Climate Change

I've decided that the best way to deal with it is to finish my physics degree and then go and invent a source of cheap, free, clean energy (how hard could it possibly be, anyways?), then drive all other energy industries out of business so I can rule the world with an iron fis— er, save the planet.

I'm wondering if the line "The House of Saud thanks you for your support" would be a good meme to start using in response when people dismiss your attempts to talk about getting off of oil.

USAF: I don't give a fuck about the environment, the environment and life on Earth can adapt to a warming climate. There's no guarantee that we can.

Well, still, nobody will believe that.

It's not really about the facts you present, it's how you present them. Play up the angles people like, and then you get the same basic results either way. Most people don't give two shits about the environment, but energy security? That you can work with.

So the "House of Saud" line would work, you think?

What about "Coal production gives off more radiation than nuclear plants, y'know"? I'm shooting for pithy and catchy.

"The House of Saud" thing would be quite amusing, though as I understand it we get a lot of oil from/through Canada—more so than the Middle East or Venezuela...

I love how the only way to get anything done in this country is through smart propaganda.

You let us deal with those Albertan oil barons up here and we'll get back to you in the U.S., OK? One battle at a time.

Psst, any other Canadians here? Erock? How the fuck do we get Harper and the Alberta oil lobby out of our politics again?

Besides, there's nothing wrong with propaganda if the information it gives is factual. After all, propaganda, theoretically, just means "news given by the government." I.e. every PSA ever is "propaganda," even if we might not think of it as such.

So, really, private individuals can't even make propaganda. Only the government can.

@ deathjavu

Let me put it this way instead: If you call someone lazy, you're outright insulting them. They're not going to listen to another word you have to say because of that. Worse, they may even interpret it as: "You're insulting me simply because I don't share your opinion." For that reason, it's not a good tactic when you're trying to convince someone to come around to your way of thinking.

As for what I would suggest, there are two major areas that should be focused on before people start paying attention to this issue: Relatabiliy and Rhetoric.

The thing is, convincing people about the consequences of climate change is an uphill battle manly because those consequences will happen sometime in the nebulous far future. It's really hard to think that a problem is directly relatable and will affect you when the most dire of consequences won't happen for another 50-100 years. "I'll be dead or surely people will have thought of something by then" and so on.

To bring current events into the issue, people care more about the economy than the environment right now because people are more worried about finding/keeping a job and paying the bills because it's a problem that's happening right now. It's something that everyone can relate to. With that in mind, now would be a good time to start investing in green jobs and jobs that focus on creating alternative sources of energy. Like others have pointed out, there are people out there who have a vested interest in having these jobs never see the light of day, but the public is demanding jobs and, if the right argument is used, we could start seeing more of these jobs.

Furthermore, when it comes to fear, there's only so much a person can take before their minds just tune it out. Hell, as a child, I remember being scared shitless that the world would explode before the week was out for all the doomsday scenarios they made about climate change back when I was a kid and, eventually, I just stopped listening for the longest time because that was better than living in a state of constant fear over something I couldn't control. For this reason, I think climate change advocates would be more effective if they changed their rhetoric. Instead of implying or outright stating that we're all going to die someday, the argument should focus less on the consequences of climate change and more on, for example, the immediate benefits of having a healthy environment; something that would have an effect on the here and now.

edited 9th Nov '11 8:27:13 PM by RedViking

I once used the line "Live in a nuclear plant instead of near a coal plant, you're less likely to get cancer that way" or some such.

Ooooh, snappy!

You could always go with the Banana page, that's always good for a laugh.

Necroing to bring news of passing a major milestone.

But yeah, we're fucked.

We're not fucked. We're adaptive species who has been through worse climate change with barely any technology except for crude stone tools, and we survived.

Lots of people are gonna die either way, though.

Even if you convinced a ton of individuals to make change to their daily lives regarding the environment, it still doesn't address large entities that are corporations that are doing bad stuff to save a buck or make a profit, and there's a lot of those said entities. If they aren't going to change, what is going to make them change their mind?

Then there's also the fact that on the individual level, a person has the stresses of family, school, work, bills, food, and other stuff they need to take care off if they want less problems. I am not saying this excuses them to just ignore the current problem, but when they have to deal with issues that can change their lives in a day if they don't deal with it quickly, the last thing they are gonna think about is how they can reduce their emissions.

If you've read this article, you'd know that the current average CO 2 levels are far higher than anything witnessed by modern humans since hundreds of thousands of years ago — in fact, the last time it hit such levels was long before humans appeared on Earth. The average since the last Ice Age was always around 200 million parts, up until the late 19th century when industrial manufacturing and fossil fuel burning skyrocketed.

Besides, we can't say "we've been through worse climate change" when we have no idea how bad the incoming climate change we'll be. There is no geological precedent for what we've done to the planet.

Well a lot of organizations are lobbying to try to change politicians minds to pass laws that make it hard for corporations to pollute. Such as the protests against Keystone XL, also 350.org is doing a big divestment movement, which is where organizations (mostly colleges but some churches and even cities) take all of their stocks out of polluting corporations.

I live a rather uneventful life where I'm working on creative projects and my Bachelor's Degree because I don't have a girlfriend or a job to give my life any real satisfaction beyond the monotony of it all. And I remain terrified that if I don't use my virginal nothing of a social and romantic void that is my life to sign as many petitions that get forwarded to me the world will collapse under the incompetence of governments that get bought out by corporations that sell us all out into oblivion. I'm usually in a constant state of panic when it comes to global warming, because any and all attempts at solving anything other that the petitions I sign feel impotent and hopeless to prevent the grim future that otherwise awaits humanity.

So my opinion of global warming is that it's real but I'm powerless to do anything about it and thinking about how horrible it is gives me anxiety attacks just mentioning it.

You've also got to convince those in China, India and the Developing World to change as well — which might send them straight back into Poverty, if done badly. That's the trouble.

Forgot about that as well. This is on a global scale so even if we convinced our own people to make changes, what are the odds that other countries will follow suit?

Depends on economies of scale. If whoever has the most consumers with disposable income finds a way to make alternative energy cheap, then other countries will follow. Make the markets work for the climate rather than against it.

China and the US, then, if only by sheer weight of population. How is China doing on the green technology, anyway?