Why do most conservatives disbelieve global warming?

[John_Mace]

@Airman Doors

I don’t have any reason to be skeptical of AGW, I simply don’t see what difference it makes because we will not even be able to do so much as suspend the damage done at current levels even if we all stop driving cars or stop burning fuel for heat or cooking purposes.

For it to make any difference it would require six billion people to stop what they’re doing, and right now. That’s impossible, so we’re going to have to live with the consequences of it. It’s a little late for palliative care when you’re dying of cancer.

Not 6 Billion. The US has only 300M and we’re responsible for 22% of world CO2 emissions. I couldn’t find a source for what % of methane is from the US (methane being much worse than carbon), but that generally comes from natural gas fields, and I know the US is a top producer of that energy source.

Now, it’s not realistic for the US to “stop what they’re doing”, but surely we can make some changes, no? I’m generally an anti-tax guy, but if a certain activity is harming the environment, then I don’t see why taxing that activity would be a bad idea. Or perhaps we could set up some sort of carbon trading mechanism that individuals could participate in.

[villa]

@askeptic

The problem Marty, is if you’re wrong we are fucked. If the other guys are wrong, worse case scenario we have a healthier planet to live on for a long time.

I have to say, this attitude, and I have heard it multiple times before, really bugs me. And I believe that climate change is happening, that humans contribute to it, and that changes are necessary to avoid some pretty major problems.

But it’s simply not true to present this as “if they are wrong, we all die; if we are wrong, we just get a healthier planet.” The changes that are necessary aren’t free. In fact, from what it seems, they will be pretty damned expensive. At the very least there will be a large opportunity cost involved. But changing industry and lifestyles doesn’t come without a cost to pay.

[Polycarp]

Zoe: Skyline Drive, in Virginia, runs along the crest of the Blue Ridge Mountains, overlooking the Shenandoah Valley. The Great Valley of Virginia, separating the Blue Ridge from the next range over (which is apparently named Fred, since no atlas seems to give a range name for it; it’s part of the Allegheny complex) consists of the Shenandoah River, New River, Roanoke River, and Holston River Valleys, each finding a different way to drain out of the valley. Where Interstate 64 connects Charlottesville and Staunton, at the southern end of Shenandoah National Park, Skyline Drive gives way to the Blue Ridge Parkway, which runs from there to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in western North Carolina, gain largely following the ridgeline.

Oh, and guys, those aren’t ultra-broad brushes you’re using; they’re pushbrooms. Now use them to sweep up some of the mess in here, willya?

[askeptic]

@villa

The changes that are necessary aren’t free. In fact, from what it seems, they will be pretty damned expensive. At the very least there will be a large opportunity cost involved. But changing industry and lifestyles doesn’t come without a cost to pay.

Do you think they will be as expensive as a trumped up war in Iraq?

[villa]

@askeptic

Do you think they will be as expensive as a trumped up war in Iraq?

Probably significantly more so. I wish we had the money from the war on Iraq to spend on starting the changes though. It is a crying shame that money is not recoverable so we have to look for other places to get the necessary funding.

[John_Mace]

@BobLibDem

I think the bottom line is that conservatives are in denial because to accept global warming means that a response involving governmental regulation could be required. The idea that free market forces could restrain GW is ludicrous.

I don’t know about that.

Firstly, lets remember that Global Warming, per se, isn’t necessarily bad. It’s bad because we’ve set much of our civilization up with the current climate in mind. But some places that don’t have “good” climates now will have “better” climates in the future (if the global temperature rises as is generally predicted). The market will react to that quite well.

Secondly, when Global Warming starts hitting people’s pocketbooks, everyone is going to want to do something about it. We aren’t going to sit around like the proverbial frog in the pot of water that is slowly heated to boiling. Human nature is such that we tend not to react until there is a real, palpable crisis on our hands. But we do react. It’s not going to be “too late”, ever.

Now, that might not do too much for the folks who live in Bangladesh. But the folks in the US are going to do just fine, relatively speaking. Crops will move north, or towards the coasts. Coastal cities will relocate. People will carry on.

