EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is Cognitive Dissonance Fueling Conservative Denial of Climate Change?
"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," were the words of GOP Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney in front of about 200 people at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire. The former Massachusetts Governor went on to say, "It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."
Romney's statement wasn't radical or controversial in least bit. So why did the right freak out and declare Romney's statement to be "political suicide"?
This reminds me of a situation back in April when all but one of the Republican members of the US House of Representatives rejected a Democratic amendment that would have put the chamber on record backing the widely held scientific view that global warming is occurring and humans are a major cause. The following day the GOP-led House voted 255 to 172 to strip the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate greenhouse gases. It is remarkable that in 2011, a majority of Republicans in Congress reject the indisputable, scientific consensus that human activity is altering the climate.
Why are conservatives, despite the mounting evidence, so unwilling to accept that climate change is a serious threat caused by greenhouse emissions?
It seems climate change is now part and parcel of America’s “culture wars.” Similar to abortion and other social issues, climate change has become a partisan issue, with liberals backing the science, and conservatives denying it. Often times, when pondering the reasons for climate change denial, we immediately blame the media for allotting disproportionate airtime for industry backed pseudo-scientists to sow doubt in the minds of viewers, in their quest for "balance." Of course this analysis is correct, but incomplete.
It’s been widely proven that fossil fuel interests, most notably ExxonMobil, used the tobacco industry’s playbook and an extensive arsenal of lobbyists and “experts” to manufacture disinformation designed to confuse the public and stifle action to address climate change. As documented by Greenpeace, in recent years this corporate PR campaign has gone viral, spawning a denial movement that is largely immune to reasoned response. While the more powerful climate change deniers have manipulative objectives, such as preserving their vested interests in fossil fuels or political posturing with their constituencies, many on the right actually believe climate change is a hoax. This PR campaign has contributed immensely to denial, but there is still more to the story.
Thus, the question remains: Why is the reality of climate change such a threat to the right? A new study published in the Spring 2011 issue of Sociological Quarterly delves into this very topic. The study finds that conservatives' refusal to acknowledge the very real threat of climate change, has more to do with its implications rather than skepticism of scientific facts. It's a classic case of cognitive dissonance!
Stanford University social psychologist Leon Festinger coined the theory of cognitive dissonance, based on a famous case study from the 1950s. Festinger and his colleagues infiltrated a cult that was awaiting what they believed would be the imminent end of the world on December 21, 1954. When the prediction failed, rather than recognize the error of their beliefs, the cult members' faith grew stronger, so strong that they began to proselytize. People will go to great lengths to rationalize their deeply held beliefs, even more so when exposed to evidence that challenges their worldview.
Climate change poses a profound threat to many things that right-wing ideologues believe in. Conservatives tend to champion individual freedom, private property rights, small government, free markets, and above all else, unfettered industrial capitalism. Industrial capitalism is an economic system predicated on the accelerating extraction and consumption of fossil fuels for energy, which is driving the climate change we face today. To accept this basic premise, one is compelled to question the wisdom of capitalism itself, which is a terrifying notion for conservatives. And it doesn't take long to recognize that conservative values are inherently antithetical to the desperately needed actions to tackle global climate change.
Seriously dealing with the threat of climate change would require government to heavily regulate corporations and subsidize renewable energy. It would entail a strong international body, most likely boosting the power of the UN. It would bring an end to the inefficient and energy-wasting free-trade agenda, as localizing economies would become necessary to sustain communities. And, most importantly, confronting climate change demands addressing climate justice for developing nations suffering from the pollution of industrialized nations, or more simply, a redistribution of wealth from North to South. Climate change poses a direct threat to the spread of free markets, the maintenance of national sovereignty, and the continued abolition of governmental regulations, all key components of the conservative agenda. These are the types of ideas that cause conservatives to gasp, point, and shout "communist!"
When we recognize the role of cognitive dissonance, it becomes clear that conservatives and Republicans are more likely to dispute or deny the scientific consensus and the claims of the environmental community, in order to defend the industrial capitalist system. It is far more simple to deny science, than to accept that one's worldview is wrong. Unfortunately, environmental organizations are in a kind of denial as well. Climate change is about an economic model that demands infinite growth on a finite planet. However, environmental groups are reluctant to relate climate change to economics and politics, probably because conservatives would see it as confirmation of the right-wing myth that global warming is a socialist plot to redistribute the world's wealth.
For a conservative whose entire identity is defined by faith in the economics of capitalism and free markets, acceptance of climate change poses a danger to their sense of self, and will be avoided at all costs. Therefore, attempts to persuade this portion of the country with science and logic is a lost cause. However, for those of us who truly care about the future of our one and only planet and our species, it is time that we face what we have been loath to highlight in the past: Unfettered industrial capitalism is unsustainable and is causing climate change to spiral out of control. Until we begin to challenge the economics fueling environmental degradation, we are no better than our climate denying counterparts.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


130 Comments so far
Show AllAs it is set up now, large numbers of people have little to no economic liberty now - talk to someone who was suckered into a subprime mortgage. As far are personal freedom, the FBI has just decided that it has the right to go through your garbage to see if you are supporting Islamic terrorists. And lots of people think that unfunded mandates from Washington represent the nanny state you decry.
