U.S. Politics

[limpid]

26 minutes ago, sidcow said:

What is it about being right wing that automatically puts you against green energy? Why the parallel? 

Conservatism. The same people who would have been against steam power, then internal combustion, then people having cars, womeo voting. divorces, etc. Everything was better in the past for each individual's value of "past".

"Mining was good enough to kill my grandad so now I want it to kill future generations."

[blandy]

32 minutes ago, sidcow said:

What is it about being right wing that automatically puts you against green energy? Why the parallel? 

As well as the answers already given, and which are good answers, there's the "freedom" aspect - as in "If I want to dig up coal from my land and sell it to people, to feed my kids, who are the state to come along and stop me?" or "If I want to heat my home by burning Oils, who are the state to come along and tell me I have to buy a wind turbine or a heat pump?". It's a kind of individualism thing, too - the rights of the individual (to burn coal or dig coal) trump those of the collective (not to have poisoned air and water). "The state has no place telling me how I heat my home, or run my business" kind of thing.

[bickster]

34 minutes ago, sidcow said:

What is it about being right wing that automatically puts you against green energy? Why the parallel? 

You know the established link between being right wing and low IQ… it’s that.

[il_serpente]

A lot of it these days is, at least among right wing voters vs. politicians, is a tribal thing.  The libs are pushing green policies?   Must be bad for me.   And then the politicians adopt positions they think their base want them to hold.  This is especially true now in the US, where Republicans are afraid to go against Trump and the MAGA base.

[TheAuthority]

His cold Is better.

 

[TheAuthority]

In a weird way, Biden looking so poor on the debate stage may galvanize Dem voters. I kind of “oh shit” moment that the very real possibility is that Trump is going to take back over. 
 

Project 25 or whatever it’s called is terrifying and this time the wacos are ready from day 1 to implement it.

[LondonLax]

3 hours ago, one_ian_taylor said:

Some contributing factors  I think are widespread lobbying  by businesses/business owners whose business model is threatened by green energy (e.g. Koch brothers), innate resistance to new ways of doing things ("we've  always done things this way...") and an aversion to any perceived controls on behaviours ("don't  tell me not to burn whatever  I like" or as Eric Pickles memorably had it, people being free to chuck half their chicken tikka masala in the bin). But there are no do other factors. It's  a subject worth a thesis,  because the benefits of green energy  are something that any government  should want,  right or left (and indeed, many right wingers have done in the past, Michael Leibreich, Schwarzenegger, John Gummer to mention a handful)

 

3 hours ago, limpid said:

Conservatism. The same people who would have been against steam power, then internal combustion, then people having cars, womeo voting. divorces, etc. Everything was better in the past for each individual's value of "past".

"Mining was good enough to kill my grandad so now I want it to kill future generations."

 

3 hours ago, blandy said:

As well as the answers already given, and which are good answers, there's the "freedom" aspect - as in "If I want to dig up coal from my land and sell it to people, to feed my kids, who are the state to come along and stop me?" or "If I want to heat my home by burning Oils, who are the state to come along and tell me I have to buy a wind turbine or a heat pump?". It's a kind of individualism thing, too - the rights of the individual (to burn coal or dig coal) trump those of the collective (not to have poisoned air and water). "The state has no place telling me how I heat my home, or run my business" kind of thing.

These answers are probably part of it but I also feel like they are mocking/sneering to some degree.

There is a simpler explanation that the energy transition we need to undertake is going to cost us an extraordinary amount of money, that is if it is even possible to transition to renewable energy without significantly compromising our current western lifestyles. Essentially the kind of shift requited, and the associated investment, is going to come at a significant cost to our current way of life. We are kidding if we think driving electric cars and having some solar panels on the roof is going to fix climate change for 9 billion people  

So taking it further, if certain people are skeptical of governments and the ’doomsday scenarios’ they present then these people will certainly push back on having to enact the level of change required to ‘prevent’ them. 

Personally I don’t think the majority of people are prepared to do what it will take to curb climate change, including many progressive types, not just these conservatives at the forefront of this rejection.

In my opinion humanity will be reacting to the fallout as best we can rather than preventing the impact. 

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Personally I don’t think the majority of people are prepared to do what it will take to curb climate change, including many progressive types, not just these conservatives at the forefront of this rejection.

In my opinion humanity will be reacting to the fallout as best we can rather than preventing the impact. 

Completely agree with that part. The level of tangible jeopardy is not sufficient to cause "us" to make the decisions and take the necessary actions. By the time they are, it'll be too late.

But the lack of leadership from politicians is part of the problem. The likes of Trump ought to be absorbing the evidence from the experts and using their skills to persuade the public, but they do the opposite.

[TreeVillan]

4 hours ago, bickster said:

You know the established link between being right wing and low IQ… it’s that.

I didn't realise you were right wing yourself? 

[LondonLax]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Completely agree with that part. The level of tangible jeopardy is not sufficient to cause "us" to make the decisions and take the necessary actions. By the time they are, it'll be too late.

But the lack of leadership from politicians is part of the problem. The likes of Trump ought to be absorbing the evidence from the experts and using their skills to persuade the public, but they do the opposite.

There are politicians who are willing to tell us all about the nightmare scenarios but they don’t win votes.

The politicians who step in saying ‘it will all be fine if we just tinker around the edges’ or ‘it’s all a bunch of rubbish conjured up to increase your taxes’ are the ones people are interested in hearing from. 