Now, I’m not saying we should just sit back and watch things happen. But the idea that we’ll die as a species, or anything remotely close to that, if we don’t act now is simply not true.

[Lobohan]

@John Mace

I don’t know about that.

Firstly, lets remember that Global Warming, per se, isn’t necessarily bad. It’s bad because we’ve set much of our civilization up with the current climate in mind. But some places that don’t have “good” climates now will have “better” climates in the future (if the global temperature rises as is generally predicted). The market will react to that quite well.

Secondly, when Global Warming starts hitting people’s pocketbooks, everyone is going to want to do something about it. We aren’t going to sit around like the proverbial frog in the pot of water that is slowly heated to boiling. Human nature is such that we tend not to react until there is a real, palpable crisis on our hands. But we do react. It’s not going to be “too late”, ever.

Now, that might not do too much for the folks who live in Bangladesh. But the folks in the US are going to do just fine, relatively speaking. Crops will move north, or towards the coasts. Coastal cities will relocate. People will carry on.

Now, I’m not saying we should just sit back and watch things happen. But the idea that we’ll die as a species, or anything remotely close to that, if we don’t act now is simply not true.

You paint a rosy picture, and while I think it’s silly to imagine that human civilization will end as a result of global warming it could lead to world wide recession and strife. For instance, if the sea levels do indeed rise, hundreds of millions of refugees suddenly don’t have jobs, homes or food. That sort of thing could monkeywrench an economy or two.

I can certainly see increased warfare as a result, nobody wants smelly refugees in their back yard. What I fear about global warming isn’t the Venusification of Earth, it’s millions of preventable deaths and worldwide tanked economies.

[VinylTurnip]

@Chief Pedant

An independent observer would, for instance, look at Mr Gore’s personal consumption and make the conclusion that he too, personally thinks AGW is a “crock,” liberal label and Nobel for public efforts notwithstanding.

Hey, would this be the same independent observer that thinks Bush doesn’t really want victory in Iraq because neither he nor any of his immediate family members are toting M16s around Baghdad, getting into firefights with insurgents?

I’ve met that guy. Friendly enough sort, but a little slow on the uptake, if you know what I mean. Probably not the ideal baseline opinion.

[BobLibDem]

@John Mace

I don’t know about that.

Firstly, lets remember that Global Warming, per se, isn’t necessarily bad. It’s bad because we’ve set much of our civilization up with the current climate in mind. But some places that don’t have “good” climates now will have “better” climates in the future (if the global temperature rises as is generally predicted). The market will react to that quite well.

I disagree. I think GW is bad in and of itself. I also don’t think a warmer climate is necessarily better for anyone. The native tribes of northern North America have adapted their lifestyles to a climate that they may prefer to a warmer one, who are we to say that they will get a “better” climate? I live in what many consider to be one of the colder states and I certainly wouldn’t want summers in Michigan to resemble summers in Mississippi. The market will react to GW as it happens, but it will most definitely NOT react to slow it down. If it doesn’t help the bottom line and if it isn’t mandated by government, it isn’t going to happen. The corporations and their shills have figured out that as long as they can keep denial alive, they can keep those corporate profits flowing.

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

@Lobohan

What I fear about global warming isn’t the Venusification of Earth, it’s millions of preventable deaths and worldwide tanked economies.

My fears exactly.

[Voyager]

@Starving Artist

There are three main reasons why this conservative doesn’t get too worked up about it. This is not to say I adamantly disbelieve it, but it’s gonna take persuasion from people whose integrity and judgement I respect to swing me around to being alarmed about it.

Reason 1: Alarm about it primarily comes from the left, the same ideology that 35 years ago was clammering that we were killing all the trees; that 30 years ago was claiming the world was running out of oil; that 25 years ago was certain we were all going to die from air, water and polution, etc., etc. Of course none of that happened and today no one is particularly concerned over these calamitous occurrances. I know that nominal steps have been taken to deal with these concerns, primarily due to pressure from the left, but I’m not convinced that they played that much of a role in reducing the alleged danger.