As has always been the case, freedom works for those in the upper echelons of society. Walk around an urban ghetto to see where it does not work.
So your view is indeed that freedom does not work for the "lower echelons" of society. What, then, would be the alternative? To my knowledge, the only alternative to freedom is unfreedom, or slavery.
There is no way to make the unequal equal. The only way to prevent people from messing up is to impose the nanny state that I do decry, and that is the ultimate mess-up. Freedom entails responsibility, and it allows personal failure. If you can't fail, you aren't free. That said, it is possible to teach people - sometimes in very homely ways - not to mess up or to mess up less. If it sounds too good to be true, it is. There's no free lunch. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. Don't show off. You can't buy a $500,000 house on a thirty year mortgage for $1000.00 a month - the arithmetic doesn't work. God's purpose is not to make you rich (i.e., don't believe the "prosperity Gospel"). Etc. People can be taught to wise up a little bit.
The problems of the urban ghetto (and other pockets of poverty) are largely a matter of personal virtue - they are not "systemic." If you drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock, and go on the dole, you're gonna be poor - so don't do that. It isn't rocket science. You can't have freedom without virtue - the political philosophers seem to be unanimous on that.
I don't much care if law enforcement goes through my garbage - they are likely to be bored (and covered in used cat litter). I do care if I am forbidden to have garbage and to throw it away.
just like ayn rand
people are poor because its their own damn fault
I hope you don't have to learn the realities of life the hard way
but maybe you would understand better what terrible suffering is created by the greedy at the top
and of course, from your position of having enough, you buy into that crap that people are poor because they have poor character, don't take responsibility for themself, and make bad decisions......
tell that to homeless families and unemployed who have done nothing but work their asses off all their lives
reality is a little different than you think
yes everyone wants freedom
the "freedom" you propose is only freedom for the rich, not regular people
Ayn Rand? I have never read Ayn Rand, nor have I ever heard or read anything about her that led me to believe that her work was worth my time and effort. She sounds like a vulgarian, frankly.
I don't really understand why teaching people the skills, habits, values and attitudes that they need to thrive and avoid poverty and other ills would be a bad thing.
"I don't really understand why teaching people the skills, habits, values and attitudes that they need to thrive and avoid poverty and other ills would be a bad thing."
The skills, habits, values, and attitudes that people need to thrive (economically) and avoid poverty are selfishness, immorality, lack of empathy, myopia, and greed.
Moreover, even with these attributes, the deck is stacked FAR against certain members of society.
With all due respect, yours is a very simplistic and unrealistic belief about "poverty and other ills."
"The skills, habits, values, and attitudes that people need to thrive (economically) and avoid poverty are selfishness, immorality, lack of empathy, myopia, and greed."
I guess poverty is virtue, then - or at least one of the necessary aspects of virtue. One should not want to thrive economically.
Nanny state (merry laughter)
You SO need to get out more. I live and work in an impoverished County, where I see amazing acts of virtue every day as people who had NO opportunities do whatever they can for their families, and friends. I think what you are telling us is that you have a deep terror of community, sharing, and the kind of old-fashioned mutual aid that led to barn raisings and community wheat harvesting in America...and in Europe before that.
Community is NOT loss of identity: neither is equality. And freedom is richer and wilder and far more interesting possibility than you seem to realize.
On the contrary, I espouse exactly that sort of thing.
DWatkins: Another Ron Paul supporter in our midst? Would you use all that pabulum about responsibiility and learning to fail on the US miilitary that hasn't won a war in decades? How about on entire departments of government (especially the MIC) that managed to lose billions of dollars? How about the banks that FAILED, but managed to get taxpayers to bail them out?
If you're gonna use that whole right wing personal responsiblity ethos to bludgeon the poor and middle class, then please make especially liberal use of it in holding the real culprits to account. If the average ghetto person who rips off a drug store and goes to prison for 7 years is equated with the average politician who votes for war to boost his stock portfolio, only to pass through the revolving door to serve in a lucrative capacity on the board of a weapons' developer... then your scale of proportion is WAY off. Dang. It wreaks of rotted Calvinism.
Give my regards to Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Horace, and "the boys," would'ya?
Which politician voted for war to inflate his stock portfolio? (you don't really believe all that military-industrial complex stuff, do you?). Voting for war is not illegal, and is very often the right thing to do. Won wars of the last several decades include Grenada, first Gulf war, Iraq (what do you want, parades, confetti and sailors kissing gals in Times Square?). That is not necessarily to say that all of them have been prudent. Still, war, declaring war, and voting for war are serious matters to be decided by serious people. You shouldn't compare a legislator with a real responsibility to some street thug.
