Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Do voters really care about climate change?   (theatlantic.com) divider line
    More: Awkward, Democratic Party, climate change, Vermont, Global warming, Senator Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Green New Deal, electric cars  
•       •       •

1139 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Aug 2019 at 4:13 AM (21 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2019-08-22 09:35:37 PM  
1 yes
 
2019-08-22 10:21:16 PM  
Yes.
 
2019-08-22 10:30:34 PM  
Yes.

If there was a candidate who could lead the country and the world to immediately take action to stop and reverse the damage, I'd vote for them no matter what. It's a same the best we're getting right now is some hand wringing by a few of the candidates.
 
2019-08-22 11:34:07 PM  
Same thinking people yes. Most people no.
 
2019-08-22 11:39:21 PM  
This voter does.
 
2019-08-23 03:15:26 AM  
When polled, more than they ever have. Ever.
 
2019-08-23 03:43:51 AM  
American politics always seemed to be divided between one party that says "We'll try to do our best to make the world a better place for everyone" and another party that says "We'll make life miserable for the people your hate."
 
2019-08-23 04:19:08 AM  
1 vote = 1 prayer
 
2019-08-23 04:30:04 AM  
People care, but not if the actions taken are going to inconvenience them. Isn't liking a tweet about climate change enough?
 
2019-08-23 04:32:03 AM  
More than anything any Republican talks about that's for farking sure.
 
2019-08-23 04:40:00 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2019-08-23 04:40:05 AM  
not enough.

Certainly not enough to make it an election issue on a national level, apparently.
Not one serious 2020 candidate seems to be going all in on the environment
 
2019-08-23 04:40:59 AM  
I am boiling slowly so it feels more like a spa than a death sentence.
 
2019-08-23 04:41:33 AM  

MrBallou: Yes.

If there was a candidate who could lead the country and the world to immediately take action to stop and reverse the damage, I'd vote for them no matter what. It's a same the best we're getting right now is some hand wringing by a few of the candidates.


With what's going on in Brazil, we could give  AOC dictatorial powers to tackle climate change and none of it would matter.
 
2019-08-23 04:42:33 AM  
Short answer, yes. Long answer, yeeeeeeeeeeees.

Given good health and genetics I could well be around for another forty years or so. I would very much please like to have something to BREATHE when I get there. Kthxbye.
 
2019-08-23 04:42:34 AM  
Some unsolicited advice for Democratic candidates: What matters is not rocking the goddamned boat.

To beat Trump you need to come across as normal.  Green New Deals? Gun control? Toleration of undocumented immigration?  All of these things cost votes, they don't earn them.

Do that stuff after you get elected if you want.  Lurch to the left now, and you will lose.  Again.  And that means we all lose.

/And you can take your "concern troll" comments and shove them up your...
//Slash
 
2019-08-23 04:48:05 AM  
Honestly? There's no way to win against the corporate masters of the world-at-large that isn't very uncivil.

Our new kings are not 14 year old girls trying to make sure they have a world for tomorrow, when they're halfway(or more) through their lives, ego-tripping to the gates of hell.
 
2019-08-23 04:49:06 AM  
Since these voters are american, and americans are mostly idiots, i'll say it's mostly no, with "yes being overwhelmingly reprisented on this site since most of the non-troll inhabitants are decidedly not morons.
 
2019-08-23 04:54:35 AM  
Unless the plan revolves around us getting to about 65-70% by 2030, on a path to 90% in 2030s, using our research facilities that are best in the world to take advantage of the step changes across the energy sector that's coming, scaling up and having top notch next gen products value added through cheap generation, the economic and quality of life ripples from this, and using our energy infrastructure expertise and high demand products (which we'd have to learn but could gain by doing) in collaborative projects across the world and in quickly developing economies so they don't feel stuck having to burn coal to live, then it's not a very good plan.

I haven't read the plan but if it doesn't include that, sweet where do we pick up the trophy as the world burns?

The potential for the US industry to crush the energy sector with technology level ups coming is enormous, we'd have electricity at home cheap as shiat, a ton of jobs with good paying apprenticeships (and you could prob volunteer to go make good $$ in a foreign country building green energy projects, vietnam would be k00) legit clean energy infrastructure products with grid software and management systems, strengthen alliances, and have a bunch of new allies while saving the motherfarking planet. fark yeah.
 
2019-08-23 04:56:32 AM  
Jobs and healthcare first.

After that we can worry about the luxury issues on the platform.

If you want to increase taxes on the working class while keeping them mired in poverty and debt , you will get nowhere.
 
2019-08-23 05:01:10 AM  

sinner4ever: Jobs and healthcare first.