The alarm that counts comes from scientists, not politicians. Would you accept that AGW is a problem only if say, Dick Cheney, came around?

The concern about pollution was more like 30 years ago, and fortunately that good old Liberal Richard Nixon did something about it. Do you consider the elimination of leaded gas minor? Smog seems to be a much smaller problem in California than it was back then, and there are a bunch of rivers and lakes a lot cleaner. If there was no EPA, if it was still okay to dump toxic wastes anywhere, who knows where we’d be. Not dying - only a few extremists and most of the people writing stories for Galaxy, thought that. But with much higher cancer rates for sure.

So in this regard, I pretty much feel that global warming is the calamity du jour that isn’t really much of a threat, if it is indeed a threat at all, and that 30 years from now no one will be thinking about it.

Do you have any evidence for this, or is this a matter of either faith or denial?

Reason 2. And this is the biggie: You don’t know who to believe! This country has become so polarized by the culture war that has been going on for the last forty years or so that it’s virtually impossible to get any information that isn’t deliberately slanted to suit one or another political or social agenda. You can’t believe the politicians, you can’t believe the media and you can’t believe the experts. If I link to an article saying that not one t.v. meterologist in the country believes in global warming, or that the CEO of the Weather Channel says it’s bunk, the left says that they are only saying that because their loyalty lies with corporate interests, and then they hold up the likes of Al Gore and Leonardo DeCaprio (a fine actor btw, whose work I enjoy tremendously) as people who really know what’s going on. If I say this expert or panel of experts discounts it, someone on the left will cite an expert or panel of experts who say it’s legit. Etc., etc., ad infinitum.

One could say pretty much the same thing about creationism. I don’t really care what Al Gore thinks - he’s really a PR man, though a good one. I care about what the consensus of climate scientists think. You’ve pretty much ignored the scientific consensus.

Reason 3. There isn’t much that can realistically be done about it at this point anyway, so what good does it do to get worked up about it? Any solution is going to have to involve huge investments of time and money and resouces by nations all over the globe, who are also going to have to work in concert with one another in order to acheive any sort of impact on this situation even if fears over global warming should prove to be valid, and I’m afraid I just don’t see this happening. Have-not countries and countries with shrewd leaders will drag their feet or do nothing knowing that richer and freer countries who are beholden to their citizenship will pick up the slack financially, or they will do nothing to create hardship on their own people in order to lessen the dangers of global warming elsewhere on the planet.

Conservatives seem to have gone from “there is no problem” to “it’s too late to do anything about it” pretty rapidly. Why would you expect India or China to do anything about it if we, who can afford action a lot better, don’t?
In addition, those who were against EPA and other measures to fight pollution screamed about economic catastrophe also. Has it ever happened? If we do carbon trading, for instance, which is free enterprise working goosed by government, and a good solution, people will have to build solar panels, or wind mills, or the like. In any round of innovation the buggy whip makers lose out. I think a lot of businesses supporting conservatives and against action on AGW are like the buggy whip makers who might have said that building roads for cars would destroy the stable industry. I trust in capitalism enough to think we can do a lot without simply telling people to make do with less. Would increasing the fuel efficiency requirements really wipe out Detroit, or would it simply force them to innovate faster than they want to now?

So, in a nutshell: I distrust the messenger; I’m not persuaded I’m getting accurate information; and even if I was I don’t see much that can be done about it…not at this point anyway…and I’m concerned that attempts to deal with it will only lead to more government intervention in our lives, intervention that will be expensive, restrictive, and ultimately, ineffectual.

Or so it seems to me!..And now, a word from our sponsors.

And that’s the bottom line, right? Are the MPG requirements we have now all that onerous? Would actual enforcement of rules cleaning up power plant smokestacks really infringe on your liberty? If anyone were telling you to buy a Prius or else, I can see it. Saying that we have a goal for cutting carbon emissions and letting the free market figure out how seems like the best way to me - but I believe that there are plenty of smart people in industry. I guess you must think US industry is too incompetent to find a solution.

[John_Mace]

@Lobohan

What I fear about global warming isn’t the Venusification of Earth, it’s millions of preventable deaths and worldwide tanked economies.