Of course entire government departments waste billions of dollars - that's to be expected.
What would you have done about the banks - let them collapse? Then I expect you would be complaining about that. It just seems to me that the left will not be happy until they have reduced everyone to an equality of condition - the epitome of injustice.
I'm sure that Calvin is indeed well rotted by now (although I'm not sure he still reeks), but still, there is a lot to be said for his thought.
"the average ghetto person"? Kids in the school where I teach could be fairly said to live in a ghetto (poor, inner-city, minority neighborhood), but I would never think of referring to them as "ghetto people"...
If you can't fail, you aren't free.
----------------------------------------
You've been listening to the right-wing Libertarians too much, because that's one of their (many) Really Stupid credos.
The reality is that people are most free when they can act without risking everything, and least free when any failure has fatal consequences.
dwatkins, We will not deal with climate change; it will deal with us; and enslaving the world to prop up our consumer based lifestyle is certainly not Freedom. Furthermore, people will passively accept a lot that is radical and unreasonable. The average American spends 5 hours! each day watching TV. The brain has become a garbage dump. Alas.
In a sense, I agree with you - nature bats last. That doesn't mean that we don't try to cope. The various prescriptions for economic and social re-engineering to reduce CO2 emissions are (or purport to be) an effort to cope. It may be that it had been better to preserve the medieval, feudal system, but that is now a moot point. That ship has sailed.
I don't say that a consumer based lifestyle necessarily = freedom, but a top-down enforced, unnaturally "altruistic" lifestyle requiring the individual to harm himself for the advantage of strangers is the antithesis of liberty. Sacrifice of the individual to the hive is not freedom - better a 10 degree rise in global temp. than that, imo.
That said, the consumer based lifestyle is irresistably attractive to virtually everyone. A journalist visiting a new Ford plant in 1913 described the motor car as "an object of universal desire." Just so. If you give an aboriginal child an ice cream, that child will want another ice cream. If you show her father a pickup truck, he will want his own pickup truck. The radical political and economic changes demanded by some environmentalists will not be accepted by the people - period. These prescriptions are visonary, and I don't mean that in a good way. Nobody wants to live a life of drudgery and destitution - not the Chinese, not the Indians, not the west, nobody. It won't be accepted - it can't work. We will have to cope some other way, and we will - probably in a not-centrally-planned, basically ad hoc way.
Agreed. We will continue on this course until natural events crush the economies and the collapse that follows will bring starvation and worldwide fighting over food. Neighbor against neighbor. Governments will cease to exist.
You'd better be well armed and allied to others well armed and have land on which to grow food.
Perhaps the survivors will take another path and teach their children that humans cannot be trusted with technology for profit. Or, for that matter, anything for profit.
It won't happen that fast - and, fwiw, I think it is more likely to be nation vs. nation rather than individual vs. individual, if indeed it does come to that.
Technology may be the problem, but technology is the child of unfettered science, or the belief in progress.
Dwatkins, that we seduce innocent humans with sugar and toys for our own profit does not make it inevitable or irreversable. You frame the radical as normal similar to religions with their tooth fairy gods calling those who find nature the altar of the spirit, Pagan.
I think it might be irreversible. My parents tried to limit my junk food intake when I was small, but as I got older and had a little money to spend, it was katie-bar-the-door. Once you bite the apple, there may be no going back. I doubt that there are any peoples that do not appreciate sugar and toys.
I didn't know that "pagan" was an insult.
"Sacrifice of the individual to the hive is not freedom".
Maybe maybe not, "freedom" is a horribly slippery word. Usually you can simply slip the word "power" in place of "freedom" any sentence where it is used with no loss of meaning. People who swaggeringly lust for freedom are really lusting for power - over others - and a weird sense that immortality can somehow be achieved through material accumulation.
However, "sacrifice" to the "hive" as you so derogatorily put it. (I prefer "solidarity with the community") is pretty much the only thing that gives a human's life any worth or meaning whatsoever. Without that, you are just counting the days until death, alone, surrounded by all your IC engine powered toys.
Hello to the low-paid climate change bloggers, who are paid mostly by the Koch Brothers of Algonquin Oil Transmission, and also a little bit by Exxon.
The Corporations and Billionaires like the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdock, Roger Ailes, have used the Corporate owned media to control and twist the information that is presented to the public. Psychological research shows that the more that a statement or idea is repeated, the more that it is accepted as fact. These guys are using psychological techniques to manipulate the Public. In previous years it was called BRAIN WASHING. Remember subliminal advertising was banned years ago but it was created and used by those who were psychologically manipulating their viewers. They are still up to their "old" tricks, only they are more sophisticated now and they have no competition to call them on their lies. No competition to stand up and tell the truth as it really it. No wonder that false beliefs are so prevelant.