After that we can worry about the luxury issues on the platform.

If you want to increase taxes on the working class while keeping them mired in poverty and debt , you will get nowhere.


the problem i see is that climate is not a "luxury issue".
the climate actually positively impacts both of these areas.
think of re-schooling coal workers to work in renewables - not all that hard, and a growth industry
diminishing costs for lung-disease related care due to less pollution is a fair trade-off
 
2019-08-23 05:03:03 AM  

WeedBong420: Unless the plan revolves around us getting to about 65-70% by 2030, on a path to 90% in 2030s, using our research facilities that are best in the world to take advantage of the step changes across the energy sector that's coming, scaling up and having top notch next gen products value added through cheap generation, the economic and quality of life ripples from this, and using our energy infrastructure expertise and high demand products (which we'd have to learn but could gain by doing) in collaborative projects across the world and in quickly developing economies so they don't feel stuck having to burn coal to live, then it's not a very good plan.

I haven't read the plan but if it doesn't include that, sweet where do we pick up the trophy as the world burns?

The potential for the US industry to crush the energy sector with technology level ups coming is enormous, we'd have electricity at home cheap as shiat, a ton of jobs with good paying apprenticeships (and you could prob volunteer to go make good $$ in a foreign country building green energy projects, vietnam would be k00) legit clean energy infrastructure products with grid software and management systems, strengthen alliances, and have a bunch of new allies while saving the motherfarking planet. fark yeah.


Oh and I don't know why more Democrats don't approach green energy like the second paragraph (you could even just concentrate on domestic benefits).

It's such a big opportunity, and even most Repubs understand "energy", even oilfield guys are coming around on wind. It's expanding in a bunch of red states, and they understand the tax $$ and lease $$.

Talk about the local tax base benefits from projects in rural areas, landowner lease $$, construction jobs, manufacturing jobs, cheap energy, etc etc. it's all true, and demand is only increasing. Point to all the red states that have jumped on board. Hammer it.

Don't call it a "Green New Deal", call it the "America Energy Leadership" deal or something.
 
2019-08-23 05:06:58 AM  

WeedBong420: WeedBong420: Unless the plan revolves around us getting to about 65-70% by 2030, on a path to 90% in 2030s, using our research facilities that are best in the world to take advantage of the step changes across the energy sector that's coming, scaling up and having top notch next gen products value added through cheap generation, the economic and quality of life ripples from this, and using our energy infrastructure expertise and high demand products (which we'd have to learn but could gain by doing) in collaborative projects across the world and in quickly developing economies so they don't feel stuck having to burn coal to live, then it's not a very good plan.

I haven't read the plan but if it doesn't include that, sweet where do we pick up the trophy as the world burns?

The potential for the US industry to crush the energy sector with technology level ups coming is enormous, we'd have electricity at home cheap as shiat, a ton of jobs with good paying apprenticeships (and you could prob volunteer to go make good $$ in a foreign country building green energy projects, vietnam would be k00) legit clean energy infrastructure products with grid software and management systems, strengthen alliances, and have a bunch of new allies while saving the motherfarking planet. fark yeah.

Oh and I don't know why more Democrats don't approach green energy like the second paragraph (you could even just concentrate on domestic benefits).

It's such a big opportunity, and even most Repubs understand "energy", even oilfield guys are coming around on wind. It's expanding in a bunch of red states, and they understand the tax $$ and lease $$.

Talk about the local tax base benefits from projects in rural areas, landowner lease $$, construction jobs, manufacturing jobs, cheap energy, etc etc. it's all true, and demand is only increasing. Point to all the red states that have jumped on board. Hammer it.

Don't call it a "Green New Deal", call it the "America Energy Leadership" deal or s ...


Yup...it's not the issue, it's the marketing of the issue
 
2019-08-23 05:09:07 AM  
Yes but I am but powerless to do anything meaningful about it. For every person who gives a damn there are ten who don't.
 
2019-08-23 05:13:48 AM  
The US voters have long established a tradition of caring about not having to pay for measures tackling climate change.

So, yes.
 
2019-08-23 05:15:46 AM  

Man On Pink Corner: Some unsolicited advice for Democratic candidates: What matters is not rocking the goddamned boat.

To beat Trump you need to come across as normal.  Green New Deals? Gun control? Toleration of undocumented immigration?  All of these things cost votes, they don't earn them.

Do that stuff after you get elected if you want.  Lurch to the left now, and you will lose.  Again.  And that means we all lose.

/And you can take your "concern troll" comments and shove them up your...
//Slash


"In order to win elections, Democrats must attempt to change nothing, and promise to conserve the Trump-era status quo. Any attempt to run on a reform platform or to meaningfully distinguish yourself from Trump would be abnormal and unpopular and you shouldn't do it. Forget issue polls. Just accept everything the way it is.

