# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/161 "2018-08-20T22:09:45Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > From the lake’s perspective, the guy who’s dumping in a half-gallon is dumping in more than any of the guys who are dumping in only a quarter-gallon. And from anyone else’s perspective, too. Why does it matter that all of the less-polluting people happen to live in the same house? The lake doesn’t know or care how many people live in the house…or even what a house is. But 5 gallons of pollution is more than 1. Of course, the actual flaw in this argument would be ‘but the house putting in 1 gallon has been polluting for over 100 years while the house putting in 5 has only been doing that for a decade’. But from the perspective of those living there right now, today, the ones who are putting in 1 gallon are being asked to make a heavier sacrifice than those putting in 5, so it’s going to rankle. Especially when folks go out of their way to make excuses and handwave the issue, as well as give them a pass that is going to allow them to pollute away for the next 10 or so years with no guarantee that in the end the 5 gallon polluters will ever actually do shit about it, as opposed to propaganda SAYING they will. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2018, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/162 "2018-08-20T22:15:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > From the lake’s perspective, the guy who’s dumping in a half-gallon is dumping in more than any of the guys who are dumping in only a quarter-gallon. And from anyone else’s perspective, too. Why does it matter that all of the less-polluting people happen to live in the same house? I think the idea is that if I don’t _personally_ pollute as much as every other living person put together, then I’m okay! In fact I totally need to pollute more! ---
**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 21, 2018, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/163 "2018-08-21T00:13:32Z")
> [@XT](#): > > That along with this tendency to handwave away China’s issues and the fact that they are pumping out so much CO2 (as well as other toxic crap) and the pass they were given at Paris even makes me sometimes question the commitment to doing something. Frankly, I think that, in the end we are just going to have to live with the consequences and hope that our technology can bail us out…and that this will end up costing us some fairly hefty dollars as well as impacting millions of lives. Hopefully I’m wrong about that, as we will all be paying the price for this stupidity. Well, about being wrong: [https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2018/06/11/helping-china-fight-air-pollution](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2018/06/11/helping-china-fight-air-pollution) > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]The Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region has highest levels of air pollution in China[/li] > [li] The World Bank has worked with the Hua Xia Bank to help the region fight air pollution by financing business investments to increase energy efficiency, develop clean energy and reduce air pollutants and carbon emissions[/li] > [li] The innovative financing project is helping bring back the blue skies in China and contributing to the global efforts to mitigate climate change[/li][/ul] [Blue-sky thinking: how China’s crackdown on pollution is paying off](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/22/blue-sky-thinking-how-chinas-crackdown-on-pollution-is-paying-off) > [@](#): > > The photographs on display at Wu Di’s Beijing studio imagine China and Beijing at their dystopian worst. > > Naked, expectant mothers stare out from the walls, their bellies exposed but their faces hidden behind green gas masks. > > Worshippers prostrate themselves around the Ming dynasty Temple of Heaven, desperately petitioning the smog-choked skies for a breath of fresh air. > > But while the interior of Wu’s atelier offers a desolate panorama of China’s pollution crisis, outside, a different, brighter side to the country is, for once, on show. > > Beijing’s skies, so often noxious and smoggy, are a perfect and perplexing cerulean blue. > > “It’s 26 today,” said Wu, a visual artist and documentary photographer, checking his smartphone’s pollution app to confirm the uncommonly low levels of PM2.5, an airborne particulate linked to lung cancer, asthma and heart disease. > > “In the past, we made money first and could only talk about the environment later. But it’s clear the government has changed its mind,” he said. “We can see everything is starting to move in the right direction.” > > During the creation of the nightmarish airpocalypses portrayed in Wu’s artwork, pollution levels might have been 20 or even 30 times higher. “Beijing was like a giant airport smoking room that day. It was an epic haze,” he recalled, pointing to an image staged in January 2013 in which a girl appears to inhale oxygen through a tube connected to two heart-shaped balloons. > > Times, though, appear to be changing. > > Traditionally, winter is Beijing’s smoggiest season, as coal burning ramps up to keep millions of residents warm. But the skies over China’s capital have been almost inconceivably clear of late, thanks partly to a government crackdown on the use of the fossil fuel. > > Beijing enjoyed a record 226 days of “good” air quality last year and endured 23 heavily polluted days, compared with 58 in 2013, state media announced last month. The South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong newspaper, greeted the recovery with the incredulous headline: “How did Beijing become one of China’s top cities for air quality?” > > Hu Xijin, the editor of the party-controlled Global Times, tweeted alongside a photograph of Beijing’s azure-framed CCTV headquarters: “Isn’t it good to have a ruling party that can honour its promise?” > > Lauri Myllyvirta, a Greenpeace campaigner, said China’s leaders could rightly claim credit for making Beijing blue again, temporarily at least, even if favourable weather conditions had played a major role in the exceptionally good spell. > > Since last year, thousands of environmental inspectors have fanned out across the industrial belt around the capital as part of an aggressive clampdown on coal use. Heavily polluting vehicles, factories and construction sites have also been targeted. “There is clear evidence the measures worked,” said Myllyvirta, who said overall PM2.5 levels in Beijing had fallen by 40% from their peak in 2012-2013. > > But he sounded a note of caution. Average PM2.5 levels in Beijing remained 65% above the national standard and more than five times World Health Organization guidelines last year. A recent bout of severe smog highlighted the fight ahead. > > There are also fears that the crackdown around Beijing is forcing polluting industries to migrate south to regions such as the Yangtze river delta around Shanghai, where smog levels are rising. “The ‘war on pollution’ is far from over … few people harbour illusions,” Myllyvirta said. “But there is also no reason for cynicism as there’s clear evidence the measures worked.” As they say, there is a lot of work to be done, but this shows IMHO that many conservative sources are just stuck on not reporting what progress China is doing on this front, or I should say that based on what I see coming from many conservatives here, a lot of their sources are not reporting things like the clampdown on coal use and how even on several of the new or remaining coal plants there are more controls on their pollution and at the same time a push to deploy more wind, solar and nuclear power. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2018, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/164 "2018-08-21T00:17:11Z")
> [@XT](#): > > The lake doesn’t know or care how many people live in the house…or even what a house is. But 5 gallons of pollution is more than 1. Of course, the actual flaw in this argument would be ‘but the house putting in 1 gallon has been polluting for over 100 years while the house putting in 5 has only been doing that for a decade’. But from the perspective of those living there right now, today, the ones who are putting in 1 gallon are being asked to make a heavier sacrifice than those putting in 5, so it’s going to rankle. Especially when folks go out of their way to make excuses and handwave the issue, as well as give them a pass that is going to allow them to pollute away for the next 10 or so years with no guarantee that in the end the 5 gallon polluters will ever actually do shit about it, as opposed to propaganda SAYING they will. Let’s say the people in the two person house have a lot more money than those in the 20 person house. And they say, despite the fact that they pollute twice as much per capita, they won’t do anything about it because all the people in the 20 person house pollutes more collectively. This will definitely motivate the people in the bigger house to sacrifice to pollute less. If 16 people from the second house jump in the lake, problem solved, right? Actually, everyone needs to pollute less. Chinese investment in solar says it is not just propaganda. I haven’t had the good fortune to smother in Peking pollution, but I have been in the Hong Kong Haze (band name!) that blows in from the Mainland. They have more incentive to do something about this than getting in good with Al Gore. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2018, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/165 "2018-08-21T00:28:43Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I have been in the Hong Kong Haze (band name!) Weed strain! ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2018, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/166 "2018-08-21T01:16:35Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > The crowd of people bitching about how “left leaning” this board is come from the view that anyone left of Newt Gingrich is a flaming socialist, which reflects the fact that the once-pragmatic Republican party has been hijacked by Tea Party zealots who have shifted the perception so far to the political right that even Reagan would protest in the streets with the pussy hat people. With few exceptions, those self-identified conservatives who pisstake about the liberal bent are doing so to avoid making substantive arguments or provide evidence to back up their claims, often resorting to innuendo and baiting rhetoric to divert a discussion not going their way. People have been bitching about the left-lean of the board for about two decades now. It’s nothing new. Personally, I think the board is overall, just moderately left of center, but a LOT of the more hard-left types are very vocal and snarky about it, and give the impression the board is further left than it actually is. ---
**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 21, 2018, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/167 "2018-08-21T01:40:13Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Far from the US ‘fuck all about climate change’, we are the number 2 nation wrt installed and working renewable energy systems. We spend the 2nd most (not that I think this stat means shit, but since you used it I figured what the hell). > > It saddens me that China gets such a pass without scrutinizing what the stats actually mean, or WHY they are doing what they are doing. They are tossed out (using per capita when it suits or using the gross figures as you did when that suits the narrative) as a foil to the US, showing how much better they are and how much worse we are without thinking of why the numbers are what they are, or what the actual CCP goals are in the broader context. I’m not giving China a pass, I’m explaining why, when we’re talking about measures that the US should be taking, the excuse of “But…China!” doesn’t work. Personally I think talking in terms of absolute footprint is silly but we have to at least pick one: 1. If we’re talking about absolute footprint then the US is the second-worst polluter, and the highest polluter above us is doing a hell of a lot more to try to reduce their footprint 2. If we’re talking per capita footprint the US is still among the very worst and needs to do a lot more, meanwhile China is just a medium-level polluter The real pragmatic answer of course is that China has a huge population and is still developing so, yes, of course, a lot of the focus should be on ensuring that their footprint does not increase and can even start to come down. But in the context of what the US should be doing, and remember this is a thread about US conservatives, there’s just no reason for this to come up at all. Get your own house in order and quit trying to find excuses. ---
**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 21, 2018, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/168 "2018-08-21T03:05:37Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Who said I didn’t believe in global warming? Uhhh… > [@ExTank](#): > > Global warming is just another tool of the socialist left, being used in their attempt to subvert standing institutions and force free people to submit to ever-increasing levels of government control, by people who think that the world as depicted in Orwell’s _1984_ would be a great place to live in, and that the Soviet Union was paradise on Earth. You’ll have to excuse my confusion; I figured that “global warming is a socialist plot to destroy America” and “global warming is real, caused by humans, and