I’m not convinced that some of the solutions being put out there wouldn’t do the same thing. That’s the problem.

@BLD

I disagree. I think GW is bad in and of itself.

Well, “bad” is to a large degree subjective, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But places that aren’t good for growing crops will become better for that purpose. That’s all that I meant.

I also don’t think a warmer climate is necessarily better for anyone.

I never said it was. In fact, I’m certain it isn’t.

The native tribes of northern North America have adapted their lifestyles to a climate that they may prefer to a warmer one, who are we to say that they will get a “better” climate?

What “native tribes”? If you mean the Indians and Eskimo of the arctic region, well, frankly there aren’t that many of them. How much should we allow the economy of 99% of the US to tank because some folks still want to hunt walrus? Perhaps it would be cheaper and better for more people to simply help them adapt to the change. (I’m not saying that is the best solution, but I don’t see that it’s necessarily worse than other solutions being offered.)

I live in what many consider to be one of the colder states and I certainly wouldn’t want summers in Michigan to resemble summers in Mississippi.

Under what scenario would that happen? But even if it did, so what? Some people would want that. Is their desire any less valid than yours?

The market will react to GW as it happens, but it will most definitely NOT react to slow it down. If it doesn’t help the bottom line and if it isn’t mandated by government, it isn’t going to happen. The corporations and their shills have figured out that as long as they can keep denial alive, they can keep those corporate profits flowing.

I wouldn’t disagree with that to any significant degree. But you’ve moved the goal post from what I was originally responding to: “The idea that free market forces could restrain GW is ludicrous.”

[Chief_Pedant]

(by CP:)
An independent observer would, for instance, look at Mr Gore’s personal consumption and make the conclusion that he too, personally thinks AGW is a “crock,” liberal label and Nobel for public efforts notwithstanding.

@Vinyl Turnip

Hey, would this be the same independent observer that thinks Bush doesn’t really want victory in Iraq because neither he nor any of his immediate family members are toting M16s around Baghdad, getting into firefights with insurgents?

I’ve met that guy. Friendly enough sort, but a little slow on the uptake, if you know what I mean. Probably not the ideal baseline opinion.

A non sequitur for me…sorry.
I’m not sure what Mr Bush’s incompetence has to do with Mr Gore’s personal behaviour being at such odds with his public call that we all do something about AGW.

How is someone who points out the disparity between the public posture and private behaviour of Mr Gore “slow on the uptake” and whatever does that have to do with Mr. Bush?

[BobLibDem]

@John Mace

But you’ve moved the goal post from what I was originally responding to: “The idea that free market forces could restrain GW is ludicrous.”

And I still stand by that. For market forces there has to be an economic incentive. What is the economic incentive for a corporation to reduce carbon emissions?

[Shodan]

If part of global warming is due to people burning oil, and we are running out of oil, then we don’t need government to do anything about that part of the problem, do we? The free market would take care of things to that extent.

I’m not saying that this would be true of the whole problem, but I have a great deal more faith in the free market to adjust than I do in the federal government.

Part of the rest of the reasons for the greater degree of skepticism on the right towards AGW is that the measures suggested by the left are not cost- or risk-free. If we clamp back on our economy, people are going to die that would otherwise live. It is a matter of balancing the harm we do in one way with the harm we do in another. And I automatically dismiss those who claim that whatever measures we take against AGW are cheap, risk-free, and have no significant downside.

Some of the rest of it is the “watermelon” phenomenon - green on the outside, pink on the inside.

Another bit of it is the “we’ve got ours; fuck you, Jack” that seems to be implied when the developed world says to India or China that they better cut back on CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions, even though the West didn’t when their economies were at a similar level of development. Sure, we all have multiple cars and big, air-conditioned houses and fly to Hawaii every Christmas for vacation. But Achmed and Chang don’t get to do that - they live in huts and drive bikes.

Which is also why it is entirely possible that the developing world will say, sure, we’ll cut back on our emissions, but not do it, and then the West (assuming we do) gets the economic hit of exporting our manufacturing base to the Third World and the consequences of AGW. A two-fer!

