism (despite McTX's insinuations, I'm not much of a Marxist) but I do think his description of capitalist realism - "the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it" - helps describe why it is that we have such a hard time mustering any sort of progress towards a sustainable economy. I think he should have said 'nearly' impossible, and 'collectively' imagine, but I agree with the basic sentiment. Our governments, our media, and even our entire administrative apparatus in higher education think and communicate entirely within the mode of capitalist realism.

It takes someone like Kim Stanley Robinson to imagine a convincing alternative framework for the future.

I guess the weather in the US can be a bit different, but in Europe you would have to be completely ignorant not to experience global warming:

When I was a child we regularly had snow in the winter and now there is maybe a day or two in December and in February if you're lucky. My daughter is almost as excited by snow and ice as someone from a tropical country would have been when I was a kid - and it's heartbreaking to see.

You can't book a skiing holiday anymore and expect to be able to actually ski fir lack of snow. There are only a handful of places in the alps left, where snow is guaranteed, even glaciers have been melting away.

In two or three weeks time spring will start with birds chirping abd flowers blooming - this us about a month to six weeks earlier than 50 years ago.

So, at least over here I don't think rhetoric is as important as people think, it's people being completely detached from nature, willful ignorance or bad faith. The latest trend is to concede global warming is happening but throwing your hands up in the air with with a whatareyagonnado shrug - it's very cynical, especially considering that many of these people have children.

And of course I forgot to mention the summers being hotter and longer (like everywhere else).

And then there is the 'adverse' effect of reduced air pollution. Aerosols have a cooling effect. And what - quelle surprise - is the solution to that proposed by the usual suspects? Undo the regulations and let the industry uninstall the filters. Oh, and shoot millions of tons of sulphur into the stratosphere (process to be repeated every few years since the stuff will not stay up)*. A world with 'not enough pollution' taken as a serious position is a wee bit out of whack.
Why not cover the oceans with a layer of styrofoam balls to increase albedo or spraypaint the tropical jungles white for the same purpose?
While we are at it: It's the fault of all these black and brown people. Their dark skin traps all the sunlight like the solar farms that draw it away from nearby agriculture. Obvious proof: It's hottest where the n-words are while the population in the cooler regions tends to be white. The Inuits are illegal immigrants and their uncontrolled procreation causes their zones of residence to heat fastest. That's why the US annexing Greenland and deporting the 'natives' to their appropriate climate zone is so important (e.g. digging the new Panama Canal). And when Canada gets joined to the US, the same can be done to those Nunavutees. And we must put an end to the unnatural mating of the Aryan polar bears with their darky Southern distant relatives. Pizzlies are an abomination.

*We have to get back to coal-fired aeroplanes. It's a scandal that those have been unconstitutionally discriminated against to the point of extinction.

"despite McTX's insinuations, I'm not much of a Marxist"

I'm a Grouchy Marxist.

Oh, and shoot millions of tons of sulphur into the stratosphere (process to be repeated every few years since the stuff will not stay up)*.

I remember back in the late 1970s, when the Midwestern power plants were injecting thousands of tons of sulfur into the air each year, hiking in the Delaware Water Gap area and finding amazingly clear ponds in the woods. Amazingly clear because the water was so acidic due to sulfur in the precipitation no plants or animals could live in it.

Why not cover the oceans with a layer of styrofoam balls to increase albedo or spraypaint the tropical jungles white for the same purpose?

In the early 1970s I worked at an ag field lab. One of the experiments was making the top layer of leaves on soy bean plants lighter to reflect more sunlight and measuring the impact on the microclimate under the canopy. In the tests, the under-canopy was a few degrees cooler, a bit more humid, and the plant stress reduced. It was one of the ways the Ag College at the University was looking for making soy beans more heat tolerant for warmer, dryer summers.

As I recall, for test purposes we lightened the leaves by spraying with a mix of water, diatomaceous earth, a binder, and a surfactant. In practice, they would have bred/engineered soy bean plants whose upper leaves were lighter in color.

The clear lake problem also occurred in Scandinavia in the past. All the coal fired power plants without much desulphurication in Scotland emitted into the prevailing winds going towards Norway. There it came down and acidified the water.

YOu may be right, but I think a bigger problem is cowardice and selfishness. I think a proportion of the population in any given area is simply incapable of acknowledging the need for change and will support anyone who panders to their innate fearfulness.

I also think it is easy for many people to enjoy a good wallow in fear of imaginary or exaggerated problems like Haitians eating cats but simply beyond them to process the sci-fi scale horror that is arriving.

I learned about climate change way back in the late seventies. At the time I didn't have much hope for humans having a capacity to deal with it.

When Al Gore tried, for a brief minute I thought that maybe climate change was something conservatives and everyone else could work together on for the common good.

Silly me. Then the Republican party decided to delegitimize the concept of the common good and replace it with Social Darwinism and trickle down economic and all hope that they would deal with climate change vanished--unless change becomes profitable.

So the pussygrabber got elected proving that a slim majority of American voters prefer racist bs, outright stupidity, misogyny and criminal behavior--including an attack on Congress--to a black women who is responsible, competent, and moderate in her actions. The triumph of a swallow, ignorant, selfish, cowardly and morally depraved political party.

And the MSM is cowardly.

We're fucked.

Jimmy Carter wore a sweater and put photoelectric panels on the White House.

And lost.

'Morning in America" beats 'we need to make some changes" every time.

I'm not sure exactly what it is, but there is some sort of difference between the rejection of global warming/climate change and the other grab bag of MAGA bullshit.

I've dealt with several people here over the past decade or two who are teachers who wouldn't be caught dead espousing the various MAGA lines, but for whom debating climate change was something that they clamped on to like a dog worrying at a bone. I suspect that anti-vax was a similar thing until the pandemic made it mainstream MAGA.

'Morning in America" beats 'we need to make some changes" every time.

So, apparently, does "It's sunset in American" or midnight, or whatever.

despite McTX's insinuations, I'm not much of a Marxist

But Marxism is cool again, what with all the hip, young people reading Sally Rooney - might have something to do with them not being able to afford a place to live without inherited wealth unless they go into finance or something.

