2/18/2026 at 9:30:11 PM
Even the crotchetiest and most out-of-touch people I know basically accept that the Earth is warming now. They just either disagree on the cause or proportion.Some people just naturally resist hyperbole or sensationalist rhetoric, and I find it very helpful to reframe the argument from doom and gloom and fire and brimstone to something more realistic and grounded:
"The longer we put off doing something, the harder and more expensive it will be in the future. In a Pascal's Wager sort of way, many of the changes we are talking about don't even really cost us anything, and the potential that C02 is not a real culprit is more than made up by danger that it is. Making changes now is the prudent and financially sound decision."
In a large part, this is what the brief ESG trend on the stock market was briefly about before it got co-opted by a dozen different competing messages.
by legitster
2/18/2026 at 9:45:21 PM
The problem with Pascal's wager logic is you have to change your behavior based on all kinds of crazy low-probability events. You must worship every god, be an AI-doomer, a climate-doomer, a nuclear-doomer.Pascal's wager is generally agreed to be logically unsound, so it's somewhat insane that we've revived it in all these modern contexts. If you believe in it, at least be consistent and sacrifice a goat to Zeus every couple years.
by aeternum
2/19/2026 at 9:09:44 AM
Pascal's wager, as it relates to faith, is based on the premise that there is a lot to win in making the wager --but little to lose. In turn, that second part is grounded in the assumption (right or wrong, I won't judge) that living according to Christian principles brings benefits _in this life also_ to the individual who so chooses.So it seems a mischaracterization to present the essence of the wager as going out of your way to perform random and costly rites in the hope of lifting any ill omen.
by pablomalo
2/19/2026 at 10:46:35 PM
I disagree. If doing thing x brings benefits, then you have reason to do thing x regardless of the wager. Utilitarianism is sufficient.The wager is only interesting on those rites where the expected-value is uncertain or unknowable.
by aeternum
2/19/2026 at 10:13:36 PM
Exactly. For example, what if making such wagers is key in determining that you belong in "hell" for not being genuine?by joquarky
2/18/2026 at 11:58:34 PM
Here’s a video called “Is AI safety a Pascal’s Mugging?”: https://youtu.be/JRuNA2eK7w0I haven’t watched it back but from what I remember the main point of the video is that kind of situation happens when the probability involved is vanishingly small, and all the events you listed don’t have a vanishingly small probability, so they are not Pascal’s wager situations, just a normal rational safety concerns with particularly high consequences
by circuit10
2/18/2026 at 10:42:18 PM
Yes, and no. I think we actually do this logic a lot in our lives. Do I actually believe whole wheat bread is better for me, or do I just buy it on the chance it is? Do I go with the cheapest toothpaste or spend money on something that might be better? Do I buy an AWD car on the chance I am stuck?Sacrificing a goat, after all, does sound like a lot of work. But maybe I will wear a lucky hat to a baseball game?
by legitster
2/18/2026 at 11:57:51 PM
There has to be infinite torment in play for the wager to apply too! Thus by conclusion you should only give vengeful gods the benefit of the doubtby conartist6
2/19/2026 at 2:12:49 AM
In this case, it's not exactly like Pascal's wager because there is plenty of scientific evidence of disastrous consequences of not believing in climate change (and preparing accordingly). There's no evidence to suggest that a non-belief in God will send you to hell.by barbs
2/18/2026 at 11:00:14 PM
> Even the crotchetiest and most out-of-touch people I know basically accept that the Earth is warming now.POTUS tweeted "WHATEVER HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING???" a few weeks ago when a record cold wave came in. I suppose you were talking about people you personally know, but it seems like there's a good chance many who voted for him would say it too.