"Why no, I am not a conservative concern troll, how dare you suggest that."
 
2019-08-23 05:29:36 AM  
Yes.
 
2019-08-23 05:35:05 AM  

pkjun: "In order to win elections, Democrats must attempt to change nothing, and promise to conserve the Trump-era status quo. Any attempt to run on a reform platform or to meaningfully distinguish yourself from Trump would be abnormal and unpopular and you shouldn't do it. Forget issue polls. Just accept everything the way it is.


There was a status quo before Trump.

Be like Obama, and you'll win.

Seems simple enough.
 
2019-08-23 05:37:36 AM  
In the abstract, yes. But once solutions begin to encroach on their routine, people tend to make excuses.

This is a thing we've been aware of since the 70s, and look how much we've done about it since.
 
2019-08-23 05:47:40 AM  
Voters care. The real problem is that it's inconvenient to rich people. Consumers don't care where their electricity comes from when they plug into a wall socket. It's the rich guy who owns the coal plant that cares. And he's paying for campaign ads to make sure you don't stop him from making his money just to save a planet he's leaving soon anyway. That's where the "inconvenience" argument really comes from.
 
2019-08-23 05:47:45 AM  
When the climate is ruined for good, you'll wish you never said it could wait.
 
2019-08-23 05:49:42 AM  

Uranus: sinner4ever: Jobs and healthcare first.

After that we can worry about the luxury issues on the platform.

If you want to increase taxes on the working class while keeping them mired in poverty and debt , you will get nowhere.

the problem i see is that climate is not a "luxury issue".
the climate actually positively impacts both of these areas.
think of re-schooling coal workers to work in renewables - not all that hard, and a growth industry
diminishing costs for lung-disease related care due to less pollution is a fair trade-off


We were told tech was going to be the future of our economy and provide jobs to replace those lost to free trade.
It is a talking point nothing more.
The moment someone develops a product ,it will be sent to China where they supply as many slaves as you need without personally getting your hands dirty.
You might create a small class of renewables millionaires and billionaires but they feel no empathy or loyalty to this country and its citizens.
Democrats working to tax low wage citizens for green policies will only lead to more losses for Democrats and we know they don't tax the rich.
 
2019-08-23 05:53:53 AM  
Not enough and it's too late anyway.
 
2019-08-23 05:56:31 AM  

sinner4ever: Uranus: sinner4ever: Jobs and healthcare first.

After that we can worry about the luxury issues on the platform.

If you want to increase taxes on the working class while keeping them mired in poverty and debt , you will get nowhere.

the problem i see is that climate is not a "luxury issue".
the climate actually positively impacts both of these areas.
think of re-schooling coal workers to work in renewables - not all that hard, and a growth industry
diminishing costs for lung-disease related care due to less pollution is a fair trade-off

We were told tech was going to be the future of our economy and provide jobs to replace those lost to free trade.
It is a talking point nothing more.
The moment someone develops a product ,it will be sent to China where they supply as many slaves as you need without personally getting your hands dirty.
You might create a small class of renewables millionaires and billionaires but they feel no empathy or loyalty to this country and its citizens.
Democrats working to tax low wage citizens for green policies will only lead to more losses for Democrats and we know they don't tax the rich.


Cool story.

What's the job outlook for a world with everyone dead of hypoxia.
 
2019-08-23 05:58:23 AM  
Doesn't matter how many people believe in it, climate change needs to be dealt with.
 
2019-08-23 05:58:52 AM  

sinner4ever: Uranus: sinner4ever: Jobs and healthcare first.

After that we can worry about the luxury issues on the platform.

If you want to increase taxes on the working class while keeping them mired in poverty and debt , you will get nowhere.

the problem i see is that climate is not a "luxury issue".
the climate actually positively impacts both of these areas.
think of re-schooling coal workers to work in renewables - not all that hard, and a growth industry
diminishing costs for lung-disease related care due to less pollution is a fair trade-off

We were told tech was going to be the future of our economy and provide jobs to replace those lost to free trade.
It is a talking point nothing more.
The moment someone develops a product ,it will be sent to China where they supply as many slaves as you need without personally getting your hands dirty.
You might create a small class of renewables millionaires and billionaires but they feel no empathy or loyalty to this country and its citizens.
Democrats working to tax low wage citizens for green policies will only lead to more losses for Democrats and we know they don't tax the rich.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2019-08-23 06:08:09 AM  
Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but politicians should be the adults in the room who do and act upon it.
 