bad” are two mitually exclusive positions. What a stupid mistake to make on my part. :o Mea culpa. :rolleyes: ---
**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 21, 2018, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/169 "2018-08-21T05:27:55Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Imagine for a moment that you and I both pollute your theoretical lake. I dump in 1 gallon of pollutants a year but there are only 2 of us in my house. You dump in 5 gallons a year, but there are 20 people in your house. From the lakes perspective, who is polluting the lake more? How do you suppose I’m going to feel if I’m being asked to sacrifice my productivity to restrict that 1 gallon while you are given a pass for a decade or so (with no enforcement on the back end if you decide, fuck it, you aren’t going to change) to continue to pollute at 5 gallons…increasing to perhaps 6 or even 10 gallons down the road? That’s going to be the key analogy you will need to fight if you want to get conservatives on board…and it’s one that the other side seems really, really bad at addressing to anyone who isn’t one of the faithful. Instead, they talk about per capita…which is pretty obviously a method to score points, but has the unfortunate effect of telling conservatives that those making the comparison and using a cherry picked stat to do so aren’t REALLY serious about this climate change stuff, but instead just want to score points through distraction. After all, from the lakes perspective that 5 gallons of pollutant are more than the 1 I’m putting in. _blinks_ Hang on, _I’m_ trying to score points through distraction? This thread is about why conservatives reject climate change; _I am not the one who brought up China_. To the issue of American climate policies, China is relevant only in a big-picture, “How do we really solve this problem globally” sense. We can clean up our own carbon footprint. We can take steps on our own - the US alone makes up 14.5% of world emissions. That’s a non-trivial piece of the puzzle, if we can get the US (and the EU, and other countries who care enough) carbon neutral. But as said before, _we’re not there yet_. The majority of republicans in congress are climate deniers, and the more virulent climate deniers are the ones who get elevated to positions which should be dealing with climate change. You end up with farces like a hearing on climate change which has [zero scientists as expert witnesses](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/gop-chooses-lord-hitler-y_b_565126.html), instead inviting a non-scientist climate denialist known primarily for his absurd lies about climate change. > [@](#): > > Often it’s environmentalist types who will go on and on about global warming while being anti-nuke…which, again, calls into question how vital this all is, from a conservatives perspective. After all, if those who really know that global warming is happening aren’t screaming from the rafters for nuclear, aren’t pushing for nuclear as hard as they can, how seriously are they, really? Maybe they know something you don’t. Maybe they _don’t_ know something you do. Maybe they earnestly believe that we can make it work exclusively with renewables, and see nuclear as an unreasonable risk, or have problems with our lack of ability to safely store nuclear waste. I know this is a non-trivial disagreement - many on the left earnestly think that we can use solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. to fully cover our energy needs. This isn’t them “not caring”, this is them _being wrong_. Or, alternative possibility: them being _right_. I’m not sure who’s right on this one. My point is this: policy disagreements on highly technical issues don’t always indicate insincerity. Typically, they indicate _someone being wrong_. I think my dad is wrong when he argues that nuclear is unsafe. I don’t think this is in any way him showing that he doesn’t care about climate change, I think he’s just bought into a lot of the hype around Fukushima “poisoning the pacific”. Similarly, I see no reason to believe that Inhofe doesn’t legitimately believe that climate change is a lie because something something bible - I just see that as a very good reason to get him removed from a position of national power. > [@](#): > > And we aren’t seeing a lot of folks really, honestly pushing for nuclear. There are, of course, reasons for that…but you can plausibly connect the dots to show that some of the hype about global warming is just that…hype. Only if you’re incredibly uncharitable. Like, the equivalent of this would be me saying that because **ExTank** is wrong about climate change, he’s being insincere and intentionally spreading misinformation on this forum. I think we’d all recognize that claim as uncharitable and unfair, right? (Just so we’re 100% clear - _I don’t think that_, I think he’s just wrong for very normal reasons.) So why assume the mainstream democratic position, that we can resolve global warming and cover our energy needs without a big push for nuclear power - _even assuming that it’s totally wrong_ - is a matter of bad faith that shows that they don’t _really_ care about climate change? Isn’t the more straightforward explanation that they’re simply _wrong_? I mean, for cryin’ out loud, they’re certainly not the side that’s the _most_ wrong on this issue. :mad: The Trump administration’s EPA just rolled back mileage standards, and is considering fudging the data on the harm CO2 causes for the sake of having it no longer labeled a pollutant. > [@](#): > > The above narrative isn’t my view on this stuff. I think global warming is serious, Would _you_ like to respond to **ExTank**? 🙂 He has me on ignore and I think it’d mean more to him if he got a response from someone on “his side”. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2018, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/170 "2018-08-21T13:16:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, about being wrong: > > [Helping China Fight Air Pollution](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2018/06/11/helping-china-fight-air-pollution) > [Blue-sky thinking: how China’s crackdown on pollution is paying off](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/22/blue-sky-thinking-how-chinas-crackdown-on-pollution-is-paying-off) > As they say, there is a lot of work to be done, but this shows IMHO that many conservative sources are just stuck on not reporting what progress China is doing on this front, or I should say that based on what I see coming from many conservatives here, a lot of their sources are not reporting things like the clampdown on coal use and how even on several of the new or remaining coal plants there are more controls on their pollution and at the same time a push to deploy more wind, solar and nuclear power. And so, to ‘prove’ your point, you link to a fluff article that looks uncritically at the issue from the Guardian and a better article that still doesn’t exactly dig deeply by The World Bank? After accusing me of using ‘conservative sources’ to get my information on China from. 