# Why do conservatives so strongly oppose the idea of climate change **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2018, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713 "2018-08-16T02:55:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2018, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/121 "2018-08-19T07:02:39Z")
> [@Desert\_Nomad](#): > > I guess it is hard for you to see how left this board is because you are a member of the left majority and most people perceive themselves as the center. > > Some interesting polls here by members of this very community: > > 134 votes for Clinton, 15 for Trump > [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=8463](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=8463) > > … > 158 to 20 thinking Clinton would win the election. > [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7882](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7882) I think left/right refers more to policy positions than predictions. But let’s look at two of the above. “134 votes for Clinton, 15 for Trump” **Bricker** voted for Clinton. Do you include him in the “left” or in the “far left”? “158 to 20 thinking Clinton would win the election.” Most people, including Trump, thought Clinton would win. She probably would have won without Comey’s Surprise in late October; even with that the election was quite close. You _do_ understand that when Nate Silver predicts 90% favorites, if he doesn’t get 10% of those wrong, _then his predictions are off_, right? ```auto Now that you understand my question, can you try answering it again? Is opposing right-to-work laws a "far left" position? Support for gay marriage? ``` ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2018, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/122 "2018-08-19T08:56:22Z")
> [@Desert\_Nomad](#): > > I guess it is hard for you to see how left this board is because you are a member of the left majority and most people perceive themselves as the center. > > Some interesting polls here by members of this very community: > > 134 votes for Clinton, 15 for Trump > [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=8463](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=8463) This forum is dedicated to fighting ignorance. It’s bound to lean away from a presidential candidate who embodies that ignorance writ large. > [@Desert\_Nomad](#): > > I voted for Gary Johnson, so feel like a bit of an outsider. My state (Nevada) went for Clinton. I must admit that I enjoyed election night seeing most of the media talking heads simply break down as it became clear that their predictions were wildly wrong. I see a real split in the coasts and the interior and those crowds don’t seem to mix. People need to drive across the country sometime without using the interstate highways. > > What really surprises me is that people are so affected (or think they are) by who is president. I am a small business owner and my life has not changed considerably through the GWB, Obama and Trump years. Furthermore a newspaper endorsement has zero influence on me and it scares me to think that it may sway some people. If the matter of “who runs the most powerful country in the world” affects you so little, you are phenomenally privileged. Not everyone is in that situation. Do you have a single LGBT person you care about? Does the murder of hundreds of thousands of people bother you at all? Of course, I doubt that you’re in that situation. You weren’t affected at all by the financial crash of 2007, just to name the most obvious example? I live in Germany, and I have to care about this shit! Is your small business going to be unaffected by Trump’s trade war? Are you recession-proof? ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2018, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/123 "2018-08-19T13:18:21Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Of course, I doubt that you’re in that situation. You weren’t affected at all by the financial crash of 2007, just to name the most obvious example? I live in Germany, and I have to care about this shit! Is your small business going to be unaffected by Trump’s trade war? Are you recession-proof? I do have LGBT friends, though most of them do not live in the USA. Our wars have not been affected by who is president - Iraq happened under Bush, Syria happened under Obama and the war situation is not changing under Trump. I was not affected by the crash of 2007. I owned my home in the Czech Republic outright, and when I moved back to the US (part time) in 2009, prices were low. The best years for our business (software) were 2007-2009. It seems to be fairly recession-proof. Maybe because more than half our customers are outside the USA. One reason I am not affected is I live well below my means. Until 2002, I drove a 1977 car, then moved overseas and did not own a car again until 2012. I have never had cable TV. I think people are far less affected by who is president than they think they are. Same goes for the governor of my state and the mayor of my town. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2018, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/124 "2018-08-19T16:42:29Z")