This is a brilliant piece of writing.
I agree. Rania, this is a great article.
All the rich republicans I know are completely fixated on their drive for more money.
I ask, "Why? What purpose do you have for accumulating more wealth than you need? Are you going to do something good with all your money? Do you have any civil interests?"
The reply is always the same. "It's what I enjoy doing - playing the stock markets and watching my money grow. I enjoy having a beautiful house, a $100,000 car, a $6000 subzero refrigerator, money for my kids' education." That's it, at best. Many rich folks don't even have kids to put through college. They just want more, more, more. This group includes democrats, too. Greed is pervasive.
I'm not sure cognitive dissonance applies if people don't even spend ONE SECOND considering other people, the health of Mother Earth, compassion, self-denial, or anything outside their tiny Scrooge world of coin counting. When confronted with some of these considerations, rich folks laugh and think I'm a fool, or just remain silent and get mad at me. Either way, it's much easier for them to remain in denial. In addition, once a soul has been sold, it becomes hardened and can just change the channel to a more pleasing Disneyworld view.
Rania, your writing is evolving quickly into beautiful prose. Thank you!
The short answer to the headline's question is, No. Those entities fighting to preserve and expand the status quo are fueling denial; it's that simple. And it's quite sad to see many thinking this article being a step forward, when in reality it steps backwards.
Her premise itself is the step backwards. "Cognitive dissonance" is created by propaganda paid for by the status quo camp, and they've been active at it for decades, going all the way back to the rationale posited for the inclusion of lead in gasoline--the use of pseudoscience to distort real science in order to make a profit when one would never be realized while creating a precedent for moulding inimical public policy. Take cancer, for example: Why is there a War on Cancer that only focuses on finding a cure and not a War on the Environmental Conditions that create cancer? Shouldn't we try to prevent cancer's occurance--stuff the Evil Genie back into its bottle rather than try to contain it once we've released it? ("The Sercet History of the War on Cancer" exposes the whole sordid, ongoing useless exercise.) If Khalek had argued that "cognitive dissonance" is generated by propaganda designed to acheive that result, then she would have stepped forward and stuck her pen into the body of those destroying our climate for a fistfull of dollars.
I'm quite sorry for your loss as it's rare when we truely have someone very close.
Upon editing I should add to my previous example by putting forth the fact that on every occasion where industrialists have produced chemically based products that contain toxic pollutants harmful to human/environmental health their own internal documents prove that they had the scientific reports about that toxicity yet they went ahead because the profit potential was too big for them to ignore--Profit Over People--ON EVERY KNOWN OCCASION. That isn't cognitive dissonance. It's premeditated murder.
"How does Khalek step backward in this essay? Please elaborate."
I'll take a shot at that.
She assumes that those people have a similar thought process to the rest of us. I believe that they do not. In fact I would say that there's a mutant gene that makes them very superficial in their social dealings and uncaring toward other human beings exept in how they can profit from a relationship.
I'd classify their thinking as more akin to a sociopath.
And their followers are just plain ignorant and short-sighted.
Capitalism is organized robbery, from the earth and from the majority of humanity. It always has been; it always will be.
Ms.Kahlek raises important issues like "Climate change is about an economic model that demands infinite growth on a finite planet." This is fundamental, but it is crucial to understand. It is also radical a statement because the implied follow up question is: "do we want capitalism or do we want a future worth living ?" The conservative wing of the capitalist class needs to stop debate well before that question is asked - as the answer for the overwhelming majority will be "a future worth living".
The problem lies with Ms.Kahlek‘s ostensible audience: liberals and progressives.
The liberal wing of the capitalist class, those to whom the Democratic Party’s base must seek succor, have been disowned by their capitalist masters. As a practical ideology (ideas that lead to real changes in policy) liberalism has been in decline for 40 years, and one honest liberal, Chris Hedges, has eloquently written about the “Death of the Liberal Class.”
When the working class was strong (organized), liberalism was the face of capitalism. Today the capitalist class has never been stronger, and they couldn’t care less about liberal ideas and institutions – like unions or science. Between the two parties working people in the US (and around the world) have two choices: cognitive dissonance (conservatives) or impotence (liberals).
The only way to win is not to play their game. We must organize outside the halls of power. In a more politically-aware time, those who seek the root of the problem, as Ms.Kahlek is doing, were known as radicals. For our very survival we must challenge the system, ideologically and practically. The decline of living standards is directly tied to the increase in global warming. The squeeze put upon working people around the globe has the same source as the global squeezing of nature’s ability to absorb carbon and other pollutants causing global climate change. That source is the intractable profit-maximizing, cost externalizing nature of capitalism.
Capitalism has created a rift between humanity and nature. Capitalism has created a rift between ourselves, through vast inequality, sexism, racism, nationalism and prejudice. The only way to repair that rift is to build a social and ecological revolution.