Anyway, I guess there is a growing collective admission that the climate is changing even if the crotchety ones will still quip about it not being warmer at some given time and place. It's unfortunate that "global warming" caught on instead of "climate change."
by zzrrt
2/18/2026 at 11:51:54 PM
> Anyway, I guess there is a growing collective admission that the climate is changing even if the crotchety ones will still quip about it not being warmer at some given time and place. It's unfortunate that "global warming" caught on instead of "climate change."Rather than a collective admission, I feel what's happening is the crotchety people are dying off, leaving us millennials and GenZ to clean up the mess. Thinks won't change until a critical mass of them are dead and gone.
by ModernMech
2/19/2026 at 1:02:34 PM
You’re downvoted, but the demographics on this are clear. The younger you are, the more likely you are to take seriously the dire message that the scientific method has trivially produced.by datsci_est_2015
2/19/2026 at 4:13:24 AM
That was always the plan.by scoofy
2/18/2026 at 11:12:56 PM
[flagged]by legitster
2/18/2026 at 11:20:39 PM
> The issue seemed to completely drop from public discourse during the Biden presidencyBiden signed into law the largest investment in clean energy in US history, dwarfing everything that came before. Half the economy was trying to get their hands on some of that stimmy.
by standardUser
2/19/2026 at 1:02:23 AM
Both were true, the IRA handed out a lot of money to green projects at the same time the administration quietly greenlit a massive boom in oil production. (The Biden administration issued more new drilling permits than either Trump administration).by legitster
2/19/2026 at 4:24:40 AM
> at the same time the administration quietly greenlit a massive boom in oil productionHard to get re-elected when gas is expensive. Voters are uninformed but you have to work with what they are, not what you wish they would be.
by triceratops
2/18/2026 at 10:45:28 PM
> Even the crotchetiest and most out-of-touch people I know basically accept that the Earth is warming nowSame. Empirical evidence is just too hard to ignore.
It's quite amazing watching the "climate change isn't real" folks transition to "climate change is no big deal", then to "climate change is too hard/expensive to deal with".
by perrygeo
2/18/2026 at 11:24:17 PM
> Empirical evidence is just too hard to ignore.Except it's the opposite - empirical evidence is very easy to ignore. Between herding, the replication crisis, and the overall insularity of academia, trust in "studies" has never been lower.
But people still respond very well to demonstrative or pragmatic evidence. Empirically there's nothing special about a keto diet. But demonstratively the effects are very convincing.
by legitster
2/19/2026 at 3:32:30 AM
People who know anything about the replication crisis are a single-digit percentage of the population. Doesn't help explain the public's attitudes.by justin66
2/19/2026 at 9:36:55 AM
People just lived through a crisis in which public health officials were telling them to avoid a deadly virus by using glory holes[0]. Skepticism of institutions is at an all time high for good reason.[0] https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/23/health-officials-recommend-gl...
by mvdtnz
2/19/2026 at 2:30:41 PM
Thanks for that reminder of some cultural differences (!) between us and our friends across the pond. Hopefully it goes without saying, that rather colorful example is a few steps removed from the replication crisis, although the point about governing institutions spending their credibility in poor ways is taken.by justin66
2/18/2026 at 11:22:04 PM
> It's quite amazing watching the "climate change isn't real" folks transition to "climate change is no big deal", then to "climate change is too hard/expensive to deal with".At the top level (of government and corporate entities) those people always knew it was real, the messaging just changed as it became harder to keep a straight face while parroting the previous message in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence.
Exxon's (internal) research in the 1970s has been very accurate to the observed reality since then.
They just didn't care that it was real because they valued profits/power/etc in the moment over some difficult to quantify (but certainly not good) future calamity.
You would think they would care at least in the cases where they had children and grandchildren who will someday have to really reckon with the outcome, but you'd be wrong, they (still) don't give a shit.
by georgemcbay
2/18/2026 at 11:06:21 PM
Playbook is The Narcissist's Prayer That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.by pstuart
2/19/2026 at 1:05:07 PM
Narcissism is America’s greatest vice, imo. Not surprising to see it take center stage on what may be the nation’s greatest challenge: ensuring our future in the face of climate change.by datsci_est_2015
2/18/2026 at 10:55:57 PM
something something tilt of the earth.by darylteo
2/18/2026 at 11:01:29 PM
Unaudited empirical evidence is easy to ignore. The problem is one of physics. It should be simple to show with napkin math.by peyton
2/18/2026 at 11:21:26 PM
Reminds me a bit of the Narcissist's Prayer:That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.
by gzread
2/18/2026 at 9:48:08 PM
I'm a different kind of crotchety.I think it's real and potentially catastrophic. But I see very little chance of (sufficient) coordinated action to mitigate it.