2019-08-23 06:10:30 AM  
We had a federal election this year in Australia where one of our major parties had significantly better climate policies than the other. I think the contrast between the two was a similar story at our federal election in 2007. The big contextual difference between those elections is the global economy tanked in 2008 and has never really gotten back.

The election result was very different this year to 2007, the environment lost. I think many voters have stopped giving a shiat about climate change and the environment in general. Especially when economically, times are tougher.

Voters think that good climate and environmental policies are a luxury we can't economically afford right now.
 
2019-08-23 06:12:25 AM  

Ghastly: American politics always seemed to be divided between one party that says "We'll try to do our best to make the world a better place for everyone" and another party that says "We'll make life miserable for the people your hate."


This is true, but there's no way to tell which party is which! This is why I'm really on the fence for 2020...
 
2019-08-23 06:19:39 AM  

Aussie_As: We had a federal election this year in Australia where one of our major parties had significantly better climate policies than the other. I think the contrast between the two was a similar story at our federal election in 2007. The big contextual difference between those elections is the global economy tanked in 2008 and has never really gotten back.

The election result was very different this year to 2007, the environment lost. I think many voters have stopped giving a shiat about climate change and the environment in general. Especially when economically, times are tougher.

Voters think that good climate and environmental policies are a luxury we can't economically afford right now.


The voters also forgot about a fair go and doing the right thing.  I got mine!
 
2019-08-23 06:25:41 AM  

Aussie_As: Voters think that good climate and environmental policies are a luxury we can't economically afford right now.


Which is very shortsighted since no one can afford the consequences of a significant change of climate.

I hope Canadians vote well when it's our turn.
 
2019-08-23 06:27:21 AM  
It depends one which one's you're talking about.  I think most of the smart people in this country DO care.  And we are very frustrated that the people currently in charge not only don't care, but they are actively rolling back protections put in place by people that cared.

There is a whole another section of voters that would vote for tRump again.  They do not care about climate change.  No one farking bit.

Having said that, not enough people care.  Because it is not happening fast enough to care.  It will be slow enough that we can move inland, replant crops, etc...  The poor will be the one's that die first, and that just means less people to feed.  So even among the people that can make a difference, there aren't enough to care.  It won't affect them.
 
2019-08-23 06:32:04 AM  
Voters may care, or may not, but they don't have an easy way to impact this. They can say they care all they want, but as far as I know there isn't really a national energy policy beyond "make sure we have a lot" (or as Obama called it, "all of the above" which can be translated as "more of the same"). Fossil fuels are very heavily subsidized, while renewables get a pittance. This is why we've had 10 years of shale oil, great for cheap gas but also a great way to destroy the earth.

So vote Democrat, and get "well, we'll do something ineffectual that won't make anyone mad" like Obama's small step towards tighter emissions regs, or vote Republican and get "we literally want to burn everything down". They literally are against self-preservation.

Representatives will literally do anything to fark over voters if they DO vote for changes, too. Florida voted for high speed rail between Tampa, Orlando, and Miami - nope, the supposed representatives didn't want it, and they literally put an anti-rail initiative on the ballot after stalling until the next election. Which then passed, voters being idiots sometimes too.

I don't know, I think it's the single most important issue out there - literally an issue that defines whether or not there will be civilization in 100 years - but I also think the changes to guarantee there IS civilization in 100 years would scare the shiat out of a lot of people. The changes we need are serious, and not limited to climate impacts - our impacts on habitat, biodiversity, and the nitrogen cycle need to badly be dealt with as well. We literally have to remake society. There is no subtle way to do this, I think. It would have to be like a war effort, and I don't think people as a whole are ready for that. Especially as we haven't had a serious "war effort" that required something out of lots of people since maybe Vietnam.

The thing is, the impacts occur in a way that is getting obvious but is still diffuse and it's simply too big for people to grasp. And the future impacts are completely beyond what we can easily imagine. I think we're just gonna roll into it at speed. You would have to convert an entire society of car drivers to a combination of electric cars and public transit (and even bicycles!). You have to convert a society of air travel back to trains. It's big.
 
2019-08-23 06:35:05 AM  
I can't think of a single thing that scares me more than climate change, soooooo...  Yeahhhh.
 
2019-08-23 06:42:35 AM  

WeedBong420: WeedBong420: Unless the plan revolves around us getting to about 65-70% by 2030, on a path to 90% in 2030s, using our research facilities that are best in the world to take advantage of the step changes across the energy sector that's coming, scaling up and having top notch next gen products value added through cheap generation, the economic and quality of life ripples from this, and using our energy infrastructure expertise and high demand products (which we'd have to learn but could gain by doing) in collaborative projects across the world and in quickly developing economies so they don't feel stuck having to burn coal to live, then it's not a very good plan.