😛 Oh, and I’m just wrong somehow because your fluff article says that progress is being made (says the guy in Beijing who got it straight from the Chinese government and social media). No doubt China is (in fits and starts) trying to tackle it’s air pollution issue. It’s a major problem for the people and one that the party kind of knows it needs to deal with. But you have to understand how their government works in order to evaluate how they are going about it. They do things like…outlaw outdoor barbecue vendors in Beijing, blaming a lot of the pollution on that source. Sure, they replace some of the older coal plants…with newer ones. Even if they have a push to clean up the air, that means they want less smog and particulate matter in the air. Taking them at their word that they are actually doing it, and that they will actually push these things across the board (i.e. even to Chinese CCP owned or owned and operated by key CCP leaders), that will be the main focus…not CO2, per se. And I don’t uncritically take their word, nor do I believe their data. My ‘conservative’ sources (here I picture you thinking I’m getting this stuff from Fox or something dippy like that :p) have drummed it in that things are much, MUCH more complicated in China, and you never take the CCP or state run media at it’s word. They are a bit like Trump…they lie about everything, and spin everything. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2018, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/171 "2018-08-21T13:30:33Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I’m not giving China a pass, I’m explaining why, when we’re talking about measures that the US should be taking, the excuse of “But…China!” doesn’t work. > > Personally I think talking in terms of absolute footprint is silly but we have to at least pick one: > > 1. If we’re talking about absolute footprint then the US is the second-worst polluter, and the highest polluter above us is doing a hell of a lot more to try to reduce their footprint > 2. If we’re talking per capita footprint the US is still among the very worst and needs to do a lot more, meanwhile China is just a medium-level polluter > > The real pragmatic answer of course is that China has a huge population and is still developing so, yes, of course, a lot of the focus should be on ensuring that their footprint does not increase and can even start to come down. > > But in the context of what the US should be doing, and remember this is a thread about US conservatives, there’s just no reason for this to come up at all. Get your own house in order and quit trying to find excuses. And I’m telling you why, in the context of this thread which ISN’T about what measures the US should be taking but instead about why conservatives strongly oppose the idea of climate change, that not talking about China is one of the problems. And, yeah, you are giving them a pass…you don’t want to discuss China, even though it’s one of the key reasons conservatives feel as they do. As for your points: 1. No, they aren’t. Their CO2 is continuing upwards while the US has been flat for over a decade. Regardless, conservatives were and are angered that China is being given a pass for the next decade while the US was going to have to buckle down, giving the Chinese and obvious economic advantage over the US and pretty much ever other modern industrialized economy…and it’s a pass they don’t need, being the second largest economy on the planet. 2. So what? China pollutes more than the US and EU combined. And the US and EU combined still have more per capita because we have smaller populations. And it’s irrelevant to the discussion about why conservatives oppose climate change, since it’s pretty obviously someone trying to spin a narrative through numbers…at least, that’s how conservatives see it. As to the last, you are just wrong. There IS a need for this to be brought up as it’s part of why conservatives are balking at climate change. What the US should do about it is important to perhaps many on this board (including me btw, even though I use ‘conservative sources’ for all my data :p), but to conservatives the fact that China was given a pass is a huge issue, especially when they can see for themselves with a few seconds of Googling that China is a major CO2 producer…AND they are the worlds second largest economy, supposedly overtaking the US soon. If you are going to ask conservatives to make a sacrifice (which is exactly what we need to be doing, though broader to all Americans), then the fact that our number one economic competitor gets a free pass for 10 years while we have to buckle down is not going to fly very well except to those who can look further and deeper at the issue. Just to put this into context with an analogy, this is why Trump’s trade polices resonate with so many people. It seems intuitive…other countries are stealing our money with the trade deficit (wrong), and we need to show them who is boss by imposing tariffs (stupid idea), which when we put them in will make those countries come back, hat in hand to renegotiate the various deals with us and make things better (snort), having the effect of bringing those good, high paying low skill jobs back to the good old USA where they belong (don’t hold your breath)! But this narrative resonates with blue collar workers of all stripes and political leanings, and is one of the reasons why Trump got elected, and is still popular among certain people. ---
**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 21, 2018, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/172 "2018-08-21T14:21:52Z")
> [@XT](#): > > And so, to ‘prove’ your point, you link to a fluff article that looks uncritically at the issue from the Guardian and a better article that still doesn’t exactly dig deeply by The World Bank? After accusing me of using ‘conservative sources’ to get my information on China from. 