Das Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein, lol.

Kohei Saito has become popular here in Japan

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/28/a-greener-marx-kohei-saito-on-connecting-communism-with-the-climate-crisis

Cuba, Venezuela, the PRC, N Korea. Compelling arguments for a classless society.

Well, His Orangeness never had class. But 'vulgar' means 'of the people', so he is a true populist.

So, apparently, does "It's sunset in American" or midnight, or whatever.

It's true, I'm pessimistic about where things are heading. And not just with regard to America, although certainly not to exclude us.

Given where we are, it will take a hell of a lot to change my mind.

Thanks, lj.

I myself am not a Marxist (too much exposure to East Germany / Warsaw Pact in my youth ...) but would say that not including a Marxist perspective in one's worldview would be a bit odd for an intelligent person.

We measure the economy by how much money moves around over a given period of time. It doesn't matter where that money goes or what it gets used for. More money moved around this time than it did last time, so the economy grew.

Guns and cigarettes are as good as water purification and vaccines. Pet rocks are as good as literature. They all get reduced to dollars in the end.

What is value? What is prosperity? Who cares, right?

Well, His Orangeness never had class.

Nonsense! He absolutely has class. Granted, it's very, very low class. But still.

Perhaps better, in his case, to go with некультурный (nekul'turnyy).

He's the upper echelon equivalent of the lumpenproletariat.

Btw, in German that word is ambiguous: a 'Lump' is a rotter/blackguard/scallywag (Lumpen is the plural form) while 'Lumpen' means rags.

So, spent some time on Facebook today, and noticed a post about the possible collapse of the AMOC, which is the collection of currents in the Atlantic that bring warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to, among other places, northern Europe.

If you take a look at the latitudes where many major northern European cities are located and compare them to the same latitudes in North America, you will notice that, for example, Paris is at about the same latitude as Fargo ND. The weather in Paris is... not the same as the weather in Fargo, and the AMOC is why. Go further north in Europe, and the equivalent latitudes in North America are place that are literally Arctic.

The post was followed by dozens or hundreds of comments stating that claims of global warming / climate change / call it what you will are just a plot by scientists and elites to extort tax money from we regular folks and put it in their pockets.

Another common theme was that the global climate is much bigger than anything humans could ever have an effect on, and it was all just gonna play out however it will. Some folks will lose out, but we will all just have to adapt, and what can you do about it, anyway?

These are not at all fringe points of view, they are extremely common. The fact that, should the AMOC collapse, major population centers and their many millions of inhabitants will have their lives utterly transformed in bad ways and many will need to basically relocate simply did not register. Or, if they did, was more or less met with a shrug and a reply of "sucks for them".

I wish I could say that hey, it's Facebook, that's not what most people are like. But I think it's actually representative of a significant number of folks. Americans, at least. Here in the US we have a bad habit of thinking we're immune from whatever calamities happen elsewhere in the world.

The various bad effects of climate change are of a scale that a lot of people, maybe most people, can't really get their heads around. So they find reasons to not try to get their heads around it. And so nothing of sufficient scale or consequence gets done about it.

We've already achieved 1.5 degrees of warming, as of the past year. That was supposed to be the upper limit of what was tolerable. The trend is still in the wrong direction. The countries that are the main contributors to climate change have failed to meet the goals they set in the various UN sponsored COP meetings, held annually for the last several years.

At this point, many of the ill effects are baked in. Which is to say, it doesn't matter what folks think, or say, or do. They are going to happen.

There is the opportunity for things to rebalance over time scales of decades and centuries, *if* we - which is to say, the world, but most significantly the developed world - takes strong action, soon.

But there is a mountain of ignorance and selfish laziness to overcome, with an even larger mountain of mendacious self-interested greed feeding it.

I don't see that the people and institutions that are capable of of acting at a scale sufficient to change all of that stepping up.

It's been over 40 years at this point since Hansen first addressed Congress. I have no idea what it will take to turn this around.

I have profound respect for wj and for his contributions here, but I think the problem is much, much, much deeper than the particular choice of language we use to talk about this stuff. It's a factor, for sure, but it is, unfortunately and sadly, not enough to counter the greed and ignorance that stands in the way of meaningful action.

Our leaders have, frankly, failed us.

I don't really know what the world is going to look like 100 years from now. But we all live at the mercy of the natural world, and if that changes as dramatically and quickly as it is predicted to, I don't think we - humans - have the skill set to respond as nimbly as will be necessary.

It's likely to be calamitous for a lot of people. And not just people, but certainly for people.

The increases in human migration that we have already seen from climate change and related problems, political and otherwise, are already stressing societies to the point where authoritarian nationalism and fascist-adjacent (and not just adjacent) policies have become attractive to a lot of people. And this is within living or near-living memory of the utter calamities of the mid-20th C. You'd think we'd know better.

I have no idea how all of this plays out.

Sorry to be so negative, it's just how it looks, to me.

Our leaders have, frankly, failed us.

Leaders in California seem to have failed to adapt to predictable weather and climate conditions never mind climate change.

Our leaders have, frankly, failed us.

Except that we are the ones who pick our leaders. And we have picked those failures. Even, perhaps especially, when we had a choice of someone who wanted to do the right thing.

The countries that are the main contributors to climate change have failed to meet the goals they set in the various UN sponsored COP meetings, held annually for the last several years.

The US has ice storms, hurricanes, and wild fires. But we can probably cope. Whether we can cope with, or even acknowledge the reality that, people from places which are worse hit will be fleeing here? Dubious.

But the impact in India seems to be far worse: rising temperatures in areas where the previous normal was not far below the maximum survivable. And the economic capability to deal with the effects just isn't there. Critically needed air conditioning requires power which India can only generate (any time soon) by burning hydrocarbons.

What I haven't seen much on is the impact on climate change on China. I'm guessing that they will get hammered, too. Just not sure exactly how.

Leaders in California seem to have failed to adapt to predictable weather and climate conditions never mind climate change.

The only realistic adaption is to not build in places with a combination of drought, heavy vegetation, and high winds. Cf Pacific Palisades.