[LondonLax]

2 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

His cold Is better.

 

He’s also much better talking off the teleprompter than when he has to think on his feet. It will be interesting to see how the next debate goes for him. 

[nick76]

 

[one_ian_taylor]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

 

 

These answers are probably part of it but I also feel like they are mocking/sneering to some degree.

There is a simpler explanation that the energy transition we need to undertake is going to cost us an extraordinary amount of money, that is if it is even possible to transition to renewable energy without significantly compromising our current western lifestyles. Essentially the kind of shift requited, and the associated investment, is going to come at a significant cost to our current way of life. We are kidding if we think driving electric cars and having some solar panels on the roof is going to fix climate change for 9 billion people  

So taking it further, if certain people are skeptical of governments and the ’doomsday scenarios’ they present then these people will certainly push back on having to enact the level of change required to ‘prevent’ them. 

Personally I don’t think the majority of people are prepared to do what it will take to curb climate change, including many progressive types, not just these conservatives at the forefront of this rejection.

In my opinion humanity will be reacting to the fallout as best we can rather than preventing the impact. 

This is  true. My point was made more in relation to those right wing political leaders who seek to obfuscate, misinform and protect the status quo.

In all likelihood,  we are as you say at the point even now where we will need to adapt very quickly to some big changes. The later we leave action, the harder and costlier it becomes to mitigate the impacts of fossil fuel use and the more severe the impacts.

It's  also fair to say that the costs are beyond what many might - at the moment  anyway - be prepared to pay. But the Stern report  made the point many years ago that  the costs of inaction would be far worse. 

As for those politicians that have delayed action to the detriment of so much (scrapping of green policies by the coalition has added huge sums to energy bills in the  long term for example), I despise them. 

 

Edit: way off topic,  sorry - Trump is just a continuation of a long line of leaders who are quite happy to mislead and to help with the impact it will have on others - by the time the shit really hits the fan, they will have made their money and had their power 

Edited Saturday at 18:22 by one_ian_taylor

[villa4europe]

81 year old rich white man Vs 78 year old incredibly rich white man

It is pretty **** mental that the yanks think these pair represent them in any kind of way

And for as much as they hammer biden on his age trump ain't young, come the end of their next term biden would be 86 trump 82, that's bordering on "good innings age" the debate should start to factor in the vice presidents cos there's every danger they could take over half way through 

[nick76]

6 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

81 year old rich white man Vs 78 year old incredibly rich white man

It is pretty **** mental that the yanks think these pair represent them in any kind of way

And for as much as they hammer biden on his age trump ain't young, come the end of their next term biden would be 86 trump 82, that's bordering on "good innings age" the debate should start to factor in the vice presidents cos there's every danger they could take over half way through 

We don’t even know which butt kisser Trump is going to pick as his VP.

I assume he has to pick by the Republican Convention in a few weeks but I don’t know if that is a definite rule (although Trump never follows rules anyway).

[villa4europe]

14 minutes ago, nick76 said:

We don’t even know which butt kisser Trump is going to pick as his VP.

I assume he has to pick by the Republican Convention in a few weeks but I don’t know if that is a definite rule (although Trump never follows rules anyway).

Trump less so but biden could die of old age during his term 

How do you reconcile that as like an 18 year old voter?

It's hard enough in America as it is, biden is an old white man from the north west, he doesn't represent an 18 year black kid from new Mexico and thats the weird thing about populist politics where in reality it's biden it's the democrats at large but that's not the reality 

[Genie]

6 hours ago, sidcow said:

What is it about being right wing that automatically puts you against green energy? Why the parallel? 

and anti-vax.

[Nor-Cal Villan]

35 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Trump less so but biden could die of old age during his term 

How do you reconcile that as like an 18 year old voter?

It's hard enough in America as it is, biden is an old white man from the north west, he doesn't represent an 18 year black kid from new Mexico and thats the weird thing about populist politics where in reality it's biden it's the democrats at large but that's not the reality 

Not a big deal, but Biden is from Delaware (though born in Pennsylvania) which very generally would be considered north east but to many it would still be part of the Mid-Atlantic region (it would be the very northern tip of Mid-Atlantic). Northwest is Oregon, Washington, & Idaho. Sorry for the pedantry

[villa4europe]

Just now, Nor-Cal Villan said:

Not a big deal, but Biden is from Delaware (though born in Pennsylvania) which very generally would be considered north east but to many it would still be part of the Mid-Atlantic region (it would be the very northern tip of Mid-Atlantic). Northwest is Oregon, Washington, & Idaho. Sorry for the pedantry

Sorry simple mistake north east rather than north west

But you get what I mean, a man from Delaware and a man from say Montana are two very different people 

[Nor-Cal Villan]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

81 year old rich white man Vs 78 year old incredibly rich white man

It is pretty **** mental that the yanks think these pair represent them in any kind of way

And for as much as they hammer biden on his age trump ain't young, come the end of their next term biden would be 86 trump 82, that's bordering on "good innings age" the debate should start to factor in the vice presidents cos there's every danger they could take over half way through 

I don’t think very many of us here who think these two represent us at all, not by a stretch, but there’s not much individuals can do to influence who the respective parties offer up as candidates. All we can do is vote/not vote for the options presented to us. 
 

And yes, that does suck mightily