😛 Oh, and I’m just wrong somehow because your fluff article says that progress is being made (says the guy in Beijing who got it straight from the Chinese government and social media). One needs to wonder for a moment why is that when China was having apocalyptic smoke days that \*\*deservedly \*\*got criticism it was reported appropriately; but now when there is evidence, also coming from Greenpeace, that the air is becoming cleaner that is not reported much from the sources you rely on. (Incidentally I have seen a lot of complaints on the lack of reporting about the issue coming from mainstream media in the USA, and the issue is not only coming from FOX news. Corporate media also has an interest on not reminding many in the USA that there is a serious issue going on. Powerful sponsors need to be appeased.) > [@XT](#): > > No doubt China is (in fits and starts) trying to tackle it’s air pollution issue. It’s a major problem for the people and one that the party kind of knows it needs to deal with. But you have to understand how their government works in order to evaluate how they are going about it. They do things like…outlaw outdoor barbecue vendors in Beijing, blaming a lot of the pollution on that source. Sure, they replace some of the older coal plants…with newer ones. Even if they have a push to clean up the air, that means they want less smog and particulate matter in the air. Taking them at their word that they are actually doing it, and that they will actually push these things across the board (i.e. even to Chinese CCP owned or owned and operated by key CCP leaders), that will be the main focus…not CO2, per se. And I don’t uncritically take their word, nor do I believe their data. My ‘conservative’ sources (here I picture you thinking I’m getting this stuff from Fox or something dippy like that :p) Nah, what I have seen is that many times is that such lack of information like that one comes not only from some conservative sources, but also from social media that also gets its talking points from regular conservative sites and also more unsavory ones. > [@XT](#): > > have drummed it in that things are much, MUCH more complicated in China, and you never take the CCP or state run media at it’s word. They are a bit like Trump…they lie about everything, and spin everything. Again, you missed that Greenpeace, that do dislike polluters regardless from what ideology they come from, are reporting on the improvements too. ---
**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 21, 2018, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/173 "2018-08-21T14:22:00Z")
> [@XT](#): > > And I’m telling you why, in the context of this thread which ISN’T about what measures the US should be taking but instead about why conservatives strongly oppose the idea of climate change, that not talking about China is one of the problems. I beg to differ. If we’re talking about why conservatives opposite the idea of climate change, then the most relevant thing is discussing what measures the US should be taking. Why? Because the excuses pre-date China being the #1 CO2 emitter. It’s always been about finding a squirrel to point at. And the reason they need to find a squirrel is because many politicians and pundits are paid off by the fossil fuel industry and/or just don’t care to listen. > [@](#): > > And, yeah, you are giving them a pass…you don’t want to discuss China, even though it’s one of the key reasons conservatives feel as they do. I’m happy to talk about China. If there’s a thread discussing what more China should be doing then I’ll definitely take part. But no, I’m not going to run off chasing the squirrel in this thread. > [@](#): > > 1. No, they aren’t. Their CO2 is continuing upwards while the US has been flat for over a decade. **It’s a rapidly developing country** The part of Shanghai where I live was a fishing village 30 years ago, and now looks like (a bigger) Manhatten island. That’s why despite spending much more on renewables than the US their emissions are still increasing. But eventually that trend line is going to come down. When that happens, I expect that right wing pundits will be at the “It’s too late to do anything now” stage. Because at every point there has to be a reason to do sod all. > [@](#): > > But this narrative resonates with blue collar workers of all stripes and political leanings, and is one of the reasons why Trump got elected, and is still popular among certain people. Sadly the narrative is popular among much of the US public because they are badly misinformed on this topic. In a sane world Trump talking about spraying hairspray in his house should have got him laughed off the stage but instead most of his audience know virtually nothing about climate change. ---
**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 21, 2018, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/174 "2018-08-21T14:58:28Z")
Let me put it more simply in fact: If this logic of “China is the biggest polluter in absolute terms, so let’s focus on them” worked, then of course all the rest of the world can use the same excuse. Finland and Canada and Morocco and Italy and Japan can just say “Hey, let’s focus on the US and China; they emit much more than us!” and sit on their hands. Except of course The Rest of the World collectively emits much more than China and the US combined. We’d be in (even more) deep shit now if everyone had been so irresponsible and unprincipled as the US right wing. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2018, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/175 "2018-08-21T15:03:09Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Let me put it more simply in fact: > > If this logic of “China is the biggest polluter in absolute terms, so let’s focus on them” worked, then of course all the rest of the world can use the same excuse. > > Finland and Canada and Morocco and Italy and Japan can just say “Hey, let’s focus on the US and China; they emit much more than us!” and sit on their hands. Except of course The Rest of the World collectively emits much more than China and the US combined. > We’d be in (even more) deep shit now if everyone had been so irresponsible and unprincipled as the US right wing. Wait…what? Who said anything about focusing on them?? I’m saying they shouldn’t be given a freaking pass, not that they should be the only country focused on. Basically, if the US is going to be doing it’s part to seriously reduce CO2 emissions then China should be doing every bit as much…right now, today. Not in 10 years. No more, no less. THEN I think that at least one of the common conservative complaints would be put to rest. You’d still have to deal with the others, but not this one. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2018, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/176 "2018-08-21T15:22:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > One needs to wonder for a moment why is that when China was having apocalyptic smoke days that \*\*deservedly \*\*got criticism it was reported appropriately; but now when there is evidence, also coming from Greenpeace, that the air is becoming cleaner that is not reported much from the sources you rely on. (Incidentally I have seen a lot of complaints on the lack of reporting about the issue coming from mainstream media in the USA, and the issue is not only coming from FOX news. Corporate media also has an interest on not reminding many in the USA that there is a serious issue going on. Powerful sponsors need to be appeased.) > Nah, what I have seen is that many times is that such lack of information like that one comes not only from some conservative sources, but also from social media that also gets its talking points from regular conservative sites and also more unsavory ones. > > Again, you missed that Greenpeace, that do dislike polluters regardless from what ideology they come from, are reporting on the improvements too. No, in fact, I didn’t miss the blurb about Greenpeace saying that air quality (which is different than CO2 emissions, though they can be related) is better…in Beijing. I even know a bit more detail than they or perhaps you seem to as to WHY that is the case. I also know that for the previous Olympic games the CCP was able to enforce restrictions (temporarily) to give a good short term boost to the air quality and bring back some nice blue skies. The thing is, neither you nor Greenpeace seem to want to dig into the why it’s happening, instead attributing it to a switch to natural gas, which is only part of the answer. Just as an aside, I don’t get my ‘conservative’ information from social media sites like Facebook or Twitter either. Nor are they coming from Fox. To your first point, the problem I have is where the information is coming from and what it’s being filtered through. Also the thumbnail look at things using official data that you and a lot of the things you’ve linked to in this thread take on China. Myself, I look at a variety of sites and have to piece things together, as I’ve found that reading a Guardian article or a blurb from Greenpeace, while neatly packaged for a specific narrative doesn’t really dig into why something is happening, or what the other factors are that aren’t so nice. Part of the reason Beijing is doing better, air quality wise had to do with the CCP evicting a bunch of folks, closing down a bunch of street vendors, shutting off heat in a bunch of (poor peoples) apartments and other draconian measures…and it was specifically because China was getting a bad rap wrt their air quality, so the CCP (rightfully since you and GP bought it) figured that if they do this in the capital that it would be noticed. And no one would dig into the nasty underbelly of why or how it happened to really see, and to ask…is this sustainable? Is it something the rest of the question could reasonably do? Was it a short term solution to fix a perception problem or a long term one that will have a real effect? Look, I know China is doing a lot of good things. They are building a bunch of nuclear power plants (though I shudder to think of the quality control issues), and have put in a truly massive amount of hydro-electric (at great cost to both the environment and millions of displaced Chinese), and that these things have had a definite impact on their CO2 emissions going forward. They are building a lot of solar (though not that much more than the US) and wind (same), and they are pushing their stolen electric car tech to push out a lot of electric cars going forward (though this has environmental issues as well). But at the same time it’s putting more ICE cars on the road and building new coal fired power plants…China is the number one user of coal in the world, and that’s unlikely to change any time soon, despite more solar, wind, nuclear and hydro, as well as more use of natural gas which they have only recently started to really exploit. If China was being put under the same kind of scrutiny as the US, if China was expected to live up to the same commitment to treaties as the US, if a lot of the news we get wasn’t whitewashed coming out of China, I’d be fine with that. China SHOULD be treated as an adult. They SHOULD have to comply exactly the same as everyone else does wrt Paris and going forward. They should not get an economic advantage out of this…gods know, they get enough of those on their own by breaking WTO treaties and intellectual property rights and patents. As well as forcing companies wanting to do business in their country to do stuff that wouldn’t be tolerated in other countries in the west. But at a minimum if the US is going to sign up for something that is going to cause short term economic harm, the Chinese should have to as well. ---
**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 21, 2018, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/177 "2018-08-21T15:28:29Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Wait…what? Who said anything about focusing on them?? I’m saying they shouldn’t be given a freaking pass, not that they should be the only country focused on. No-one has said give China a pass. In fact, it’s getting tiresome having to repeat that we don’t want to give China a pass, over and over. Now back to American conservatives: do they think climate change is a serious problem and that the US has a moral obligation to do all it can to reduce emissions? > [@](#): > > Basically, if the US is going to be doing it’s part to seriously reduce CO2 emissions then China should be doing every bit as much…right now, today. Not in 10 years. No more, no less. THEN I think that at least one of the common conservative complaints would be put to rest. You’d still have to deal with the others, but not this one. OK, so what is your response to the point I just put to you? If the US can just point to China as the biggest emitter, and sidetrack every discussion on climate change, then so can every country. And probably forever. China’s emissions are never going to be lower than Spain’s, so Spain can use that as an excuse to essentially do nothing (except JAQ) indefinitely. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2018, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/178 "2018-08-21T15:41:09Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > No-one has said give China a pass. In fact, it’s getting tiresome having to repeat that we don’t want to give China a pass, over and over. > Now back to American conservatives: do they think climate change is a serious problem and that the US has a moral obligation to do all it can to reduce emissions? > > OK, so what is your response to the point I just put to you? > If the US can just point to China as the biggest emitter, and sidetrack every discussion on climate change, then so can every country. And probably forever. China’s emissions are never going to be lower than Spain’s, so Spain can use that as an excuse to essentially do nothing (except JAQ) indefinitely. You keep repeating it, yet you guys keep doing it. It’s in just about everything you do. And yeah, it’s getting tiresome for me too because it’s clear you don’t get it. So, moving on… Yeah, I think that other countries