But that's not something state leaders can do much about. Planning decisions like that are currently made at the county or even city level. Often timee, the decisions were made decades ago; reversing them would require forced relocation of the people living there. Perhaps the state could seize the power to do that. But even in deep blue California that would be a huge lift.

P.S. I confess that I fund it fascinating that our in-house libertarian thinks that the government should be "doing something." Maybe reality trumps ideology in some cases.

Leaders in California seem to have failed to adapt to predictable weather and climate conditions never mind climate change.

Likewise, leaders in Florida. Likewise, leaders in up-country GA, TN, and the Carolinas. Likewise, leaders in most places.

At a time when the largest city in CA and the second largest city in the US is freaking on fire and hundreds of thousands of people are being forced to flee their homes, which may not exist anymore, I just don't really have it in me to sit around and point fingers at the "failed leaders".

You'd have to walk it back to whoever decided to build a city of that size in a place like that in the first place.

And LA is one of many such places.

Everyone's gonna get their turn, sooner or later, in one form or other. Maybe find a better response than partisan bickering, or bitching about the inherent incompetence of governments of whatever stripe.

If you think there is any institution other than government that is going to be able to respond to stuff at the kind of scale that we're going to see, you are mistaken. There is no libertarian solution for damage of this scope.

Except that we are the ones who pick our leaders. And we have picked those failures. Even, perhaps especially, when we had a choice of someone who wanted to do the right thing.

No disagreement.

Whether we can cope with, or even acknowledge the reality that, people from places which are worse hit will be fleeing here? Dubious.

Also agreed.

I'll be dead before the worst of it all happens. Probably most reading this, the same.

My hope is that folks a generation or two or three behind us take it on in a more serious way.

They are welcome to spit on my grave, if that helps.

The only realistic adaption is to not build in places with a combination of drought, heavy vegetation, and high winds.

One way to persuade people not to build in high-risk areas is to allow insurance companies to set premiums based on perceived risk. But the state has put caps on premiums and until recently required insurance companies to calculate premiums based on historical conditions not current and expected future conditions. Climate change is real but you can't base premiums on it.

One reason that people build in risky areas is that LA zoning discourages dense housing.

reversing them would require forced relocation of the people living there.

A few thousand were just forced to relocate all at once.

I confess that I fund it fascinating that our in-house libertarian thinks that the government should be "doing something."

Governments often do too much and do the wrong things. But when they promise to do something and take your tax money to do it, they should be held to account if they fail to do it.

Thank you, russel. That's pretty much how I feel.

I also think about my daughter and all the other kids. They have a right to be mad at us and the previous generation and we should listen to them. But what do they get instead (for the most part): condescension, mockery and indifference.

I have profound respect for wj and for his contributions here, but I think the problem is much, much, much deeper than the particular choice of language we use to talk about this stuff. It's a factor, for sure, but it is, unfortunately and sadly, not enough to counter the greed and ignorance that stands in the way of meaningful action.

russell, I appreciate the kind words. But I think I have failed to communicate my point.

Is there greed and ignorance involved? Absolutely. And will be on pretty much any issue that comes along. The question is, what can we do about it? Can we significantly reduce, let alone eliminate, eliminate greed? Not seeing much chance of that, although I'm certainly open to suggestions. (Definitely worth doing, regardless of any other issue.)

Can we eliminate, or at least significantly reduce, ignorance? Yes, but. To do that, we have to communicate effectively. Which requires two things:
1) Put the issue in terms of things people can personally see around them.
2) Avoid phrasing the issue in ways that make it easy for those opposed to demonize our position.
Because, in communicating, in educating people, words matter.

On both fronts, those concerned about climate change failed. At this point, however, that's water under the bridge. The point I'm trying failing to make is: can we learn from that failure?

those concerned about climate change failed. At this point, however, that's water under the bridge.

Sorry, but that's just victim blaming.

The facts have been known since the mid-70s. There has been a concerted effort by the fossil fuel industry and other inetrested parties to first deny and then obscure those facts in various ways. Finally, they conceded some of the facts, because it was impossible not to, but tried their best to slow down and undermine any efforts to actually take action.

This is where we are now and I know on which side I have been and I don't think I have anything to apologize for. I am actually a very diplomatic person in real life, so I don't go around preaching to people. And simply by functioning in a complex, urbanized society, I am part of the problem as well.

But that doesn't mean that people need to be treated like children for fear of antagonizing them: just put the facts out there relentlessly, call out the paid shills, cynics and other obfuscators and appeal to people's sense of responsibility and decency. Oddly enough, I think most people are good at heart.

PS, this blog by major climate scientists has been going for 20 years now:

https://www.realclimate.org/

I agree with novakant. I have two friends who are climate change deniers and they use every stupid argument you have ever heard on the subject. I started to write them down, but you have heard them all.

There are mistakes and dubious protest tactics made by some on our side, but that will always be the case. They are not the reason for climate change denialism. People always find reasons to be short- sighted and selfish.

I'm with novakant on this. I really wish that wj were correct because the truth is that for the last fifteen years at least the climate change activists were pouring heart and soul into doing exactly what wj wants them to do.

Our problem is that the numbers we need to reach to shift the needle can't be reached through educational outreach because they don't make their voting or purchasing decisions based on rational choice. We have thirty years of well financed pollution industry propaganda and lobbying efforts to work against, and the side of the angels here has very little to work with that is at all propaganda friendly. Even grossly simplified versions of the pro-environmental side require fifteen minutes of info and a little bit of heavy lifting. I know. I've done it several times in classes over the years. I can make it work, but only because I have a room full of people who have made it into a top university who have more attention span and willingness to engage in thinking than the average josephine, and I teach a required course, so they can't just click off my page and chill with Joe Rogan for a bit instead.

Straight and narrow paths, etc... It's easier to park the bus and appeal to people's fear, laziness, and greed than it is to convince them to make sacrifices for an abstract common good. That basic asymmetry is not the fault of the people who have been working their asses off to fight this basic asymmetry.

1) Put the issue in terms of things people can personally see around them.

I think this is right on, and there will (unfortunately) be an increasing number of opportunities to do it.

Sadly, "100 million Bangladeshis are going to have to relocate over the next 100 years" is not highly motivating to the average American.

