The fact that climate change is a serious threat to humanity has been clear since, at the absolute latest, the early 2000s. But given the context of the latest IPCC report, we’re out of time to avert disaster. We need to drastically change things right now, or it’s too late to avoid massive consequences from global warming.
And, obviously, that’s just not happening. A large part of the problem is straight-up denialism coming out from one of the primary parties in one of the most energy-greedy nations in the world.
Ignoring, for the moment, the normal person on the street who probably fell for propaganda and at least has some excuse…
How will history look back on people like James Inhofe, Charles Koch, and Christopher Monckton? People who staked large parts of their careers on lying about climate change, when they pretty much had to know that what they were doing was wrong? How will history see the propagandists like Frank Lutz who saw the problem and decided that spin and lying was a good idea?
Obviously, it’s a fever dream to imagine any of these people standing in Den Haag for crimes against humanity, but I cannot imagine that, once the consequences become more and more clear, these people end up looking like anything other than monsters in the same category as Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. It’s just a damn shame that these people will die too soon to see those consequences, and too late to avoid doing any more damage, i.e. not literally right fucking now.
The question is really framed around the ideologues who reject science when it suits them. How do you think such people will be regarded in the long run?
I think they will look like garden variety crackpots, such as those who drink colloidal silver until they turn blue from all those health benefits they are getting. I don’t think they will be regarded as mass murders.
If they are accepting that it is happening, but denying what is causing it (as absurd as that is), then they are still refusing to do anything about it.
If there is an asteroid coming at us, and we have say, 75 years to do something about it, in 74 years, will we still be saying that nothing needs to be done about it, because we were not the cuase?
But the problem arises when you have those crackpots running the country. I don’t think history will condemn specific deniers who are just cranks. But when the entire Republican Party platform is built around science denial in general, and AGW denial in particular, that will not be forgotten. Neither will the electorate who voted for them. I think history will look back on this and ask how our entire generation could have been so stupid as to put these fools in power.
It’s too late to avoid disaster, because climate change is already disastrous, and has been for over a decade at least. And it will continue to be a disaster. And the sooner we do something about it, and the more we do, the less disastrous it will be, going forward.
It really depends on how it all plays out. Stalin is still considered, well, less than a monster in may quarters, even here, while Hitler is rightfully vilified. Same goes for Mao. Consider your list there and consider who is really vilified on it and who isn’t in the context of what you are asking. All SHOULD be, pretty much equally…yet they aren’t. So, how will history see the climate change deniers? IMHO they will probably be seen as the equivalent of the JFK CTers or the Moon Landing Hoaxers…at best, of those who denied tobacco was as dangerous as it turned out to be. Even if things are as bad as I think (let alone as bad as some of the more hysteric climate change enthusiast’s are projecting), I don’t think that it’s going to all come down on climate change denialists…they will simply be seen as the crazy fringe they are, but the reality is that it’s you and me and everyone else who still drives around in our cars, still kicks the AC up to frigid in the summer and toasty in the winter, still uses our electronics (making sure they are warmed up and ready whenever we need/want them of course) and still buy tons of crap marked Made in China on the label. We are all pretty much guilty…I seriously doubt that you, OP, have a carbon footprint that much different than the average American or European…certainly I doubt that you have the carbon footprint of the average African, say. And I doubt that most others reading this thread and nodding their heads at the above comments and feeling all righteous about climate change and anger at the deniers are much different than the average.
Maybe the deniers will be seen as the big losers by the masses, but only if the narrative is able to shift the actual blame fully onto their shoulders and let it off the majority of the population, or the fact that there are several ‘emerging’ nations who are pumping out staggering amounts of CO2 every bit as much or more than the US or Europe. Maybe folks who block continue and in the face of everything the full bore development of nuclear will be able to convince themselves that it’s really all the deniers fault and none of the blame splashes on them. Could happen. But I think that, history is going to look down on all of us…me, you and everyone else in this thread as well as the deniers and that orange haired idiot in the white house…AND our pal Xi, and Modi, and Putin and the various heads of state in Europe, Canada, Australia and the rest. JMHO and all, and I won’t live to see it, but I think history is going to rip us all a new one and none of us are going to get off lightly.
How are they the crazy fringe, when they are the party that is currently in control of the government on the federal, and on most state levels?
Trump pulled us out of the climate change deal. Republicans are doing everything in their power to deny climate change and prevent anything from being done to mitigate it.
Sure, we are all guilty here, but that is because it is not something that can be addressed on the individual level. If you went off the grid tomorrow, and consumed nothing but what you could grow within walking distance, you would have how much of an impact? If we all did that, how many of us would simply starve?
It is necessary for the govt to address this problem, to make the use of the commons a cost that we all bear now, rather than a cost we foist onto later generations and upon those who benefit the least from our energy usage.
