Climate Change

We tried doing nothing but that didn't work so we are all out of ideas. Not enough profits to be made.

^^^
Now that's just the pluralistic ignorance and false social reality talkin'.


Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32412-y

Aug 23 2022

Abstract

Pluralistic ignorance—a shared misperception of how others think or behave—poses a challenge to collective action on problems like climate change. Using a representative sample of Americans (N = 6119), we examine whether Americans accurately perceive national concern about climate change and support for mitigating policies. We find a form of pluralistic ignorance that we describe as a false social reality: a near universal perception of public opinion that is the opposite of true public sentiment. Specifically, 80–90% of Americans underestimate the prevalence of support for major climate change mitigation policies and climate concern. While 66–80% Americans support these policies, Americans estimate the prevalence to only be between 37–43% on average. Thus, supporters of climate policies outnumber opponents two to one, while Americans falsely perceive nearly the opposite to be true. Further, Americans in every state and every assessed demographic underestimate support across all polices tested. Preliminary evidence suggests three sources of these misperceptions: (i) consistent with a false consensus effect, respondents who support these policies less (conservatives) underestimate support by a greater degree; controlling for one’s own personal politics, (ii) exposure to more conservative local norms and (iii) consuming conservative news correspond to greater misperceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simple

We tried doing nothing but that didn't work so we are all out of ideas. Not enough profits to be made.

---

Cognitive dissonance

Kill yourself. Or at the very least stop lift served skiing.
It contributes nothing to society.

The sad thing is we’re all killing Gaia.

Or better yet, kill the propagandists that promulgate that false social reality.

Okay, "kill" perhaps too strong, but they should be gone.

Rupert needs to die already, even though Lachlan will sadly carry the torch.

The deniers will say meh, so the oceans rise 10”. That’s nothing! Why are we freaking out over 10” of beach vertical lost?

They probably had similar conversations on Mars a billion years ago..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoorsLight99

I don't think there are any deniers.

Plenty of people might question whether moving away from fossil fuels that have become extremely efficient recently is a good idea. But that is hardly denying.

I'd rather idiots stop depleting the CO river and move somewhere else or just use bottled water if they are rich and can afford it that would do more than driving an electric car who's battery is going to end up in a landfill along with all the solar panels and other nasty things there will be no usable ground water in a couple decades because of 'green' technologies once they are past their lifespan and are buried.

---

Proof there are still deniers^^

Gee I didn't know you could run a car on corn syrup.
Need to check the pantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

^^^
Now that's just the pluralistic ignorance and false social reality talkin'.


Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32412-y

Aug 23 2022

Abstract

Pluralistic ignorance—a shared misperception of how others think or behave—poses a challenge to collective action on problems like climate change. Using a representative sample of Americans (N = 6119), we examine whether Americans accurately perceive national concern about climate change and support for mitigating policies. We find a form of pluralistic ignorance that we describe as a false social reality: a near universal perception of public opinion that is the opposite of true public sentiment. Specifically, 80–90% of Americans underestimate the prevalence of support for major climate change mitigation policies and climate concern. While 66–80% Americans support these policies, Americans estimate the prevalence to only be between 37–43% on average. Thus, supporters of climate policies outnumber opponents two to one, while Americans falsely perceive nearly the opposite to be true. Further, Americans in every state and every assessed demographic underestimate support across all polices tested. Preliminary evidence suggests three sources of these misperceptions: (i) consistent with a false consensus effect, respondents who support these policies less (conservatives) underestimate support by a greater degree; controlling for one’s own personal politics, (ii) exposure to more conservative local norms and (iii) consuming conservative news correspond to greater misperceptions.

---

Weird, I can’t imagine how that could possibly happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

It will be interesting to see if there is anything close to the amount of charging infrastructure to accommodate even the number of EV's targeted for 2026, let alone the 2035 version. Or anything close to the amount of clean electricity needed to charge them. As it is California's grid can barely keep up. Without massive public investment in charging and clean generation there won't be enough people buying new EV's and clean power to make a dent in CO2 emissions. I expect we'll see people hanging on to their gas cars and trucks, especially in rural areas--we'll be like Cuba. It has to happen, but relying on subsidies and the free market alone--as in the Inflation Reduction Act or setting a fleet standard and expecting the other pieces to magically fall into place--ala CA--isn't going to do it.

---

Ok, I’ll bite, what’s the alternative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoorsLight99

I don't think there are any deniers.

Plenty of people might question whether moving away from fossil fuels that have become extremely efficient recently is a good idea. But that is hardly denying.

I'd rather idiots stop depleting the CO river and move somewhere else or just use bottled water if they are rich and can afford it that would do more than driving an electric car who's battery is going to end up in a landfill along with all the solar panels and other nasty things there will be no usable ground water in a couple decades because of 'green' technologies once they are past their lifespan and are buried.