I.e., I think there's too much temptation for individual countries to pursue a competitive economic or military advantage by letting everyone but themselves make sacrifices.
I hope I'm wrong.
by CoastalCoder
2/18/2026 at 9:54:17 PM
Luckily the effect is much larger in the opposite direction: weaning oneself off of foreign oil is a huge advantage both economically and militarily.by bryanlarsen
2/18/2026 at 10:44:21 PM
Is it though? For developing countries, having a large supply of fossil fuels has always been a huge accelerator for industrialization and overall economic growth even if that fuel has to be imported. There really is no substitute, especially when you consider that it's not used only for transportation and power generation but also for manufacturing as an industrial heat source and chemical feed stock.by nradov
2/19/2026 at 3:16:33 AM
The cheapest mix of reliable power is 95% solar/battery and 5% natural gas. And that's in the US with its cheap gas and poor insolation. In the third world it'll be much higher than 95%.by bryanlarsen
2/18/2026 at 11:22:26 PM
Solar energy is cheaper than oil right now. On average. Too bad it's highly variable but if you can cope with extreme variability you can get extremely cheap energy.by gzread
2/18/2026 at 11:51:28 PM
Pretty tough to cope with variability if you want to build a modern industrial economy. I mean even with cheap labor it kind of kills your cost structure when capital intensive facilities have to shut down due to electricity shortage. Plus there are plenty of industrial processes that require fossil fuels as inputs separate from just electricity.by nradov
2/18/2026 at 11:12:05 PM
China seems to think so. Their efforts to boost their non-carbon energy sources is going at an advanced clip, along with their advances in EVs.Not saying they're above reproach, but their energy policy certainly trumps ours.
by pstuart
2/19/2026 at 8:46:32 AM
Nuclear energy is our saviour it needs to be miniaturized and proliferated.by mikrotikker
2/18/2026 at 11:05:18 PM
fossil fuels were a proxy for energy. China continues to show the world that energy independence can come via electricity that you generate within your borders, and that it can be cheaper than importing foreign oil.by eldaisfish
2/18/2026 at 11:16:23 PM
China is in no way energy independent. Their fossil fuel imports are extremely high and not decreasing.by nradov
2/19/2026 at 12:14:31 AM
China's gasoline use is down substantially. Industrial use is up, but much of that is re exported via plastic etc.by bryanlarsen
2/19/2026 at 12:51:41 AM
Right, that's exactly the point. Regardless of the consequences, worldwide fossil fuel consumption will continue increasing. Those stable organic molecules with energy rich chemical bonds are so damn useful for everything that enables modern industrial civilization and there is no substitute.by nradov
2/19/2026 at 3:18:06 AM
No, plastic usage world wide is less than 10% of fossil fuel usage. Only in China can the plastic increase compensate for lowering demand because they are the factory of the world.by bryanlarsen
2/19/2026 at 3:50:38 AM
Buddy you're really missing the point. Fossil fuels are used as inputs into a huge number of manufactured products, not just plastic.by nradov
2/19/2026 at 12:13:06 PM
All of which combined are well under 10%.by bryanlarsen
2/19/2026 at 6:58:36 PM
India and China are doing just that.How are they doing that, you ask? Switching to coal ... India's adding 80GW of coal, and China having 95GW planned and building.
by spwa4
2/18/2026 at 10:24:11 PM
Trump is implementing multi decade right wing fantasies in many fronts. The idea that we can't achieve anything is limiting yourself when you're in a political arena. To win, like Trump, when you get power you have to attack on many fronts, cultural, capital, legal, and approach it as a zero sum scorched earth war where norms are another obstacle in your way.by guelo
2/18/2026 at 10:47:05 PM
[flagged]by rayiner
2/19/2026 at 8:24:37 AM
thats a wild take... isnt this exactly the purpose of a dictionary: to reflect the words used in general language usage?by garte
2/19/2026 at 7:15:46 PM
Right, the definition should reflect general usage. Did the general usage here just coincidentally change days after a Republican appointee used a word in a hearing? That’s a heck of a coincidence! No, what happened was that liberals used their control over putatively neutral institutions like M-W to advance their position in a political dispute.by rayiner
2/19/2026 at 8:18:00 PM
I'm very curious how you happened to have, seemingly at the ready, a cite to a 5.5-year-old Fox News piece.by dctoedt
2/19/2026 at 9:21:24 PM
I have a very good memory for anything I’ve read.by rayiner
2/18/2026 at 9:54:23 PM
> Even the crotchetiest and most out-of-touch people I know basically accept that the Earth is warming nowMy family is fundamentalist protestant, very midwestern, and I think about half of them believe that the earth is warming. Not trying to "win", just trying to say that a lot of this depends on the crowd you interact with. I don't know the percentage, but certainly there are still way too many people that don't even believe it. The very tired response is "well i wish it would warm up here slaps knee". Using the phrase 'Climate Change' at least reduces that objection.