The emerging nations that are trying to emulate the United States and our standard of living are not nearly as much at fault as us, who have benefited from our standard of living for a couple generations now.
It was fine when it was just a few of us being wasteful in our lifestyles of luxury, but now that other people want the same, it is suddenly a problem.
Who is that, anymore? Far left wing, maybe, but pretty much all moderate democrats are on board with nuclear, so long as it is done safely and with a fair amount of oversight. Nuclear is something that needs to be addressed at the governmental level, once again.
So, republicans have complete control of the government, what is their plan to expand our nuclear generation capacity?
History doesn’t look kindly on those who allow bad things to happen, but they are a footnote compared to the ones who made bad things happen.
When your plane crashes in the mountains, you can blame the pilot for fucking up, or the navigator for reading the charts/weather data wrong, or the ground crew for not making sure the plane was in good enough shape to make this trip, but, in the end, you are stuck in the mountains, and you have to deal with the situation at hand.
If there are still people around in the long future, that is what they will be doing: dealing with what we have left them. They might resent us somewhat for leaving them a mess, but what is done is done, there is nothing to be gained from excoriating us (other than to insure that no one goes this way again) when getting by is paramount. If some form of civilization rises phoenixlike, they will most likely view us in the light of the kind of ignorance we ascribe to those who lived in the “Dark Ages”.
I agree with pretty much everything XT said but I want to reiterate this:
Future historians will see little difference between CC denialists and nuclear power opponents. If we had continued to ramp up on nuclear power we’d be much closer to carbon neutral now then we’ll every be from solar/wind.
I strongly disagree; liberals have a terrible record with nuclear power. Bernie Sanders (who is, admittedly, more liberal than most Democrats but he got a lot of support from mainstream Democrats) wants to put a moratorium on nuclear power and advocates for a “nuclear-free” future. Hillary Clinton has gone on record as saying she’s agnostic about nuclear power. Obama cut all funds to Yucca mountain putting a serious blow to the future and never put up funds for a replacement. For all his nuttery Trump has restored funding for Yucca mountain. To my knowledge all the major environmental groups (e.g. Greenpeace) are virulently against nuclear power. Is there any national liberal politician making a strong push for nuclear power?
Agree whole-heartedly with this post. Liberals are not immune from being anti-science. Many of the anti-vax and anti-fluoride crowd are liberals. The anti-GMO movement is guilty of anti-science propaganda as well by using terms like Frankenfoods. While there are benefits to the environment from organic farming most of the purported health benefits of organic food are bullshit. Then there is the embrace by many on the left of alternative medicine like ear candling, homeopathy, and other nonsense.
I say all this as someone well to the left of center. It’s tempting to deny reality when it conflicts with your world view. I know that in my youth I made excuses for China, Cuba, East Germany and other oppressive regimes. Tip to youngsters: if a country has guns at their border to prevent people from leaving then they are probably on the wrong side of history.
It’s easy to embrace science when it conforms with to your own value system. If you live in an urban area with good mass transit or are healthy enough to ride a bike or walk, then being anti-car is no big deal. If you have enough money to shop at Whole Foods or farmers’ markets* then eating organic is possible. For others, spending $1.00 to buy one freaking peach is a ridiculous extravagance.
*Not farm stands in the country, you may find some good deals there, I mean the farmers’ markets in places like my home town where I can blow through $20 to get one small bag of veggies.
One way to deal with this is a better plan than the “cash for clunkers”, but this time geared more towards low income people to get credit to get a hybrid or electric car.
I never understood why some politician didn’t propose a massive program to insulate houses and upgrade heating and cooling systems. Seems like a no-brainer. Especially if you said equipment and parts needed to be domestically produced. While this chart shows residential use as only comprising 11% of greenhouse emissions, the 28% contribution from electricity includes power needed for electric heat and cooling.
There were previous discussions that are totally ignored to get a post like that.
What I see here is similar to the coal people that blamed Obama and environmentalists for the closing of coal mines. In one very recent discussion it is clear that many of the proponents of nuclear are ignoring economic forces (and political pressure coming from conservatives too) that are also working against nuclear power nowadays.
Obama BTW kept on funding new nuclear power plants under construction, and research.
As for current pushes, what Trump is doing fails once one considers how he is supporting efforts to gut regulations against CO2 emissions and for supporting more coal power.
Several decades ago, we were kind of moving in that direction. We had this “energy crisis” thing going on (as I recall, you could only buy motor fuel on odd or even days, depending on what the number at the end of your license plate was). The President was even pro-nuclear, being a Navy man. Then there was a recession, which led us to getting a shiny new President who said, “Pish-posh on that, we will point big guns at the Ayrabs until the give us lots of cheap oil.” So that solved that. That President shut down the expensive Mirror Fusion Test Facility, and because of that loss, we are still 20 years short of solving controlled nuclear fusion when it could be only 20 years away.