I haven't read the plan but if it doesn't include that, sweet where do we pick up the trophy as the world burns?

The potential for the US industry to crush the energy sector with technology level ups coming is enormous, we'd have electricity at home cheap as shiat, a ton of jobs with good paying apprenticeships (and you could prob volunteer to go make good $$ in a foreign country building green energy projects, vietnam would be k00) legit clean energy infrastructure products with grid software and management systems, strengthen alliances, and have a bunch of new allies while saving the motherfarking planet. fark yeah.

Oh and I don't know why more Democrats don't approach green energy like the second paragraph (you could even just concentrate on domestic benefits).

It's such a big opportunity, and even most Repubs understand "energy", even oilfield guys are coming around on wind. It's expanding in a bunch of red states, and they understand the tax $$ and lease $$.

Talk about the local tax base benefits from projects in rural areas, landowner lease $$, construction jobs, manufacturing jobs, cheap energy, etc etc. it's all true, and demand is only increasing. Point to all the red states that have jumped on board. Hammer it.

Don't call it a "Green New Deal", call it the "America Energy Leadership" deal or something.


Yeah but I couldn't continue my family's storied history of digging for coal in that scenario, so why would I vote for that?
 
2019-08-23 06:43:34 AM  

Literally Addicted: Aussie_As: Voters think that good climate and environmental policies are a luxury we can't economically afford right now.

Which is very shortsighted since no one can afford the consequences of a significant change of climate.

I hope Canadians vote well when it's our turn.


Oh hell yeah, I wasn't trying to say I supported the position, it's insanely short sighted. And Australians produce a fair whack of carbon per capita. But even if the environment didn't win votes I'm glad our coal mining and exporting practices were at least an election issue and it's being discussed because there's still hope for next time. Far worse when everyone's turning a conveniently blind eye.
 
2019-08-23 06:46:41 AM  
The ecological collapse has already started, it's like trying to stop an avalanche in mid slide, now.  But we need to do all we can to mitigate the damage, see what can still be saved.
 
2019-08-23 06:52:57 AM  

WeedBong420: WeedBong420: Unless the plan revolves around us getting to about 65-70% by 2030, on a path to 90% in 2030s, using our research facilities that are best in the world to take advantage of the step changes across the energy sector that's coming, scaling up and having top notch next gen products value added through cheap generation, the economic and quality of life ripples from this, and using our energy infrastructure expertise and high demand products (which we'd have to learn but could gain by doing) in collaborative projects across the world and in quickly developing economies so they don't feel stuck having to burn coal to live, then it's not a very good plan.

I haven't read the plan but if it doesn't include that, sweet where do we pick up the trophy as the world burns?

The potential for the US industry to crush the energy sector with technology level ups coming is enormous, we'd have electricity at home cheap as shiat, a ton of jobs with good paying apprenticeships (and you could prob volunteer to go make good $$ in a foreign country building green energy projects, vietnam would be k00) legit clean energy infrastructure products with grid software and management systems, strengthen alliances, and have a bunch of new allies while saving the motherfarking planet. fark yeah.

Oh and I don't know why more Democrats don't approach green energy like the second paragraph (you could even just concentrate on domestic benefits).

It's such a big opportunity, and even most Repubs understand "energy", even oilfield guys are coming around on wind. It's expanding in a bunch of red states, and they understand the tax $$ and lease $$.

Talk about the local tax base benefits from projects in rural areas, landowner lease $$, construction jobs, manufacturing jobs, cheap energy, etc etc. it's all true, and demand is only increasing. Point to all the red states that have jumped on board. Hammer it.

Don't call it a "Green New Deal", call it the "America Energy Leadership" deal or s ...


There is no current financial incentive for those in power and those controlling the dominant industries.  We as taxpayers are going to end up funding all of this by shifting tax burdens further away from those industries in exchange for greater R&D and implementation.

So if you want Dems or anyone else to sell it to the people they're going to have to sell a massive price tag to go with it.  And that's very hard to do in a country where you have to show an immediate threat to spur action and slaughtering little kids still doesn't move the needle.
 
2019-08-23 06:53:13 AM  

Alphax: The ecological collapse has already started, it's like trying to stop an avalanche in mid slide, now.  But we need to do all we can to mitigate the damage, see what can still be saved.


*looks at burning amazon*

Yeah. Mitigation. That's gonna work.
 
2019-08-23 06:53:18 AM  
Many won't until it's far too late, and then they will demand to hear why this is the fault of gay liberal baby-murdering Mexicans.
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report