But, in all likelihood, the West wouldn’t either. I don’t believe any of the nations of the EU have made any of their targets in reducing greenhouse gasses.

Maybe it would be more cost-efficient to spend money on mitigating the results of AGW, rather than attempting to prevent what apparently can’t be stopped from doubling anyway.

And, as ever, it needs to be pointed out that this is the same UN who recently decided they were grossly exaggerating the impact of AIDS world wide. They also seem to have a bit of an agenda in the case of AGW - same one as always, apparently - getting their hand into the wallet of the West to the tune of $86 billion in the next few years - not counting the economic impact of reforms.

Plus, who the hell do we believe?

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent

or

Today’s report, the first of four volumes to be released this year by the IPCC, also confirms that it is “very likely” that humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases have caused most of the global temperature rise observed since the mid-20th century.

How is someone who points out the disparity between the public posture and private behaviour of Mr Gore “slow on the uptake” and whatever does that have to do with Mr. Bush?

Bush is responsible for all the evils in the world, haven’t you heard?
Regards,
Shodan

[Isosleepy]

To answer the OP: Because everything anymore is divided along those lines - if you agree with one or more points of the dogma from one side, you have to fight being forced to sign on for the rest of the crap - and forced by both sides.

For example, I can’t be a real liberal or even left-leaning centrist without accepting all, or most all, of the top accepted truths like GWB=stoopid/evil or that GW needs to be stopped at all costs or that the healthcare system in the UK/Canada/wherever is far superior to that in the US and needs to be adapted immediately. My opinion will be met with scorn and vitriol, and I am defined as “conservative” - never mind that a faith based and controlled society easily makes my top three nightmares list.

Even if you stand strong, articulate a worldview that agrees with some points from both sides, and questions the dogmas, you are marginalized. You’re stupid, or evil, or weak or soft. There is no earthly reason why opposition to abortion should automatically mean pro-death penalty (the opposite would at least make some sense) pro-right to carry, and pro building a fence in the desert near Mexico. None. But almost every issue is divided between the camps now, with debate having devolved to stock exchanges of key slogans and insults. Almost like those guys swapping jokes by just calling out a number.

But this ain’t no joke. This polarisation is what’s going to kill us, either bodily or at least as a concept of a free nation, well before Global Warming, Osama Bin Laden or internet porn.

OK, maybe not kill us. That sounds like the very hyperbole fuelling the other crap. but it’s like, bad.

[John_Mace]

@BobLibDem

And I still stand by that. For market forces there has to be an economic incentive. What is the economic incentive for a corporation to reduce carbon emissions?

Not much, right now. But you seem to be assuming that “corporations” are the ones causing the GW problem. Of course, they only make the shit that we consumers want to buy. If all the Americans who said they’re concerned with GW insisted that corporations make products in a “greener” fashion, then they would. Corporations are not inherently evil, Bob. They mainly just give us what we want.

[XT]

@BobLibDem

And I still stand by that. For market forces there has to be an economic incentive. What is the economic incentive for a corporation to reduce carbon emissions?

Make it worth their while to do so of course. That’s why places like Walmart are looking into the feasibility of increased efficiency with their logistics fleet, or energy saving stores. Because it saves them money in the long run…and it gives them better press in an increasingly carbon conscious market.

Ignore market forces and try to force the US to go green by fiat and you will either tank the economy…or fail miserably. Probably both. And THAT is what the die hard liberal/greenies don’t get IMHO.

-XT

[intention]

@BobLibDem

And I still stand by that. For market forces there has to be an economic incentive. What is the economic incentive for a corporation to reduce carbon emissions?

Ummm … munny?

Seriously, carbon isn’t free. Energy isn’t free. Every business I know of strives to reduce its energy use. In doing so, it reduces its carbon emissions.

Q.E.D.

w.

[Wee_Bairn]

I think its because most Republicans tend to be Christian, and belief in global warming would imply that man is capable of causing great destruction to the earth, which wouldn’t be possible if God exists.