by pinkmuffinere
2/18/2026 at 10:37:10 PM
My father in law was a massive climate change denier until some trees started dying on his property.He called out an arborist, and the arborist clearly explained that there wasn't enough rain anymore to support the number of trees on his land, and that the forest was slowly receding as the older/bigger trees took all the water from the other trees.
It finally dawned on him that a place where trees used to happily live to hundreds of years old could no longer support trees.
Still, he thinks CO2 is a con job cooked up by China and that global warming is divine punishment. But it's a good reminder that a lot of denialists are waiting for a personal, practical reason to care.
by legitster
2/18/2026 at 11:13:21 PM
> But it's a good reminder that a lot of denialists are waiting for a personal, practical reason to care.Four out of five denialists agree!
by Terretta
2/18/2026 at 9:57:24 PM
"Climate Change" implies that some sort of "constant climate" is even attainable, irrespective of desirable.by smitty1e
2/18/2026 at 10:12:29 PM
It doesn't; that's kind of a first-glance reading of the phrase without really thinking about it.Something can said to change from a certain standard even if it wasn't perfectly constant to begin with. For example, if I always kept my house at 65-75 degrees for the past year, and now it's 85 degrees inside, I could certainly say that the temperature in my house recently changed and gotten warmer. That might lead me to check whether my AC's working, rather than say "well I guess the temperature has never really been constant, and 85 is within the range of possible non-constant temperatures, so everything's perfectly normal and nothing has changed."
by mithr
2/18/2026 at 10:38:13 PM
Your analogy doesnt work, becaue the earth has been warmer than it is now several times in the past. so the increased temperature is within the range of normal temperatures.The problem is not that the earth is warming, it is that it is warming at an artificially increased rate.
by alt227
2/18/2026 at 11:35:26 PM
The rate of warming is a problem (i.e.: it determines what generations of humans are going to see this), but the major problem is the warming itself, or rather the change.We (humanity) have gotten comfortable with the way things are, and a change in that is going to mean that things are going to change for us, and we don't like change. Most of our biggest cities are all close to the coast and will be subject to massive flooding in the next 100 years (if not sooner). Much of those same large population centers are also fairly close to being too hot for general survival (without aggressive AC). Our agriculture is all setup for the temperatures we have now, and the rain patterns we are used to. So we are going to have to change both where we live, and how we grow our food (location and probably strains as well).
Global warming is (almost) definitely not going to destroy all life on earth, but many of the forecasts are in extinction-level for most of the large animals. So life in general will continue, and probably humanity (since we are so good at making environment for ourselves), but the (eventual) changes are going to make the world very different, in ways that we are not going to like.
by larkost
2/19/2026 at 6:30:14 PM
The warming is definitely not the problem (for the earth itself), only for the human race of which I care very little for.Many different groups of large animals have lived and died off over the ages. It will happen again many times after humans are gone.
I personally welcome nuclear war and anything else which will help wipe out the human race. In a few million years the earth will move on to its next rulers and we will be a distant memory.
by alt227
2/19/2026 at 3:33:47 PM
> and we don't like changeOh, hogwash. It's not the change as such; rather, lack of control of the change, that causes the blowback.