"Nobody is going to insure your house", however, might make an impact.

"Nobody is going to insure your house" can only do so much, though, when people don't see any alternative, and the course of action we want isn't aligned with the threat to their ow lives. This translates into a fear of losing their house. They can't afford another house. Their job and their family and friends are right where they already are. They have sunk cost and history. All this does is make them feel stuck and threatened. And the vast majority of people are so close to the margin that they don't make it from this thought to the sorts of big, structural issues that they need to change in order to change that threat. Other worries get in the way before they can process the big picture and work up to the hard changes.

The bad guys have a whole litany of other worries that they can throw at people in order to interrupt the process of change and kick the can a bit further down the road.

The US has ice storms, hurricanes, and wild fires. But we can probably cope.

It's not just weather, it's what the weather facilitates and prevents.

Ample fresh water? Croplands that remain productive? (Of which ample water in the right place at the right time is one element.)

Just to name the first couple of things, and maybe the most major, that come to mind that are threatened besides just weather patterns.

wj: those concerned about climate change failed. At this point, however, that's water under the bridge.

novakant: Sorry, but that's just victim blaming.

*****

I too am with novakant on this.

I'm not sure the thing wj says those concerned about climate change failed at is even theoretically possible, given the readiness of humans in large numbers to manufacture and/or believe self-serving BS. Same goes for blaming the Ds for Clickbait's victory in November.

I seem to remember that at the time, or not much later than the institution of China's one-child policy, I read that the major trigger for its existence was a review by Chinese leadership of water resources.

I have looked at several websites today, starting with Wikipedia, and no one mentions water resources as a motivation for the policy. I have no idea whether the early citation was in error (and maybe an attempt to whitewash what looked like a horrific violation of human rights), or the story has been "sanitized" to make the policy look less rational than it was.

But I do remember being pretty depressed by the thought that dealing with a prospective catastrophe as vast as climate change was simply not compatible with human nature or human "rights" (including the right to fuck everyone else to enrich yourself if you could -- see n. billionaire).

By our standards, the water situation in China is currently a disaster. The tap water in the cities is unsafe to drink. People drink bottled water hoping it's genuine, not bottles refilled with tap water by some of their enterprising fellow citizens.

Most of the groundwater is polluted. The surface waters are polluted. In part because farmers overuse fertilizer.

That's where the US are heading towards, if the incoming guys get their way. To be able to afford guaranteed to be clean drinking water could become a status symbol.
Maybe we could revive the radium water tonic fad and make it highly exclusive, so we could thus get rid of some of the more obnoxiously stupid bilionaires or their (often worse) spawn.

Be rich, become enriched! Not just active but radioactive! Fission is the new fashion!

dealing with a prospective catastrophe as vast as climate change was simply not compatible with human nature

I have to say, this is the conclusion I have sadly come to. Another reason to think the Great Filter theory is probably right, and if so it's not just human nature.

Climate deniers already had their advantage before social media took hold of such a large segment of the population. Once that happened, was like the already much larger army was handed a newfound arsenal of force multipliers. Yay for us!

that's just victim blaming.

The facts have been known since the mid-70s. There has been a concerted effort by the fossil fuel industry and other inetrested parties to first deny and then obscure those facts in various ways. Finally, they conceded some of the facts, because it was impossible not to, but tried their best to slow down and undermine any efforts to actually take action.

I'm not seeing how what I said constitutes victim blaming. But perhaps I'm just not understanding something.

As for your point about how long the facts have been known, so what? Are you saying that nothing could have been done differently to get a different outcome? (Other than magically getting a lot of politicians with characteristics unlike what we actually have.) If doing something different, what exactly? What is your analysis as to why those things didn't get done, and how could they get done next time?

wj, just now: Are you saying that nothing could have been done differently to get a different outcome?

wj, in the OP: If we'd spent the past couple of decades talking about "climate change" rather than "global warming," the bulk of the country would be paying attention.

Not sure who bears the burden of proof here.

--TP

The L.A. fires were the perfect storm waiting to happen even if state and local officials had done everything right.


"But one shouldn't overpromise the results of reform. A California with more rational, liberal zoning laws and more accurately priced insurance is still going to experience wildfires.

Those wildfires will still destroy homes and tragically continue to claim lives. Better policy can mitigate the damage and reduce risk. But those risks can never be erased so long as we live on a planet that occasionally wants to kill us."
The L.A. Fires Are a Natural Disaster, Not a Policy Disaster: The Golden State has many bad policies in desperate need of reform. It's not obvious they had more than a marginal effect on the still-burning fires in Los Angeles.


TLDR summary:

"The article, "The Los Angeles Fires Are a Natural Disaster, Not a Policy Disaster" by Christian Britschgi, published on January 14, 2025, argues that while California has numerous flawed public policies, the recent devastating Los Angeles fires are primarily a natural disaster rather than a failure of policy. The article examines claims about bad environmental, zoning, land use, and insurance policies contributing to the severity of the fires but concludes that their role is marginal compared to the natural causes of this disaster.
..."

Summary of the Article

Are you saying that nothing could have been done differently to get a different outcome?

We could have sued the bejesus out of the oil companies for sponsoring denialist propaganda!

Hey, a guy can dream...

"We" who? See the comment above about the (not noticeably) courageous politicians we have. As for suits by individuals, IANAL but my understanding is that, to succeed in a suit like this, you have to show (i.e. convince a bunch of lawyers with zero scientific background) that you personally have been harmed. I don't think even entirely predictable future harm counts.

Mind, I'm totally in favor of doing something like that, even at this late date. But the way the gun manufacturers got blanket immunity doesn't leave me hopeful.

I'm not seeing how what I said constitutes victim blaming.

"Victim" may not be literally correct, although most of us are going to be victims of climate change one way or another.

But your assertion that climate change activists did it wrong, and that if only they had used the magically correct right phrasing we wouldn't be in this mess, boils down to the idea that if bad people do bad things, the bad things are somehow the fault of everyone else for not figuring out how to talk the bad guys out of it.