The origins of their resistance made perfect sense. Agreeing with the science on climate change was bad for business. In recent years, as climate change becomes more mainstream and resistance to it is limited to the fringes of the right wing, I think conservatives just look at climate change denial as another way to make liberals cry. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2018, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/125 "2018-08-19T18:19:31Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > You can keep repeating that over and over, but that [doesn’t make it true](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf). > > Stranger Which part of your cite do you believe shows that solar will scale up to meet our energy needs, or that it costs the same, or less, than nuclear? Keep in mind that subsidies do not reduce costs, only shift them. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/126 "2018-08-19T18:22:40Z")
> [@Desert\_Nomad](#): > > I think people are far less affected by who is president than they think they are. Same goes for the governor of my state and the mayor of my town. A bit incomplete on that point, one important thing is that I was talking about the congress critters and judges too, the damage they and Trump are doing is not going to be apparent soon, but it will translate into subsequent waste of money and resources figuring out what was wrong or ignorant or evil or illegal as well as immoral. Cases in point from recent headlines: [Americans Think NASA Should Focus on Climate Change. Trump Doesn’t](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-01/americans-think-nasa-should-focus-on-climate-change-trump-doesn-t) [NOAA’s Research Just Shifted from Climate Change to “Empowering the Economy” and “National Security”](https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/06/noaas-research-just-shifted-from-climate-change-to-empowering-the-economy-and-national-security/) [GOP Senators: Climate-Change Education Program Is Propaganda, Not Science](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/gop-senators-climate-change-education-program-is-propaganda.html) [Florida Cities Are Most at Risk From Climate Change, Report Says](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-22/florida-cities-are-most-at-risk-from-climate-change-report) [At ‘America First Energy Conference’, Solar Power Is Dumb, Climate Change Is Fake](https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2018-08-09/at-america-first-energy-conferenc-solar-power-is-dumb-climate-change-is-fake?src=usn_fb) [Trump’s giveaway to Big Oil will accelerate climate change](https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/opinions/trump-rollback-fuel-efficiency-standards-opinion-stokes/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![aregard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/73ab20/32.png) [@aregard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aregard)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2018, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/127 "2018-08-19T18:37:03Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > My other claim was that a few decades was short for scientific inquiry. It is, and you presumably disagree, but nothing you said explains why. 1912 "A 14 August 1912 article from a New Zealand newspaper contained a brief story about how burning coal might produce future warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. " True according to Snopes. More than “a few decades” and definitely referencing man made changes. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/128 "2018-08-20T02:21:05Z")
> [@aregard](#): > > 1912 > "A 14 August 1912 article from a New Zealand newspaper contained a brief story about how burning coal might produce future warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. " True according to Snopes. > > More than “a few decades” and definitely referencing man made changes. I think the first scientific paper hypothesizing manmade atmospheric warming dates back to 1896. ---
**Author:** ![wintertime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c68b51/32.png) [@wintertime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wintertime)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/129 "2018-08-20T09:14:49Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I think the first scientific paper hypothesizing manmade atmospheric warming dates back to 1896. Not quite. The Swedish chemist and physicist [Svante Arrhenius](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Svante-Arrhenius#ref286727) published his paper about the green house effect which sought to develop an explanation for the ice ages indeed in the year 1896. First in German, _Über den Einfluss des atmosphärischen Kohlensäuregehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche_ in the Swedish journal _Behang till Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar_ then, abridged, [in English](http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf) in _The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science_. The introduction to the copy of the English translation clarifies: > [@](#): > > Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming, though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does explicitly suggest this outcome in later work. The relevant passage from page 270: > [@](#): > > The world’s present production of coal reaches in round numbers 500 millions of tons per annum (…). Transformed into carbonic acid, this quantity would correspond to about a thousandth part of the carbonic acid in the atmosphere. It represents a layer of limestone 0-003 millim. thickness over the whole globe (…). This quantity of carbonic acid, which is supplied to the atmosphere chiefly by modern industry, may be regarded as completely compensating the quantity of carbonic acid that is consumed in the formation of limestone (or other mineral carbonates) by the