Thus, the overarching question is: "Who drives the bus?"
by smitty1e
2/18/2026 at 10:46:48 PM
It's not meant as a perfect analogy for global warming, but rather an illustration of how a constant state isn't necessary for something to be said to be "changing", which was OP's claim.by mithr
2/19/2026 at 4:28:30 AM
It implies change over a couple human lifetimes. Change faster than has ever occurred before, and due to human activity.by triceratops
2/19/2026 at 6:33:40 PM
It doesnt really imply that though does it. It just means the climate is changing. IMO this is why there was a big pushback against it for a long time, the term used to describe it does not infer anything wrong.by alt227
2/19/2026 at 7:02:22 PM
> IMO this is why there was a big pushbackNo the pushback is because of money. The words don't matter when so much money is at stake.
by triceratops
2/19/2026 at 7:21:41 PM
Im refering to pushback of regular people who deny climate change like they do any other conspiracy theory.by alt227
2/19/2026 at 7:29:21 PM
Why did regular people start thinking of climate change as a "conspiracy theory" in the first place? Money.by triceratops
2/18/2026 at 10:21:32 PM
Only with an excessively literal interpretation.If I pick up your house and drop it two streets over, that could be accurately described as a "location change" of your house. This is still true despite the fact that your house naturally moves some centimeters per year due to tectonic plates shifting around.
Similarly, when global average temperatures saw long term trends of a fraction of a degree of change per millennium, then suddenly started changing at multiple degrees per century, it's pretty reasonable to call that "climate change" despite the fact that it was not completely constant before.
by wat10000
2/18/2026 at 10:31:19 PM
And you're just like the deniers who pick apart irrelevant things, and then smugly smile.by ChrisClark
2/18/2026 at 10:05:28 PM
> many of the changes we are talking about don't even really cost us anythingThis is the part that seems to vary widely based on which warming alarmist you're talking to. Many of them are not saying there are things we could do that "don't even really cost us anything" that would deal with the problem--they're saying we need to devote a significant fraction of global GDP to CO2 mitigation.
Things that "don't really cost us anything" are probably happening already anyway, because, well, they don't really cost us anything.
Building a lot more nuclear power plants is the key thing that doesn't really seem to be happening right now, that would be an obvious way to eliminate a lot of CO2 emissions. But of course that does really cost us something. But it's probably the most cost effective thing we could do on a large scale.
by pdonis
2/18/2026 at 10:34:47 PM
Among the large set of people who think we should take steps to reduce anthropogenic global warming there are at least two subsets who seem to oppose nuclear power. One is sort of pseudo-religious and believes that any disruption of the natural environment is a "sin" against Mother Nature. The other claims that nuclear power is too expensive and that we can solve the base load power problem more cheaply with battery storage, despite the lack of evidence that we'll be able to scale it up fast enough in the time available. And I have nothing against building more battery storage where it makes sense, but I don't think that's going to be sufficient by itself.by nradov
2/19/2026 at 4:37:39 PM
It's not a base load problem, it's an intermittency problem. Which you solve with dispatchable generation. Which nuclear is particularly ill suited for.> in the time available.
Which also eliminates nuclear as an option; Ontario is building new nuclear power that is projected to become available in the late 2040's. After the inevitable delays that'll be the 2050's. Way too late.
The solution is simple & cheap, though nobody wants to admit it. Use paid-for existing zero-carbon generation first (aka existing nuclear, hydro, etc), then add solar & wind to cover ~60% of needs, then add batteries to cover ~95% of needs, and then use natgas peakers to cover the last ~5%.
Environmentalists don't like it because it's not 100% carbon free. Anti-environmentalists don't like it because it's 95% solar/wind/batteries.
Economists and pragmatists should love it because it's the cheapest.
by bryanlarsen
2/18/2026 at 10:26:07 PM
> Building a lot more nuclear power plants is the key thing that doesn't really seem to be happening right nowI mean, this is the clear and obvious one. Nuclear theoretically should be much, much cheaper than it is if it were not for the regulatory costs thrust upon it.
It also harrows out people who are legitimately concerned from "moralist concern junkies". You'd think climate change being a global existential crisis would make people open to nuclear energy or more drastic measures like geo-engineering, but the frequency with which people refuse to compromise undercuts the their legitimacy.
by legitster
2/19/2026 at 4:35:30 AM
> Nuclear theoretically should be much, much cheaper than it is if it were not for the regulatory costs thrust upon itSolar and wind theoretically would also be much, much cheaper if not for the regulatory costs. [1]
Everything is regulated and all regulations have costs. I'm not morally opposed to nuclear energy. Is there a comprehensive study on which specific safety regulations are unnecessary and the LCOE if they were removed?