...or for not figuring out how to stop the bad guys one way or another. ("talking them out of it" is not a perfect analog for what you said)

But your assertion that climate change activists did it wrong, and that if only they had used the magically correct right phrasing we wouldn't be in this mess, boils down to the idea that if bad people do bad things, the bad things are somehow the fault of everyone else for not figuring out how to talk the bad guys out of it.

I seriously need to work on my communication skills!

I don't think there was a magic phrase that would have made the world perfect. I do think that words matter.

With better communication, I think there would have been less resistance. And if even as little as 10% of those currently refusing to support action took a different view, my personal opinion is that would have made a big difference in national policy.

One other thing. I would distinguish between failure and fault. Did we fail to get the idea across? Manifestly, we did. Is it our fault, specifically the fault of climate scientists, that the message got garbled? I wouldn't say so -- messaging isn't their expertise.

My ignorant take is that advocates (in this, as with any issue) are the ones who own messaging. On both sides of any issue. If the message didn't get thru, that sure looks like a reason to look at why not.**

** If I may get seriously snarky, just denouncing the wilful ignorance of the public for not understanding seems like -- wait for it -- victim blaming.

boils down to the idea that if bad people do bad things, the bad things are somehow the fault of everyone else for not figuring out how to talk the bad guys out of it
and
I would distinguish between failure and fault. Did we fail to get the idea across? Manifestly, we did. Is it our fault, specifically the fault of climate scientists, that the message got garbled? I wouldn't say so -- messaging isn't their expertise.

Watching this play out, I feel like it has to be related to Murc's law, that only Democrats have any agency over politics. This is just an observation, not trying to ding anyone here, but there is some sort of occlusion or bias that has us return to this time after time. I've got no idea how we escape this.

lj, could it be that, just because both sides have agency, that doesn't mean that one side doesn't need to use that agency to try to influence the other. That attempt may fail, precisely because the other side has agency, too.

But the fact that the attempt may fail doesn't mean the attempt shouldn't be as well executed as possible. Which includes applying knowledge of the characteristics of the target audience. That is, after all, what advertising is all about. And what has been done so effectively by those who would see negative financial impacts from efforts to address climate change.

But the fact that the attempt may fail doesn't mean the attempt shouldn't be as well executed as possible. Which includes applying knowledge of the characteristics of the target audience. That is, after all, what advertising is all about. And what has been done so effectively by those who would see negative financial impacts from efforts to address climate change.

That's psychographics. And I would argue that the activists have been doing as well as they can with what they have to combat the forces of climate denialism as they can.

Same with elections.

Our political ecologies have power asymmetries built into them that favor the side dead set against the courses of collective action that are most in the public good. If things get bad enough, then we will eventually reach a point where things tip towards change, but there is no guarantee that we will reach that tipping point before it is too late to affect the changes we need.

These things, like divorces, can't always be negotiated in a way that isn't messy and tragic because sometimes the other party is more committed to their own illusions to avoid things becoming a misguided ruin. No amount of messaging or counseling can fix things if one or both of the parties is committed to the central thing that is tearing that shared world apart.

We probably won't fix the climate in time to prevent tragedy. We probably won't fix the US in time to prevent tragedy. Our world politics are probably going to degenerate and many institutions will likely fail because there are too many people committed to the pretty lies.

But there are things that we can do to mitigate harm, and to find joy, and to make the world better than it might have been without us there to continue working for the best outcome that was within our own collective grasp so long as we can find others who are still committed to the collective good.

As far as semantics and framing are concerned, lj, nous and JanieM have done a great job at explicating what I, perhaps clumsily, was trying to get at.

Let me just reiterate that I find it a very strange framing to put the onus on climate activists rather than the perpetrators. Also, it is to my mind misleading to posit a public with child-like attributes in the middle of this conflict; a public that needs to be carefully handled and nudged in the right direction for fear of it throwing a tantrum.

What is your analysis as to why those things didn't get done, and how could they get done next time?

To cut a long story short: the powers that be didn't want to get it done. And as for what 'we' can do, as I said already: hold them accountable, combat the lies, reiterate the facts relentlessly and appeal to people's hearts and minds.

Here are some hopefully interesting links:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64241994

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53640382

4-part BBC doc on the subject (you can watch it if you google the title):

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/jul/21/big-oil-v-the-world-review-climate-crisis-bbc

Review of Steve Coll's book on Exxon

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/review-of-steve-colls-private-empire-how-exxonmobil-bent-washington-to-its-will/2012/05/11/gIQAADDpIU_story.html

Michael E Mann's book on climate denial and propaganda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Climate_War

Merchants of Doubt is on my to be read pile. Not sure I'll actually get to it, because I'm struggling with enough anger already. But maybe it can go next to novakant's list

I agree with novakant, JanieM and a few others here.

You aren’t going to find a cause with a larger number of respectable advocates making calm, rational arguments than the climate change issue. Yes, you also have radicals and a few who employ radical protest tactics that might do more harm than good. But there has just been an overwhelmingly large amount of good and useful advocacy out there. For decades.

I think some people are still innocently ignorant because people can be amazingly ignorant about all sorts of things. But people who actively deny anthropic climate change are not innocent. They are either deliberate liars or people who choose to believe lies, like one of my friends who recently told me he gets all of his news from Fox. He isn’t innocently deceived. He wants people to lie to him.

If I may get seriously snarky, just denouncing the wilful ignorance of the public for not understanding seems like -- wait for it -- victim blaming.

This is a fair call-out, IMO.

I generally agree that denouncing willful ignorance is not likely to cure it. It is, however, a frustrating and angering thing to deal with. Especially when the consequences are potentially so large.

The dilemna here is that there isn't a common understanding for deciding what's true. Most of us lack an understanding of climate science deep enough to evaluate the various claims pro and con.

So we obliged to rely on an authoritative voice. Which then leads to the question of how to decide whose voice we can consider to be authoritative.

Climate being a natural phenomenon, science would seem to be the obvious authority. But a lot of folks don't trust scientists, for a host of reasons. Some reasons are perhaps legitimate (scientists make mistakes, scientists don't always agree), many are less so (general suspicion of specialist knowledge among folks who prefer "common sense").

The mistrust of scientific authority is further heightened by misinformation deliberately introduced into the public discussion by folks who have a vested interest - a personal financial interest - in continuing the activities that are creating the problem.