Very nicely said, Tom. Bravo.
Yes, its cognitive dissonance, but how is it afforded? I mean, where does the autonomy come from to insist the world is other than it is, and NOT get beaned for it? In the conservative worldview, ultimately, 'might makes right': the mightiness of America is all the evidence conservatives need to know they are are the right track. They may, in their quieter moments, understand that climate change is real and human caused, but those are 'acceptable losses', 'you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs'. Conservatives know they are getting a few things wrong, but they are confident they are right about what matters, because why else would they be so powerful?
Of course, the 'free market' mythology is another one of the conservative myths: how wonderful to feel you 'did it all yourself'. Especially if you're living in a Red State, and hence have never paid your way by the Federal gov't, or if you're in the military industrial complex, which is the most powerful socialist entity in human history, with cradle-to-grave support most liberals would cry for. Perhaps you're associated with 'finance', with its government-granted ability to pretend a dime is a dollar, to hatch a $400 trillion derivatives bubble and have the governments of the world actually take it seriously. Yah, THAT kind of 'free-market'.
Conservatives are well-insulated from the consequences of their detachment from reality, which makes that detachment possible. As long as this situation remains, they will continue swallowing their myths. America spends a truly massive amount of money on its military, for a country not really at war. This purchases conservative denial, and allows them the warm-fuzzy blanket of denial to continue. Conservatives who invest are also 'rich', in the sense that the Fed will write whatever check is necessary to help them maintain that belief.
It is an odd kind of socialism, government -supported denial, maybe call it corporatism, that allows conservatives to hold so many idiotic beliefs, in full conflict with the reality all around them. That connection, between the government and the corporations, that gravy train, has to be attacked or conservatives will continue to find it rewarding to insist that up is down.
UBREW: Profound and appreciated post, with this line being particularly astute:
"Conservatives are well-insulated from the consequences of their detachment from reality, which makes that detachment possible."
I could offer a major example as my area puts me into contact with a LOT of conservative types... but it's late. Perhaps tomorrow.
Superb article.
"Until we begin to challenge the economics fueling environmental degradation, we are no better than our climate denying counterparts."
Progressives have been doing so for a long time, with no help from the corporate media guardians of capitalism for all but socialism for the super-rich, and major conservative purveyors of cognitive dissonance propaganda
Industrial capitalism has become a global death cult. What's needed is a positive vision of a future that isn't based on accumulating consumer junk, but on sharing great experiences (with friends, family, lovers and local community).
GDP needs to go away, globalization needs to be shut down, and what we should have is a planetary race towards creating ever more joyous communities.
Forget socialism and communism, those will never get any traction in the public imagination. The way to beat capitalism is with the prospect of a life of superior fun, and fun doesn't need much stuff.
Beneath the pavement, the beach. We need a global party that never ends.
Bing-o! We have a winner here, folks.
And who collects the trash, cleans the toilets, grows the food and removes the inflamed appendices in this non-worker's paradise? Sounds like utopia as imagined by the surf or ski bum, lol.
No industrial products, no non-biodegradable trash. As far as appendicitis, a transition to global tribalism doesn't mean we forget everything we already know about food and medicine. We remember. And in particular we remember that capitalism is death for the species.
Global Sustainable Party
All the Best DJs
We Are Forever People
Utopian right? I'll take my utopia over the certain death your industrial capitalism has in store for us. And let me ask you this, smart ass: what sort of "workers" did the native Americans have? We don't need people to work. We need people to live. We don't need societal "progress" as measured in longer life expectancies. We need progress as measured in greater joy.
We can have industrial products and bio-degradable everything. Industrial capitalism has always existed throughout most of mankind. I find your remark "We don't need people to work." a bit too extreme. If people didn't work, where would you be without the existence of the Internet that comes from work? Now, the target should be slowing down and reversing the pattern of more work for less money. Less work and increased pay is more like it.
Since increased pay is only meaningful if it means increased buying-power, and since less work will mean less stuff to buy, and since less stuff = higher prices/ less to go around, I can't see how we could have both less work and more pay for everybody. Less work and less (and better) stuff maybe. That would be OK.
Let's face it. Keeping up with the costs of the basics isn't getting any easier and you don't wanna give people the wrong impression that you're slamming them as materialists. Don't get me wrong by the way. I'm all for less stuff and I've been working on that.
Well, let's see - there were the Navajo weavers and craftsmen who made stuff so that the Apache (who were raiders, not workers, I must admit) could steal them. You are not one of those that thinks that tribal people are somehow morally superior by virtue of their poverty or limited techne, do you? You don't buy into the myth of the "noble savage," surely? And I'm not sure that hunger and disease bring joy. Who was the Apache Plato? All right, then. You want people to "live" -but hunting, gathering, raiding, and dancing in the dirt are not my idea of living, or at least not living well.