should hold the US’s feet to the fire as well. After all, we are reaping an economic advantage by not doing some of the things we should be (though as I said, our own numbers have been pretty flat…contrary to what China’s have been). I doubt everyone in Spain et al are really happy that the US bagged out of the agreement (as I’ve said, I’m not too happy about it either) and probably feel similar resentment to US conservatives who have it stick in their craw. In this case, however, the US wasn’t given a…well, let’s leave ‘pass’ out of it and instead say grace period…as China was. So it’s a bit different from US conservatives perspective and doesn’t really address why THEY oppose the idea of climate change based on this one aspect. See, the conservatives who think this is an indication that this is all part of the left wing conspiracy to make China ascendant (used to be Russia, but after Trump now the left seems to really dislike them) by giving them a grace period with no enforcement mechanism so that they could just not meet their targets once they have to start, while hampering the US and giving the Chinese an economic advantage over us. Many conservatives don’t see the issue (they have blinded themselves to the growing mountain of data), and still see this in terms of the left trying to harm the US. And looked at this way, giving China a grace period while expecting most other nations to toe the line, and the fact that even those who drafted the Paris accords said this was only a first step, it explains a lot of the resistance and push-back we are getting from conservatives on doing anything substantive wrt cutting our GhG (more than we already are…ironic that an earlier poster pointed out that a lot of the decline in our numbers is from natural gas, while later posters point out that this is a factor in why China has been able to do it :p). ---
**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 21, 2018, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/179 "2018-08-21T16:19:57Z")
> [@XT](#): > > No, in fact, I didn’t miss the blurb about Greenpeace saying that air quality (which is different than CO2 emissions, though they can be related) is better…in Beijing. I even know a bit more detail than they or perhaps you seem to as to WHY that is the case. I also know that for the previous Olympic games the CCP was able to enforce restrictions (temporarily) to give a good short term boost to the air quality and bring back some nice blue skies. The thing is, neither you nor Greenpeace seem to want to dig into the why it’s happening, instead attributing it to a switch to natural gas, which is only part of the answer. In this case one should wonder if evidence is countering the narrative\*\* of some conservatives\*\*, and in this case it is. > **[Reality Check: Is Beijing's air quality better this winter?](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42513531)** > > China's government claims Beijing's air pollution has improved this winter, but is it sustainable? > [@](#): > > The US embassy in Beijing has an air monitoring station which tweets out the PM2.5 readings for the capital by the hour. > > It is not official data, because it is not fully verified or validated; but an examination of its readings from October to the end of December 2017 suggest PM2.5 concentrations were more than 50% lower than last year. > > Prof Dabo Guan, chair of environmental economics at the University of East Anglia, says that there is little doubt that the air quality in Beijing has improved over the last year. > > While the end of 2016 was marred with a five day “red alert” for smog - the highest level of the government’s four-tier warning system for pollution - in 2017 there were no such red alerts (although a red “fog” alert was issued at the very beginning of the year.) > > And in Beijing itself, people noticed a difference. > > Angelica Yang, a postgraduate student who has been living there for more than five years, told the BBC the changes can be seen on the streets. > > “Last year you barely saw any faces on the streets - they were all covered up - but this year fewer people are wearing masks,” she said. As Greenpeace notices, wind and other natural factors are helping, but helping at about 20% of the result observed. > [@XT](#): > > Just as an aside, I don’t get my ‘conservative’ information from social media sites like Facebook or Twitter either. Nor are they coming from Fox. And already pointed out, that corporate media is not very good at informing the American public about the issue. [https://www.fastcompany.com/40514003/report-the-media-is-bad-at-covering-climate-change-and-worse-at-covering-solutions](https://www.fastcompany.com/40514003/report-the-media-is-bad-at-covering-climate-change-and-worse-at-covering-solutions) > [@XT](#): > > To your first point, the problem I have is where the information is coming from and what it’s being filtered through. Also the thumbnail look at things using official data that you and a lot of the things you’ve linked to in this thread take on China. Myself, I look at a variety of sites and have to piece things together, as I’ve found that reading a Guardian article or a blurb from Greenpeace, while neatly packaged for a specific narrative doesn’t really dig into why something is happening, or what the other factors are that aren’t so nice. Part of the reason Beijing is doing better, air quality wise had to do with the CCP evicting a bunch of folks, closing down a bunch of street vendors, shutting off heat in a bunch of (poor peoples) apartments and other draconian measures…and it was specifically because China was getting a bad rap wrt their air quality, so the CCP (rightfully since you and GP bought it) figured that if they do this in the capital that it would be noticed. And no one would dig into the nasty underbelly of why or how it happened to really see, and to ask…is this sustainable? Is it something the rest of the question could reasonably do? Was it a short term solution to fix a perception problem or a long term one that will have a real effect? At the Olympics in 2012 there were also reports of athletes training with masks, contrast that with what the American embassy is reporting nowadays and what Chinese people are posting in social media. The point is that there are efforts that the Chinese are doing that show that this is not only an effort to prevent bigger climate change, but as I pointed early, a very selfish act from the part of the CCP that has an interest in keeping the status quo. > [@XT](#): > > Look, I know China is doing a lot of good things. They are building a bunch of nuclear power plants (though I shudder to think of the quality control issues), and have put in a truly massive amount of hydro-electric (at great cost to both the environment and millions