To add to all of this, the tangible phenomena that might support the claims of science can often be attributed to other causes, at least when considered in isolation. Yes, it's hot, but it was this hot in 1993. Yes, it hasn't rained in two months, but there was a drought when I was a kid. Yes, the sea level on the east coast seems higher, but that could also be subsidence.

And on and on.

So, we are each faced with the choice of deciding who to believe. And to be perfectly honest, I think a lot of people - and most of the denialists I have ever engaged with on the topic - come down on the side of "what version of the story will require me to make the least change to my life". Whether that means driving a smaller car, or taking the bus or train, or god forbid investing in larger scale changes to infrastructure that will inevitably require public spending.

So we end up with debate about climate science turning into heated arguments about GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY MY HAMBURGER.

All of that is understandable - who doesn't like a hamburger? - but to me it also seems lazy and irresponsible. So yes, I am critical of most people who are denialists - people who refuse to consider the evidence of science because it will require them to change their lives in any way, whether great or small.

I do know people who are denialists who I have some respect for. I worked for many years with an extremely knowledgeable meteorologist (yes, I know, not exactly the same discipline, but still miles more knowledgeable than I am) who believes (believed, maybe?) that what appeared to be warming was a purely local phenomenon. And who marshaled evidence for his point of view. But in his case, a lot of his motivation was basically religious - he did not believe god would let humans mess up the world the way it might appear we are.

And that's not really a scientific position.

On the rare occasions that I actually try to have a meaningful conversation about this with denialists, I don't get into the science at all. I suggest they take a look at what the military and the intelligence community think, and even more significantly (because there's money on the line) what the insurance industry thinks. Or, more acurately, not what they *think*, but what they are *doing*.

Everybody understands the principle of cherchez l'argent.

I'm glad russell put "common sense" in quotes. Common sense tells me that an unusually steep climb in global average temperature that coincides with industrialization isn't something that is likely to have happened purely by chance. That's my layman's take on it.

Yes, the climate has always been subject to change in either direction. Denialist point that out all the time, as though the people who spend decades of their lives studying the Earth's climate don't know that and take it into account.

I'm preaching to the choir here, I know. But, to me, that's how common sense gets applied in the absence of personal expertise.

The same goes for the notion that the scientists claiming AGW is real are in it for the money. If you want to make money as a scientist, working for the petroleum companies is a much better bet.

Also what russell said about the military, intelligence agencies, and insurance companies. Not exactly a bunch of soshalists.

FWIW, despite my gloomy and fatalistic Great Filter comment, I do agree with novakant, nous, Janie et al. But I have some sympathy with wj, and I think part of the problem of people interpreting his comments as victim blaming is assuming his description of climate advocates' failure to convince means it is their fault. You can try, with great skill, technological knowledge, ability to think of useful metaphors and explanations etc, to make your case. If you fail, that is not your fault. But if the cause is important enough (and this one obviously is), there is no reason why advice to keep on trying different tacks should be taken as criticism. And as for the historic opponents of such efforts (Rs, the fossil fuel industry etc), I am afraid that the answer to lj's question of why only the Dems have agency is that only the Dems (and people like wj, and their international equivalents) seem somewhat capable of putting the common good above the short term desires of big money, and the human desire for continued comfort. Added to which, as we have discussed ad infinitum et nauseam, the fact that vast swathes of the electorate(s) seem to have no desire or means with which to establish the truth. Improved education? Improved regulation of media both legacy and online? It seems almost quaint to even consider such fixes.

If anyone is still interested in the psychographics of the climate skeptics/dissenters:

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/08/09/why-some-americans-do-not-see-urgency-on-climate-change/

What always strikes me when reading these things is how these people keep saying that anything public policy oriented that constrains them is "too extreme" and that the researchers should just present information and let the individuals decide for themselves.

The information has been out there for years and the people who do not want to change continue to ignore it and not consider it because they don't want their lives complicated any more than they already are.

And I'll say it again - convincing people not to do something that they don't want to do is not that hard of a lift, and the people engaged in doing this are well supported, well compensated, and have huge corporate and finance profits bankrolling their easy lift. Trying to do the opposite is extremely difficult.

I have many times been struck by the quality of Beau of the Fifth Column's vidcast explainers, and his ability to explain complex political situations in relatable, down-to-earth ways. But I went to look at his climate change explainers and thought that even he was struggling to frame the issues clearly and present things accurately. Can't say that I blame him. I know from classroom experience that doing so is a multi-stage conversation that needs a lot of reinforcement work and that takes longer than the 5-10 minutes that your typical viewer will spend on any given topic at one time.

And most of all, what we have is a collective failure of imagination when it comes to helping people understand what the actual threat of climate change looks like during the stages when we can still avoid the social cataclysm stage. We have a collective bad habit of ignoring the small things that point to a big problem until it's too late for less drastic solutions.

I'll say again - what we need for the community of the climate proactive is to start being preppers. Not dumbass-gun-nut-SHTF preppers who are focused on building their own personal anti-zombie silos, more communities of good faith mutual support who are creating as much non-governmental social infrastructure as we can around the changes we need to make happen. And we need stories about those communities that show others what they can become with collective buy-in as the S really starts to HTF.

Another thing to keep in mind - understanding climate change on a more than abstract level is hard, and your reward for doing so is to feel vulnerable and a bit disempowered. Skepticism makes people feel smart and empowered.

Easy to see which of those is going to be an easier sell.

So how can we redirect the skepticism of the average person toward climate change deniers?

Keep in mind that the US "average" includes flat earthers, young earth creationists, and other lunatics who are already inclined to believe in secret conspiracies. Can we get them, at least, to see climate denialism as a conspiracy?

--TP

Several of you seem to feel that I was blaming the advocates for addressing climate change for the fact that we aren't doing so. But that isn't where I'm coming from.

I can see blaming the folks who prefer to avoid changing, and use climate denialism as an excuse to avoid doing so. I can definitely see blaming those who, for personal financial (or ideological) reasons, claim it isn't happening, even though they know damn well it is.