You don't know what is death for the species. The species takes a lot of killing, it seems to me. I will say that the rise of the industrial economy has been associated with a rise in population - from 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion (or whatever it is) now. Not the sign of a dying species imo. We'll see.
Kowabunga, dude - see you at the beach (but who will make your board? That sounds like a lot of work.)
..
dwat,
You seem to see only your way, and one other way, which you assume is horrible ecofascism, taking away everyone's freedoms, eating filboid studge and squatting dirty in ruins. I'd hate to speak for others but I don't see anyone putting forth ideas anything like that. You leap to conclusions, perhaps out of malice, perhaps lack of imagination or knowledge, but I suggest you actually find out what you're opposing before you oppose it, especially since your way is leading with absolute certainty to exactly what you hate--tyranny and poverty in ruins for all, at best, and extinction amid chaos and violence at worst.
Some of us have a better vision than that.
Look at what people are saying. The original poster writes, "Seriously dealing with the threat of climate change would require government to heavily regulate corporations and subsidize renewable energy. It would entail a strong international body, most likely boosting the power of the UN. It would bring an end to the inefficient and energy-wasting free-trade agenda, as localizing economies would become necessary to sustain communities. And, most importantly, confronting climate change demands addressing climate justice for developing nations suffering from the pollution of industrialized nations, or more simply, a redistribution of wealth from North to South. Climate change poses a direct threat to the spread of free markets, the maintenance of national sovereignty, and the continued abolition of governmental regulations, all key components of the conservative agenda." And fake-french says he wants a move toward global tribalism. In short, I do see people putting forth ideas like that - they may not think that that is what they are doing, but that is where their ideas, if taken seriously and implemented, will lead. I shouldn't get exercised, tho, because their idea will not be implemented. I love the term "ecofascism," and will use it in future, thanks.
PS: now I see that J4zonian writes that "the mounting evidence--the OVERWHELMING amount of mounting evidence--is that we are well on our way to a climate catastrophe, and arguments to the contrary are close to becoming crimes against humanity, (if they have not already passed over into that category) since they are keeping us from taking rational action as a species to protect ourselves and the biosphere from the greatest disaster to befall it for millions of years. " So, anyone who questions the reality or seriousness of climate change is now guilty of a "crime against humanity." There's your ecofascism, quite literally. What J4 may not realize is that you don't convince people of the rightness of your position by forcing your critics to shut up - on the contrary, you will make them think that your position most be weak, and/or that you are hiding something. Cf the email scandal of a year or so ago.
So many mistakes, so few allowable words. (1000) I wish I knew what picture that was, to be worth an entire Common Dreams article or maxed-out comment. I'd include a link to it.
1. There are no free markets, only markets controlled by huge corporations.
2. The current concentrated wealth and power of corporations creates an imbalance that threatens democracy, freedom, and human and biosphere health. In fact it has already virtually ended democracy in the US. Strengthening democratic government, (including returning to and even improving on the level of regulation we had just a decade or 3 ago) and unions, and concerted citizen action are reasonable responses to rebalance the system and prevent abuse.
3. f-f didn't specify any level of technology or almost anything else for his tribalism. S/he may be referring to something on the order of a permanent universal Burning Man. As much as that makes me shudder, it's a question of the tastelessness of neon self-aggrandizement, place-senselessness and orgiastic energy use, not anything more sinister or apocalyptic. These ideas may lead YOU to those conclusions, but that’s probably a question of projection, not accurate assessment.
Most crimes against humanity involve the torture of a few dozen people, the murder of a few score. Only a tiny percentage include larger numbers. Climate already kills something on the order of 160,000 people a year, and has caused 27 million refugees, according to the UN. Its clear signs are everywhere in evidence, though not often reported by corporate media, and not reported truthfully when mentioned at all. The possible effects within a century or so include the extinction of humans and 95% of life on Earth, so I don't see any reasonable way to deny that knowledgeable action to cover up the truth or stop or delay actions to protect the species rises to the level of crimes against humanity. I'm not talking about scientists questioning science for the purpose of getting to deeper truth. Or probably idiots believing nonsensical conspiracy theories, although I occasionally have to appeal to my better nature and restrain myself from desiring the death penalty for such people.
But people and corporations spending millions of dollars to create nonexistent controversies in the popular media while they know scientists are virtually all agreed, knowingly spreading lies and pursuing complex strategies that cause people to ignore or misunderstand the truth, (proven by internal memos, for example, talking about sowing doubt) and using bribery, manipulation of elections, invasions of countries... etc: Yes, crimes against humanity. Your statement "so anyone who questions..." etc. with no evidence at all that that's what I meant also suggests you're either projecting or lying--consciously or not, creating straw person arguments. Why would you do that, if not to obscure truth and delay action to prevent climate cataclysm?