of displaced Chinese), and that these things have had a definite impact on their CO2 emissions going forward. They are building a lot of solar (though not that much more than the US) and wind (same), > **[China now produces more solar, wind and hydro power than the US and EU...](https://www.cnbc.com/advertorial/2018/03/28/china-now-produces-more-solar-wind-and-hydro-power-than-the-us-and-eu-combined-but-how.html)** > > China is now at the forefront of the renewable energy transition, and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is serving as a conduit to export this expertise and technology throughout Asia. > [@](#): > > China, a country that has become known in recent years for its smoggy skies, has made fighting pollution a national priority. While 75 percent of the electricity in China is still coming from coal-fired power plants, this is a state of affairs that is changing fast. The construction of at least 85 new coal-fired power plants has already been cancelled and the development and proliferation of new renewable energy sources has rapidly been taking their place. > > The results from this has been revolutionary, as China is now the global leader in solar, wind, and hydro energy capacity, investing more in renewable energy each year than the U.S. and EU combined. In 2017, China increased this commitment by pledging to invest an additional $360 billion in renewable energy prior to 2020, and, according to a recent report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), last year alone China pumped over $44 billion into increasing its renewable energy reach. > > This model of renewables replacing coal is now being replicated throughout Asia. According to the IEEFA, 55 GW worth of new coal-fired power went online in 2016, while 165 GW of new energy capacity was renewables. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that renewable energy will consist of roughly 60 percent of all additional energy capacity up to 2023. > [@XT](#): > > and they are pushing their stolen electric car tech to push out a lot of electric cars going forward (though this has environmental issues as well). But at the same time it’s putting more ICE cars on the road and building new coal fired power plants…China is the number one user of coal in the world, and that’s unlikely to change any time soon, despite more solar, wind, nuclear and hydro, as well as more use of natural gas which they have only recently started to really exploit. Uh, how soon is 2023? And I have to say that I was wrong about allowing construction of coal plants to keep people busy, Many are being cancelled (and that was not reported much I must notice). I failed to take into account that solar and wind jobs are also increasing in China. > [@XT](#): > > If China was being put under the same kind of scrutiny as the US, if China was expected to live up to the same commitment to treaties as the US, if a lot of the news we get wasn’t whitewashed coming out of China, I’d be fine with that. China SHOULD be treated as an adult. They SHOULD have to comply exactly the same as everyone else does wrt Paris and going forward. They should not get an economic advantage out of this…gods know, they get enough of those on their own by breaking WTO treaties and intellectual property rights and patents. As well as forcing companies wanting to do business in their country to do stuff that wouldn’t be tolerated in other countries in the west. But at a minimum if the US is going to sign up for something that is going to cause short term economic harm, the Chinese should have to as well. This is peculiar to say when it is the USA the one stepping out of the commitments as we speak. We should demand adult behavior (or even selfish behavior by looking at energy independence and better lung health because of what the evidence tell us) from the current Republican leadership. > **[Trump’s abandonment of Paris climate deal to cost U.S. economy trillions, new...](https://thinkprogress.org/trump-climate-policies-cost-us-economy-6-trillion-new-study-575120a5870a/)** > > Benefits of climate action are over a hundred times larger than the cost of cutting carbon pollution > [@](#): > > A new study from Stanford finds that failure to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Accord will cost the U.S. economy several trillion dollars in the coming decades — and cost the world economy tens of trillions of dollars. > > The study, “Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets,” was published in the journal Nature last week. It is among the first to analyze the economic benefits of keeping global warming to the levels unanimously agreed to by more than 190 nations at the 2015 Paris climate summit. > > President Trump has made the U.S. a rogue nation — the only one in the world to abandon the agreement — under the misguided notion that it will hurt our economy. The reverse is true. > > “In fact, we calculate the cumulative savings to the U.S. economy alone of meeting the most ambitious Paris targets could total $6 trillion (in today’s dollars),” the researchers Marshall Burke and Noah Diffenbaugh explained in The Hill on Sunday. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2018, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713/180 "2018-08-21T16:43:01Z")
Well, I’m looking at the US embassy monitoring that the BBC is supposedly using, and reading an article saying that while over the winter it was down somewhat it’s been worse than normal since April. Today, the PM2.5 is currently at 59 which is good…for Beijing. According to this [https://blissair.com/what-is-pm-2-5.htm](https://blissair.com/what-is-pm-2-5.htm), it’s ‘unhealthy’. The range for the last week was between 25 and 95, which ranges from moderate to unhealthy. Instead of linking me to a BBC fluff piece you could link me to something (not from Chinese state media) showing the data over time. One issue would be that the Chinese have adulterated some of their air quality devices so they don’t function very well. The real data point would be, how many people die each year in China from poor air quality. It had reached over a million in 2016. Has that substantially changed? Even this stat is subject to skepticism, however, since it’s really impossible to trust the data. I do trust the US embassy data, but it’s only one (unofficial) data point, and it’s hard to just how representative it is even in the context of just Beijing. And, of course, this is only tangentially connected to CO2 emissions, though there is correlation there. However, China could put in air scrubbers on their coal plants and there would be less air pollution but not a substantial reduction in CO2. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-conservatives-so-strongly-oppose-the-idea-of-climate-change/819713.md?page=10)