But for me the point is: do we decide that we're simply doomed? That we always were, because those opponents were always there and were always going to oppose dealing with the problem?

Or do we try to figure out what we might have done differently? I suggested originally that the way the issue got framed was a problem. Not necessarily the problem, but a problem. I'm completely open to other suggestions for what else might have usefully been done differently. Unless I've missed it, so far only Tony seems to have offered a (possibly facetious) alternative.

wj, in case my convoluted phrasing didn't make it clear, I at least was absolving you of victim blaming!

I think you are doing fine at explaining most of where you are coming from, wj. I have a hard time answering your questions directly because, honestly, your questions don't align with how I approach the question of what we should do.

For example, I think climate activists mostly did the right things when trying to effect change. If there was anything done wrong, it was probably putting too much faith in good faith and people coming around to doing the right thing. But I'm unsure if seeing that sooner would have allowed activists to do anything more direct or effective to change the outcome. It's like looking at a chess match and wishing that you'd have realized the direction the opponent's strategy was going earlier so that you could change your style of play. You can learn from that, but if you start playing differently, the opponent will be responding to a different game and will make different choices. Will you win that other game? Who knows?

Nor do I think we are doomed to lose if we don't change our approach. We've already made some positive differences and developed a lot of options that we did not have before, and we understand our challenges better. There's been progress, just not enough. And with the latest rounds of elections we are coming into another moment of uncertainty. Will all that progress be undone out of greed and spite? Will the growing seriousness of the climate effects cause a backlash against the cynical, bad faith profiteers and denialists? Hard to tell until we see it start to play out and can start to realign.

I think the more serious climate effects will start to shift a lot of people's attitudes towards being more proactive and making bigger changes. I worry that these things will happen in a moment when our institutional dysfunctions make it harder to accomplish those changes. I think that a non-trivial chunk of the people resisting action on the climate will turn increasingly apocalyptic in their outlook and start living in the hope of another world in paradise, and that some of them might decide to try to hasten that end.

But I'm not writing anything off and saying we are doomed and should give up. I'm continuing to try to educate. I'm planting trees and working to make lifestyle changes. I'm working with other activists to do the things within our collective power. I'm staying in contact with my representatives and trying to keep them working towards good policy decisions.

And I'm keeping in mind that, while we look to be missing the window for our better scenarios, there are still things we do that can help ourselves and the creatures of the future to steer ourselves towards something less horrible than what we would face if we were to give up and let go of the wheel.

If we are fortunate, maybe the public scales shift just enough and we find our way into a climate future that is less than ideal, but is temporary and repairable within the lifetime of our children, and one that can change into something livable and sustainable that still supports a good life.

Thanks for that, nous.

with the latest rounds of elections we are coming into another moment of uncertainty. Will all that progress be undone out of greed and spite? Will the growing seriousness of the climate effects cause a backlash against the cynical, bad faith profiteers and denialists? Hard to tell until we see it start to play out and can start to realign.

I think it's pretty high probability that the new administration will try, try hard, to reverse our progress. Although I think it will be more about spite and ideology, with greed motivating mostly extraction industry lobbyists. The biggest impediment they will face is likely to be Republicans in Congress who don't want to lose those projects in their own districts. Slash projects in blue states and blue districts, sure. But not mine! Let's hear it for pork barrel politics.

I think that a non-trivial chunk of the people resisting action on the climate will turn increasingly apocalyptic in their outlook and start living in the hope of another world in paradise

I'd guess you are correct there. But I think there will also be a nontrivial number (in the US**) who will become a backlash against the politicians who lied to them. Given how many people are already on board on the issue, that may be the critical point. A ray of hope anyway.

** Of course, what happens in India and, especially, China will have a huge impact as well. Not sure how much popular awareness there is there. Or how much impact that awareness might have. Still, since China currently makes most of the world's solar panels, they at least have the capability to shift aware from the coal fired power plants that now dominate there.

Getting better.

"The attached document "Warming?" by wj, along with the extensive comments, explores the challenges of addressing climate change, the effectiveness of messaging strategies, and the socio-political barriers to action. The primary focus is on why public awareness and policy shifts in the U.S. have been slow, with multiple perspectives debating whether semantics, psychological resistance, or systemic problems are to blame."
Summary of "Warming?" by wj and Discussion

Why would we need AI to explain the argument to us?

I tend to disagree with wj. The underlying problem is that very many Americans feel entitled to an extraordinary share of the world's resources, and see anything which works against that as an elitist plot against them. They'll find reasons to reject arguments about climate change however carefully they might be worded.

Actions speak louder than words in this respect. If the elites talking about climate change acted as if their own energy consumption mattered, that would help. But many of them do not.

Governments often do too much and do the wrong things.

Under pure communism, Charles, there is no government.

All kidding aside, a system foundation of absolute property rights coupled with greed and pull the ladder up behind you zoning will pretty much lead to the suburban paradox: low density, unaccounted for externalities, reliance on property values to "build wealth"....well, you get what you ask for.

Incentives matter. The so-called "free market" has worked its magic, and now many millions abide in essentially unlivable areas of the country.

For example, I think climate activists mostly did the right things when trying to effect change.

This strikes me as essentially correct, nous. When agency is ascribed to only one side of a political dispute, I should think one is losing the essential core of awareness of the responsibility for observed outcomes.

I think it's pretty high probability that the new administration will try, try hard, to reverse our progress.

Trump has said publicly, "So we’re going to try and have a policy where no windmills are being built." Within spitting distance of where I live (for western values of "spitting distance") the impacts would include:

1) Loss of ~1200 manufacturing jobs in Colorado building turbines. Not installing them, manufacturing towers, nacelles, and blades.

2) Wiping out the value of a billion-dollar transmission system built in Colorado to give a big chunk of the rural plains area an opportunity to benefit from being suppliers of wind and solar power to the Front Range.

3) Ditto for a $3B transmission project under construction across Wyoming and Utah to deliver wind power from Wyoming to the Phoenix/Las Vegas/Southern California power markets. Ditto for an even bigger project under construction across New Mexico and Arizona to deliver wind and solar power from eastern New Mexico to those markets.