I welcome questioning and debate, in fact I yearn for it, especially from people approaching the subject with humility, and awareness they might possibly be wrong. Since the vast preponderance of evidence in dozens of fields collected by tens of thousands of scientists favors the truthfulness of AGW, I would expect people arguing against it to show this especially, and approach the subject with special care to examine all the evidence. What I find, over and over and over, is just the opposite--people seizing on the slimmest of cherry-picked data, crudely-constructed absurd theories that don't match the facts, and equally non-fact-matching wild conspiracy theories. Like the ridiculous misinterpretation of the CRU email caper, the only scandal of which is that the media covered the content of stolen private emails and rarely mentioned the only actual crime--the theft of the emails. For about the 40th time for me and the 10,000th time on the internet, the emails did not say anything like what denialists are claiming, and a full examination shows that.
Last, there obviously isn't any literal ecofascism, and it appears to me the implied (that being a euphemism for hidden, ) claim that it's figurative ecofascism is as bogus as most denialist crap. Compounded by the increasingly common and annoying mistake of saying literal when what one means is figurative—by definition, specifically NOT literal. Similarly, the right accusing the left of fascism and terrorism are such blatantly hypocritical projections I have trouble not simultaneously laughing and vomiting, and that’s even more annoying. Please stop.
I can well believe that you do not like to be limited to one thousand words. I will try to keep it short.
Tribalism, by nature and by definition, is a regime less complex and differentiated than the polis, never mind the empire or the nation state. Tribes may use technology (developed by others), but they are too primitive (that's right, primitive) for development of the arts and sciences, never mind philosophy. The tribe militates against individuation. Since you are a Jung devotee, I know you know what I mean.
Despite your own many paragraphs of psychobabble and sophistry, the simple bottom line is that you are on record describing anyone who questions the climate change dogma as a guilty of a crime against humanity -thus tantamount to a "war criminal." And what do we do with those convicted of "crimes against humanity"? We put them in prison. Enough said.
Are you yourself a climate scientist - a climatology expert? If not, then you must take the science basically on faith (or not), just like the rest of us. It always interests me that people on the left can accuse business people, government officials and "the people" of all kinds of stupidity and chicanery, but scientists are supposed somehow to be above all that - there is no careerism, logrolling, clique-ishness, data-fudging, tenure-grubbing or go-along-to-get-along in science, oh, no - no fads, fashions, collective delusions or political correctness; scientists, those objective supermen, care only for (1) the truth and (2) altruistic relief of man's estate. Please. Academic life is like corporate life without the money. "Trust me, I'm a doctor." Not bloody likely. I will maintain a "wait and see" attitude, and, when it comes to climate change, give a listen to any contrarian voice that comes along.
I will maintain a "wait and see" attitude, and, when it comes to climate change, give a listen to any contrarian voice that comes along.
--------------------------------------
But the stakes aren't a fifty-buck pot in a poker game where win or lose you'll still be alive. This is a game where you don't get to sit and kibitz -- you're in whether you want to be or not, and the stakes on the table are not just the farm, but everyone you love, your arse, and your grannie's store teeth. The stakes are e v e r y t h i n g.
Any person with good sense would look at what's at risk and get mad busy, because if we act as though the gun isn't loaded, but it is, we're dead, whereas if we act as though the gun IS loaded, but it isn't, then we'll only inconvenience ourselves for awhile making beneficial changes, but be both alive and better-off at the end.
Get "mad busy" doing what? Going off in every direction? The fact is that I do have the option of sitting and kibitzing - watch me do it - and in my experience the best thing to do is very often nothing.
I'm sorry, but I don't see loss of national sovereignty, increased centralization of rule, erosion of property rights, erosion of free-speech rights, empowerment of enemies and competitors, and who-knows-what-else to be mere inconveniences. We are not talking about turning off the air conditioning and bicycling to work. People are espousing radical regime changes. I am, to say the least, not confident that those changes would not be far worse than anything climate change can throw at us. I'll take my chances with the climate over Big Brother. (When people say the sky is falling, it almost never is .)
The fact is that I do have the option of sitting and kibitzing
-------------------------------------------
Sure you do. But you're a dope if you think that gives you a pass from the consequences. Like it or not, you're in! It's just that you're watching the wealthy fossil-fuel psychopaths and similar throwing into the pot everyone and everything _you_ care about. That includes not just your way of life but your life and the lives of your family and friends.
It's worth noting that when people -I know of 2, the writer George Monbiot and Dr James Annan, a climatologist- tried to get some of the bigger-mouthed deniers to put their money where their mouths are, the deniers refused. Linzen, the meteo at MIT, wanted 50:1 odds from Annan for £10K. Monbiot tried to get Myron Ebell at the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" in DC to wager £5K, but he refused outright, saying it's too risky. They know what's real, even if you don't.
Wise up, why don't you.