1. https://www.volts.wtf/p/how-to-make-rooftop-solar-power-as
by triceratops
2/19/2026 at 4:43:23 PM
You can do a thought experiment. A nuclear plant and a coal generator are very similar. They heat water to turn turbines to generate electricity. So best case scenario a nuclear plant costs the same as a coal plant, and has negligible operating costs in comparison.A coal plant costs $5B/GW to build, vs the > $20B/GW a nuclear plant costs.
Those massive turbines are really expensive.
OTOH solar + batteries is well under $1B / GW.
by bryanlarsen
2/18/2026 at 9:46:00 PM
Another reframing that may be useful is energy security/redundancy.If you have a cheap source of solar panels and batteries, the only downside to installing them all over the country is up-front cost (which pays itself off quickly). The upside you gain is a substantially more robust, less centralized power grid that can continue to operate if something happens to impede your supply of fossil fuels or part of the grid gets cut off.
Looking at how things have played out elsewhere in the world the past few years, that's powerful.
by cosmic_cheese
2/18/2026 at 10:48:28 PM
Where is this mythical cheap source of batteries? I mean you can go on Alibaba and order cheap 18650 cells in limited quantities but there's an enormous difference between doing that and having enough reliable battery power to keep a nationwide grid supplying a modern industrial economy through several days of bad weather.by nradov
2/18/2026 at 11:36:46 PM
The Alibaba rate is still ~20% margin (not including shipping costs which decrease as order size increases) over the wholesale rate. As a consumer you don't have the ability to buy batteries wholesale (similar to how you can't go purchase a combined cycle natural gas plant on Amazon)by adgjlsfhk1
2/18/2026 at 11:27:15 PM
> Where is this mythical cheap source of batteries?They’re made out of rocks. Yes, you have to take steps to acquire and refine the materials, then turn them into batteries. However, the process for doing that is not mysterious.
by adriand
2/19/2026 at 1:08:51 AM
Not mysterious, just slow and expensive.by nradov
2/19/2026 at 1:58:04 AM
Across the world, according to BNEF, the cost of grid scale battery packs has fallen another 45 per cent in 2025 following a 40 per cent fall in 2024. The UK-based energy think tank Ember has now also reached the same conclusion, underlying its unexpected impact on solar power.
citing: https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-... and similar reports.
Resource prices for batteries did spike at various times in the past, this had more to do with opening and then closing a lot of production sites by mining companies than with any real meaningful supply issue.
Urban grid scal battery parks are on the rise globally, industrial parks have always had special status and can still concentrate modern efficient peaker turbines and buffer storage to bridge, if applicable, and use any general daytime excess.
by defrost
2/19/2026 at 2:38:43 AM
Rising from an extremely low baseline. Actual deployed grid scale battery storage worldwide remains minuscule in relation to daily electricity consumption. Sure let's deploy it where we can but it's delusional to believe that this represents a realistic alternative to nuclear or fossil fuel power for industrial base load requirements in most countries anytime soon. The numbers simply don't add up.by nradov
2/19/2026 at 4:42:01 AM
Things are changing very, very fast.https://theconversation.com/big-batteries-are-now-outcompeti...
by triceratops
2/18/2026 at 9:51:31 PM
> many of the changes we are talking about don't even really cost us anythingI hear that often, but it's never followed by details about any of the actual changes that are being talked about. The ones I actually hear (especially politicians) advocate for are catastrophically expensive and dubious in their effectiveness. Banning coal or gas-powered cards might (might) be a good idea in the long run, but it definitely does cost us something.
by commandlinefan
2/18/2026 at 10:27:51 PM
Banning coal is a complete no-brainer at this point. Has been for quite a while. Never mind climate change, it's horribly polluting. The only reason it's still remotely economically viable is because the people who burn coal don't bear the costs of their pollution. If they actually had to compensate people for all the cancer, lung disease, poisoned ground water, contaminated seafood, and other such problems they cause, coal would vanish.It's already to the point where the ridiculous coal fans who infest our government are forcing coal power plants to remain open when their operators want to close them because they're no longer profitable to operate.
by wat10000
2/18/2026 at 11:39:44 PM
banning coal is quite cheap even ignoring the emissions and pollution side effects. England has already shut down their last coal plant and without 6 years of Trump, the US likely would have or would be planning to within the next couple years. Coal is expensive, not flexible, and horribly polluting even compared to natural gas.by adgjlsfhk1
2/18/2026 at 10:30:50 PM
I can understand people having their own reasons for dismissing the facts or the rhetoric.What I can't wrap my head around is the conspiracy thinking around environmentalism.