weathering or decomposition of silicates. (…) The “later work” is _[Worlds in the Making](https://archive.org/details/worldsinmakingev00arrhrich)_ (1908); a passage from the chapter _The celestial bodies, in particular the Earth, as abodes of organisms_ [p.54] shows his awareness that human influence on global climate is possible: > [@](#): > > The actual percentage of carbonic acid in the air is so insignificant that the annual combustion of coal, which has now (1904) risen to about 900 million tons and is rapidly increasing, carries about one-seven-hundredth part of its percentage of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. > > Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/130 "2018-08-20T10:14:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > China emits more than the US and the EU put together. > > This is the kind of thing that leads me to believe that Democrats aren’t serious. Every time someone suggests that the problem is serious enough that we should stifle our economy to avert it, and someone else points to the elephant in the room, they try to change the subject. > > We aren’t going to do anything about AGW, until we have to. Neither the GOP, nor the Democrats, are serious about it. For different reasons, but neither are. So we won’t, until we are forced to. What? The fact that Democrats aren’t trying to look for excuses and suggest we do something about the problem now **as well as** supporting and pressuring countries like China to reduce their emissions means they aren’t taking the problem seriously!? Yes if only we were taking the problem as seriously as right-wing pundits. Every step along the stages of denial, from “There’s no climate change” through “There’s climate change, but it’s got nothing to do with CO2” through to now where every year there are record-breaking high temperatures, just as was predicted, and it’s having catastrophic consequences, the answer is the same: Let’s do nothing. Because…because look, other people are doing nothing! (which btw is not true about China; they are making a big move to renewable energy). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/131 "2018-08-20T10:19:45Z")
Nah, you see, Republicans are actively trying to deny and obfuscate the problems of climate change, while Democrats are drawing attention to the dangers of climate change and proposing measures to alleviate it, but not being as radical in their proposals as most climate scientists recommend. In the **Shodan** iverse, that means that Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for public inaction on climate change. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/132 "2018-08-20T12:02:09Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > > [@Originally Posted by Shodan](#): > > > > China emits more than the US and the EU put together. Oh my. Those who didn’t read #108 are sentenced to writing “China is a big country” 50 times on the blackboard. China has more goats than the US and EU combined, eats more ice cream than the US and EU combined, and has more geniuses—and imbeciles—than the US and EU combined. Why is this? I’ve spoilered the answer in case you want to guess by yourself.China has 550 million more people than the US and EU combined. _ **China has lower per capita CO2 emission** _ than Germany, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Canada and _much less than half the per capita emissions of the U.S.A._ Hope this helps. You’re welcome. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/133 "2018-08-20T12:18:03Z")
No, for something to help, it usually has to make sense or be relevant. ‘The largest polluter on earth doesn’t count because it’s larger’ doesn’t, and isn’t. Like I said, it is difficult to believe the left thinks AGW is as serious as they claim to think. They don’t want to address the major cause, their solutions cost more and won’t work, they are afraid to speak against their fundamentalists (who are green rather than Christian, but are equally faith-based) and it is always somebody else’s fault. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/134 "2018-08-20T12:27:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, for something to help, it usually has to make sense or be relevant. ‘The largest polluter on earth doesn’t count because it’s larger’ doesn’t, and isn’t. > > Like I said, it is difficult to believe the left thinks AGW is as serious as they claim to think. They don’t want to address the major cause, their solutions cost more and won’t work, they are afraid to speak against their fundamentalists (who are green rather than Christian, but are equally faith-based) and it is always somebody else’s fault. > > Regards, > Shodan Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it stupid. It just means you don’t understand it. You don’t understand why it’s relevant that China’s per capita emissions are dwarfed by America’s? How, exactly, should we “address” the issue of a country that does more than us and also doesn’t like us very much? ---
