What do you mean by "pretend ecological issues?" Climate control isn't an ideology it's a necessity created by failed policies. Climate change doesn't care about your political or economic ideology.
Climate control ideology grows right out of "climate change doesn't care about you*". This happens precisely because people like yourself wield "climate change" politically, and thus give power to groups that pretend to care about your concerns.
Ecologies are important discussions, science is an important argument, and weaponizing climate change is basic ideology at work (same as all pseudo protectionist politics).
Unfortunately, having an ideological agenda against climate change and trying to effectively manage and mitigate climate change are completely orthogonal.
Indeed. For most it's nor ideology, but a genuine difference of opinion regarding how bad CO2 climate change will be in the next 100 years and how easy it will be to mitigate.
That said, there's a fairly large degrowth faction who are very underrepresented in debate/discussion forums like this who would genuinely want to reduce energy consumption and fossil fuel consumption even if they didn't cause climate change. I encounter them a fair bit in the real world.
People want to use the specter of climate change to play politics and advocate radical socialism instead of solving a technical problem. We could easily go nuclear, sequester carbon, mitigate what changes we can't stop. But that doesn't address anyone's political aims, so instead we have a silly proxy argument between people pretending climate change isn't real and people demanding that other people sacrifice lifestyle and embrace their politics. Until we get past that and address the real issues, nothing will change.
I think it's pretty self explanatory but ok: in this case pushing a political agenda via an environmental concern.
The problem with this is a lot of people don't agree with this political agenda but do understand the real problem of climate change. It would probably serve the environmental cause to not mix the two together.
That's not what I mean. Climate-change denial is a very specific issue, and empirical in nature.
When I say ideological difference, I mean people who have different fundamental values. Say socialism vs capitalism. People from both those camps can disagree with each other, but still respect the arguments others make and learn from those arguments.
Obviously, when I say arguments I mean academia level arguments, not party-rally-slogan level arguments.
Political manipulators use lies that validate people's base emotions and fears.
Telling people that all the indulgences they love are destroying the planet but won't affect us until generations in the future is a poor strategy that only a tactless political manipulator would employ. Nobody wants to hear about climate change, it's tone deaf.
The problem with climate change isn't climate change. It's because it has become co-opted by politics. It's now impossible to discuss climate change without becoming political.
The politics don't even agree relative to the side. Climate change has left the spectrum of left-right wing.
things are not that easy sir. take climate change. they are crooks on both sides. al gore got a lot of money out of those shamanic statement that world would end by 2018. gretta same. people push their agenda. everything is politic even green activist
Most climate change activists also have tied being for climate change to a political identity. Their solutions to fixing the problem of green house gasses in the atmosphere call for wholesale changes to the current political and cultural system used in the West. If the only goal of the climate change activists was to get CO2 ppm in the atmosphere back to 300, then they should be just advocating for a carbon tax that ratchets down greenhouse gas emissions fairly quickly. Instead many of them are advocating the elimination of capitalism, free markets, and the patriarchy.
Consider these 2 possible opinions of folks who don't care too much about fighting climate change:
1. Climate change is an unsolvable problem, requiring coordination on a massive scale by billions of actors who have been shown to defect whenever given the chance. Any plan we are likely to implement is unlikely to succeed. Humans overall are adaptive, adrobust to change, and when the changes caused by climate change happen, we may suffer a bit, but it will not be immense suffering.
2. Climate change isn't real.
Often when I've tried to argue position 1, which I actually believe, my friends are extremely frustrated and essentially think I'm trying to argue for position 2. Left-leaning folks are too idealistic to understand that position 1 is an entirely internally-consistent position.
reply