What's so nefarious about clean air and water? I'll never forget when my grandmother walked out of WALL-E because she said it was government propaganda. She is a regular person, not a coal magnate or anything.
by randusername
2/18/2026 at 10:45:14 PM
You need to understand the political and cultural history. Environmentalism has been associated with leftist, feminist and communist ideology going back to the hippies and the antiwar movement (which makes it easy for many Americans to mistrust by default.) When Trump said he believed global warming was a Chinese hoax (remember that?) he was echoing a belief amongst the right that environmentalism and "global warming" was a plot to undermine American business and sovereignty, and that climate science supporting anthropogenic climate change was manufactured by "cultural Marxist academics" to push that agenda.This conspiracy thinking has been pushed by Republicans, right-wing think tanks, coal, oil, manufacturing and like industries attempting to undermine public trust in climate science since at least the 1970s.
by krapp
2/18/2026 at 11:25:44 PM
Interesting. So it's a guilty by association thing. I get that propaganda plays a big role, it just never made sense to me why it worked.So a green energy revolution sounds exciting to me, but to my grandma it would be a green energy _revolution_, the scary and unstable connotation.
by randusername
2/19/2026 at 8:05:48 AM
> What's so nefarious about clean air and water?Nothing, but what puts me off is the sale of emission rights etc. Is it a problem or not? I care more about deforestation than a warming climate. There is always some product to buy behind the headlines and it drives me crazy.
The same people asking me to pay climate taxes are trying to tell me infinite growth can exist. I already live like a hermit and if everyone lived like me we wouldn't have a problem. We can't pay our way out of the problem and anyone who tells me we can is only out to make money.
I'm not against a clean planet, I'm against the politicians and businesses finding another way to extract money from their worker bees.
by worksonmine
2/18/2026 at 10:51:18 PM
> They just either disagree on the cause or proportion.And for very specific reasons, too.
One reason is unwillingness to feel like they have to take responsibility.
Another is conceding that would mean they might have to make changes, and laziness is powerful.
The worst reason is that to acknowledge it would be to grant that an alternative political perspective is right about something, and one's own political identity is tied to that other political perspective being always wrong.
"It is easier to con a man than to convince him he has been conned." Too much emotional investment in being right and too much fear of social repercussions simply for changing one's mind. The reality is changing one's mind to new data is the hallmark of integrity.
by burnte
2/18/2026 at 10:02:11 PM
Yes, parts of my extended family who were anti-climate change and proud went from "Global warming is a hoax", to "So what if global warming is happening" over the past 10 years.by IncreasePosts
2/19/2026 at 8:45:26 AM
Well if it was the E without the S and the G maybe it would have been harder to co opt.by mikrotikker
2/18/2026 at 10:33:39 PM
I don't think the issue was ever people doubting that the earth is warming. Especially considering we're coming out of an ice age, it would be extremely worrying if the earth wasn't warming!The main point people disagree on is: how much are humans contributing to this global warming trend?
by canadiantim
2/18/2026 at 11:52:49 PM
The earth did have warm periods before. it appears to be part of an mini-interglacial period which happens every few hundred years. We had the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman WP and Bronze age warm period. There is a vast body pf evidence in particular for the MWP showing that life on earth got better as the deserts retreated.by irthomasthomas
2/18/2026 at 11:56:58 PM
This is a nice graph that makes the problem pretty obvious: https://xkcd.com/1732/by circuit10
2/19/2026 at 12:26:04 AM
I accept radiative physics. I question whether we have correctly quantified the system's natural noise floor, and whether adaptation might outperform mitigation for human flourishing.by irthomasthomas