**Author:** ![Filbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/filbert/32/3433_2.png) [@Filbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Filbert)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/135 "2018-08-20T12:58:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, for something to help, it usually has to make sense or be relevant. ‘The largest polluter on earth doesn’t count because it’s larger’ doesn’t, and isn’t. > > Like I said, it is difficult to believe the left thinks AGW is as serious as they claim to think. They don’t want to address the major cause, their solutions cost more and won’t work, they are afraid to speak against their fundamentalists (who are green rather than Christian, but are equally faith-based) and it is always somebody else’s fault. > > Regards, > Shodan I have a suggestion how China drastically lower its emissions; by simply splitting into several smaller countries, it’ll no longer be the worst! Anyway, I’m off to ask the Vatican how to re-write my country’s energy policy, theirs are so low, they must have some amazing ideas… ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/136 "2018-08-20T14:16:29Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it stupid. It just means you don’t understand it. I understand it just fine. That’s how I can tell it’s stupid. > [@](#): > > You don’t understand why it’s relevant that China’s per capita emissions are dwarfed by America’s? It’s not relevant. China is emitting more than the US and the EU put together, even though their per-capita is lower. Because they are emitting more than the US and the EU put together right now, and it is likely to get worse as they continue to increase the total amount they are emitting. See also what **Filbert** wrote. > [@](#): > > How, exactly, should we “address” the issue of a country that does more than us and also doesn’t like us very much? Apparently now you understand that they are doing more than us, in the sense that they are emitting more than the US and the EU put together, so maybe now you understand how per-capita is irrelevant. But again, it is hard to take Democrats seriously on the issue. Their idea of how to address the issue of the largest polluter is to give them a break, while imposing limits on the US and the EU, that would be insufficient to address the allegedly serious problem even if they applied to China. So, the solution to the problem of AGW is a treaty that doesn’t affect the largest source of the problem, stifling the US economy in ways that won’t help. switching to technologies that cost more, won’t scale up, and won’t help, determinately change the subject every time someone tries to suggest technologies that have a chance or working, and presto! Problem solved. Darn those Republicans for being skeptical about so obvious and straightforward a solution. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/137 "2018-08-20T14:23:46Z")
You realize **Filbert** was _mocking_ you, right? If we split China into three countries, each the size of the USA, each of those countries would have far lower emissions than the USA. Per capita matters. And let’s not forget that China is a member of the Paris accords (along with every country in the world except the US), is leading in solar panels, and also _ **none of us can vote in Chinese elections.** _ I can’t affect Chinese climate policies. Neither can you. Nobody is “cutting China a break”. Basically everything you just said is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/138 "2018-08-20T16:19:50Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Let’s do nothing. Because…because look, other people are doing nothing! (which btw is not true about China; they are making a big move to renewable energy). That’s not an entirely irrational position to take; the Tragedy of the Commons is that if only some of the people stop grazing their herds on the commons, it impoverishes them while rewarding the cheaters. (“Thanks Sucker!”) ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/139 "2018-08-20T16:38:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Apparently now you understand that they are doing more than us, in the sense that they are emitting more than the US and the EU put together, so maybe now you understand how per-capita is irrelevant. I took “they are doing more than us” to mean they are doing more to switch to renewables: [For every $1 the US put into adding renewable energy last year, China put in $3](https://qz.com/1247527/for-every-1-the-us-put-into-renewable-energy-last-year-china-put-in-3/) Remind me again, what was your excuse for doing fuck all about climate change? > [@](#): > > But again, it is hard to take Democrats seriously on the issue. Yeah so naive to try to implement measures to actually reduce CO2 emissions. It’s like they are _not even trying_ to find excuses. Thank goodness there are republicans brave enough to sit down and be counted, only taking their hands out of their arses long enough to pocket lobbying cash from energy companies. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/140 "2018-08-20T16:57:19Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > You realize **Filbert** was _mocking_ you, right? If we split China into three countries, each the size of the USA, each of those countries would have far lower emissions than the USA. Per capita matters. If per capita matters, then splitting China up into three countries would address the problem of AGW, right? Except that it wouldn’t. > [@](#): > > I can’t affect Chinese climate policies. Neither can you. So the Kyoto and Paris accords will have no effect, as I mentioned. Which is another of the solutions that Democrats are pinning their hopes to. So, again, a solution that won’t work and doesn’t address the major source of the problem. But it is a good idea, because the Chinese are [poisoning their own people](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-environmental-crisis) as well as the atmosphere. But let’s not talk about that, or nuclear energy, or any other practical solutions. Because the problem is so serious. Uh- **huh**. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713.md?page=8)