I'll also note that every Western Interconnect coal-burner that can be shut down frees up tens of thousands of acre-feet of valuable water rights.

Incentives matter. The so-called "free market" has worked its magic, and now many millions abide in essentially unlivable areas of the country.

Building in unlivable areas has been encouraged by regulatory interference in the insurance market.

@bobbyp...

When the Census Bureau finally joined the 21st century and made it possible to compute population densities based on built area, it turns out that suburbs in the western CB region are about twice as dense as suburbs in the rest of the country. Also that the total population density of the western region is about equal to that of the northeast region, both of which are much higher than the densities of the Midwest and South. County-based numbers have been horribly misleading for the West.

The typical western suburb, based on built-area calculations, has a density that almost all academic studies for the US classify as "urban", not "suburban".

When agency is ascribed to only one side of a political dispute, I should think one is losing the essential core of awareness of the responsibility for observed outcomes.

I wonder if I simply don't understand what "agency" means in this context.

It seems to me that acknowledging that someone can, with the right arguments, be persuaded doesn't absolve them from agency, from responsibility for their actions.

At the same time, both groups of advocates have agency in picking the arguments that they advance. That doesn't make them responsible for the actions of those they failed to persuade. But they should be able to look at their approach and ask: "What might we have profitably done different? Because what we did failed to achieve the results we wanted."

But apparent that's not what agency means here. I feel like I'm being told that the mere admission that someone can be persuaded automatically denies them agency.

it turns out that suburbs in the western CB region are about twice as dense as suburbs in the rest of the country.

There you go again, Michael, injecting data into the discussion. How do you expect anyone to successfully demonize people if you keep doing that? Because demonizing suburbanites is a moral (ideological) imperative, don't you know.

Building in unlivable areas has been encouraged by regulatory interference in the insurance market.

Interference pushed by residents of said areas who as a general rule abhor "regulatory interference" as a general principle in other public policy considerations.

Much like rurals who claim to despise "big government" but suck off the teat of agricultural subsidies and underpriced federal grazing rights.

It's all about whose ox is being gored.

I feel like I'm being told that the mere admission that someone can be persuaded automatically denies them agency.

No. I am trying to say that the assertion that the use of the term "global warming" vs. "climate change" makes little, if any difference to the political outcome of the policy debate.

The phrase "Al Gore is fat" had much more impact on this debate than any such choice of policy vocabulary you discuss here.

But I would agree that is deplorable.

Republicans used to get a lot of political milage out of "waving the bloody shirt" as a political stratagem they still, in many ways, employ to this day.

There is a lesson here.

understanding climate change on a more than abstract level is hard, and your reward for doing so is to feel vulnerable and a bit disempowered. Skepticism makes people feel smart and empowered.

I think this is important: climate sceptics display a strange mix of machismo, conspiracy beliefs and a superiority complex based on pseudo-science - all three make climate skepticism emotionally very attractive. Add in hippie punching and a general feeling resentment and you have a winning formula.

Climate activists get to hang out with the cool kids, though - and hypocritical celebrities, lol.

At the same time, both groups of advocates have agency in picking the arguments that they advance. That doesn't make them responsible for the actions of those they failed to persuade. But they should be able to look at their approach and ask: "What might we have profitably done different? Because what we did failed to achieve the results we wanted."

One thing I tell my writing students often is that they won't become good communicators if they think of rhetoric as using words to make people think the way that you want them to. Communication is not like coding a program that runs when the audience receives the message, and you keep tweaking your message until it runs the way that you want it to. It's more complex and provisional than that.

Sometimes you can fail to convince not because the message was wrong, but because the timing was wrong, or the circumstances were wrong, or the listener was missing information that they needed in order to understand, or they were misinformed or deceived about the subject under discussion.

This is why a lot of writing teachers talk about "the rhetorical situation."

My sense is that climate activism has been thwarted more by those other things than by the content of the activists messages. The tide is starting to turn as the evidence of environmental collapse becomes more apparent to casual observers, and it will continue to do so as the effects become more dire.

Which is not to say that we shouldn't continue to refine and adjust our messages, or work to make our institutions better. It's just that activists need to understand that just because they have not yet succeeded in convincing enough of the right people to tip thing in our favor does not mean that our methods have been flawed and we are failing. It may just mean that we have not yet reached a decisive inflection point when those efforts finally meet the right conditions.

This is why I mistrust the pundits and commentators. If a particular campaign strategy fails, then they immediately look to retool, and their value proposition lies in being able to say that they have found the new magic bullet that will let them win the next time. But what people see when all that advice is followed is that the people doing the campaigning are inconsistent and have no guiding convictions.

But no one gets a job as a campaign advisor by telling a candidate that they need to do more of the same thing that didn't get them elected in the last two elections, so it's magic bullets all around.

I think 'agency' in Murc's Law is a (satirical) euphemism for 'target for blame'.

One thing I tell my writing students often is that they won't become good communicators if they think of rhetoric as using words to make people think the way that you want them to.

nous -- this is one of the most useful sentences I have ever read in my life. :-)

'Nuf said for now.

nous,

Well said.

Republicans used to get a lot of political milage out of "waving the bloody shirt" as a political stratagem they still, in many ways, employ to this day.

There is a lesson here. [Emphasis added]

Exactly!

Sometimes you can fail to convince not because the message was wrong, but because the timing was wrong, or the circumstances were wrong, or the listener was missing information that they needed in order to understand, or they were misinformed or deceived about the subject under discussion.

I take your point. Although I'm thinking that imparting information needed to understand, and to correct misinformation is also part of getting the message right. "Climate change" vs "global warming" being part of that.

Not sure how we go about finding the right time or the right circumstances. Anybody got any insights on that?

I'm not sure, either, but I suspect that no version of "The climate is changing because the globe is warming" would persuade a flat-earther.

--TP

Fortunately, flat earthers are a miniscule fraction of the population. :-)

When it comes to determined ignorance, anti-vaxx idiots are a much bigger problem. They won't kill as many people as climate change deniers. Even though one such idiot is likely to be charged with trashing Federal health efforts.

Apologies for going OT, but I have a photo post up at BJ today. Visit Maine, if only in your imagination!

The comments to this entry are closed.