I consider myself wised up enough not to take the latest scare story at face value. I am old enough to have heard some of them before. When I was a teenager in the 70's (and more vulnerable to precipitous panic) there was going to be a new ice age - that didn't happen. Nuclear war with the Soviets was just a matter of time - that didn't happen (nobody was anticipating the pretty imminent collapse of the USSR, but that did happen). Runaway inflation was going to wreck the American and world economies - then came RR and Maggie, and things got better. Fuel shortages were going to have us all shivering on bicycles by 2000, but that didn't happen - fuel is not much more expensive in real terms than when I first began to drive in 1973. Mutatis mutandis, I've heard it all before. Things are pretty bad, but then again they always are. To predict what will happen with climate change in the next 100 years, say, is to have to predict the behavior of at least three extremely complex systems - climate itself, politics (to include economics), and technology - and their interactions. I doubt that it can be done - there are just too many variables. Who, in 1911, could have predicted where we are now and how we got here?
What were the specifics of the bet offered by Prof. Monbiot? I'm curious. He was willing to offer 50:1 odds against 5K that exactly what would happen, and when?
google monbiot annan lindzen ebell for quite a few cites
dwat:
It appears you didn’t follow the link to Pascal’s Wager and the climate problem—The Scariest Video You’ll Ever See. The video just barely expresses the situation; the conclusion boils down to intelligent use of the Precautionary Principle. When there’s potential for disaster, even if it’s unlikely it makes sense to act conservatively—ie, do whatever’s necessary to avoid it. With climate change, since unimaginable disaster is not only possible but very likely, and the costs of avoiding it are negligible and the solutions will help with many other problems besides, it’s not only completely stupid to wait and see, it’s completely irresponsible, and again, constitutes crimes against humanity, and what I consider worse, crimes against Gaia. (The crime of starting a war includes all crimes in the war. Crimes against Gaia include all subsequent crimes against humanity, other species, and the system of life that makes life on Earth possible.) Whether we should deal with those the way our present system of rage-based punishment would is another question, and another reason your assumption about my war crimes statement is unwarranted.
The 1970s ice age thing is thoroughly debunked yet constantly used by denialists. An approaching ice age was never an agreed-on theory, just a hypothesis held by a few, who even then were outnumbered by those who thought warming more likely, based on the evidence available. They kept investigating. Now the vast preponderance of a vast amount of evidence supports global warming. The ice age thing was reported in such scholarly journals as Newsweek because it made for shocking covers and more exciting copy. But sensationalism has nothing to do with the actual damage something does. We have spent HUGE amounts of time, money, thought, media, and given up most of our freedoms based on the sensational (misattributed) deaths of 3000 people 10 years ago. That, conservatively figured (not counting the years before) is 300 deaths a year.
Meanwhile, more than 20 million people have been killed in the US by firearms, (not counting accidents), motor vehicles, cancer, heart and respiratory and related diseases. Yet we not only have not banned guns and industrial carcinogens and improved our diets and exercise, most of the things that could prevent those deaths have been intensified by corporate-bought government action/inaction. We’ve barely even noticed those deaths or the real causes, so we’ve allowed corporations to tighten their stranglehold on our lives and government. Sensationalism is everything. Thus the nonsensical ice age scare.
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
Many things—nuclear war, nuclear reactor disasters—oops, never mind that one—don’t happen, precisely because they’re worried about and pre-empted (not by those in power but by those who suffer the effects). Environmentalists have prevented and lessened thousands of large and small disasters with their brave untiring protection of human and ecological health.
For most people in the US and world, life has gotten worse since Reagan and Thatcher, precisely because of the neoconservative policies they accelerated. The measurements elites use to tell themselves they’re good and nice mask, rather than reveal, the shadow/externalities and real situation.
2000 fuel shortages? Never heard that one. StrawPersoning again?
Everything you’ve said has turned out to be untrue, and most of it has turned out to be absurd. Please stop. You’re killing me. And many of the world’s young men as well as innocent children and civilians. The real cost of oil has gone up tremendously as EROEI has dropped; it is just hidden by direct and indirect subsidies and externalizing the cost of warmaking to the US taxpayers and Iraqi/Afghan/Libyan/etc etc etc “infrastructure draw-down”—destruction of their society. I would think you’d be against such useless and destructive government expenses.
Climate scientists are not making predictions—saying “This will happen.” They are making projections, saying, “If this happens and that and that happen and this doesn’t, then THIS is LIKELY”. Usually they provide multiple scenarios taking into account several possible conditions or responses, then refine the projections taking into account constructive criticism and new evidence. Ecological systems are easier to model than human behavior. Gregory Bateson provides an interesting analogy in Steps to an Ecology of Mind (p30) using Alice in Wonderland’s croquet game.
Scientists say nothing about political or economic systems in their climate models; climate models are about climate. StrawPerson squared. Stop now. You’re not helping.