---

It ain’t just the mighty Colorado https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markeyz

Ok, I’ll bite, what’s the alternative?

---

For starters, state takeover of PGE and SoCalEdison. Second, use taxpayer dollars as well as rate payer dollars to expand generating capacity as fast as possible with non-carbon sources. Third, adjust the fleet percentage of ecars based on increased generating capacity. California is big on mandates--mandated solar on new construction (Truckee gets a pass because no one makes solar panels rated for our snow loads), now mandated ecars. The state needs to take a more active role. It's not politically expedient--taxpayers like to see someone else do the heavy lifting--but we'll all drown, burn up, or die of thirst together, whether we drive cars and have solar panels or not.

The climate crisis will not be solved without very big government. Americans will not like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoorsLight99

I don't think there are any deniers.

Plenty of people might question whether moving away from fossil fuels that have become extremely efficient recently is a good idea. But that is hardly denying.

---

Maybe it's because I live in Texas, but there are plenty of people here who believe that global warming is due to animals, agriculture, and normal weather cycles. At their core, their argument isn't centered on "How do we minimize carbon output" but moreso "Why do we need to minimize out carbon footprint?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garfield3d

Maybe it's because I live in Texas, but there are plenty of people here who believe that global warming is due to animals, agriculture, and normal weather cycles.

---

Attachment 425368

It's an evangelical religious thing. They have to blame God and at the same time believe the god that wrecked the shit will fix the shit and make it better.. That comes with the notion that it is blasphemy to claim that man has more control over what happens to the earth than god. Same with any non biblical science, evolution, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

It's an evangelical religious thing. They have to blame God and at the same time believe the god that wrecked the shit will fix the shit and make it better.. That comes with the notion that it is blasphemy to claim that man has more control over what happens to the earth than god. Same with any non biblical science, evolution, etc...

---

I know you're being a little facetious, but people definitely have the "God will take care of it" and "God gifted us the Earth to use" entitlement while forgetting the whole 'stewardship' thing. There's a pretty strong persecution complex thing going on too. Usually it involves a post that starts with "I don't usually post about religion or politics..." before wedging a post about religion in between thinly-veiled posts about something political.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garfield3d

I know you're being a little facetious, but people definitely have the "God will take care of it" and "God gifted us the Earth to use" entitlement while forgetting the whole 'stewardship' thing. There's a pretty strong persecution complex thing going on too. Usually it involves a post that starts with "I don't usually post about religion or politics..." before wedging a post about religion in between thinly-veiled posts about something political.

---

Oh I know it well. I was born in Oklahoma, lived in the Dallas area through the 90s. In North KakaLki now. Minnesota (70s-82) and Long Island (80s) were way more to my socio political liking. There are reasonable people everywhere, but deep south bible belt is run by nut jobs..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

It will be interesting to see if there is anything close to the amount of charging infrastructure to accommodate even the number of EV's targeted for 2026, let alone the 2035 version.

---

Or capacity to produce electricity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

For starters, state takeover of PGE and SoCalEdison. Second, use taxpayer dollars as well as rate payer dollars to expand generating capacity as fast as possible with non-carbon sources. Third, adjust the fleet percentage of ecars based on increased generating capacity. California is big on mandates--mandated solar on new construction (Truckee gets a pass because no one makes solar panels rated for our snow loads), now mandated ecars. The state needs to take a more active role. It's not politically expedient--taxpayers like to see someone else do the heavy lifting--but we'll all drown, burn up, or die of thirst together, whether we drive cars and have solar panels or not.

The climate crisis will not be solved without very big government. Americans will not like it.

---

Some good stuff in here, but we need to increase the percentage of EVs at the same time we increase electricity generation from clean sources. We need to set high targets for both and then we must hit those targets.

The solution that can address climate change the fastest and cheapest is to electrify everything that can be electrified and generate that electricity from clean sources. This will require 3-4 times more electricity than we generate today, but overall energy use will be cut in half. We save about 25% of total energy used today by not looking for, digging up, transporting and refining fossil fuels into energy (40% of international shipping alone is to transport fossil fuels). We save another 25% of total energy because electricity is so much more efficient than burning things for heat or power. But building that much generation from renewables is a massive undertaking and we need to start now!

It seems that environmental regulations will need to change for utility scale clean energy infrastructure to be put in place at the magnitude, scale, and speed that will be necessary. The race for large solar in the CA desert under Obama didn’t work out too well partially because of the state-protected desert ground squirrel. Duke energy was levied the largest fine ever for violation of the federal migratory bird treaty act for some of its WY wind farms - this was interpreted as a shot across the bow. Off shore wind farms? Large solar farms? More hydro-electric? The FERC licensing process takes a really long time. A frog spp is destined to be federally listed in CA and one of the main threats to its existence are current conservation measures for protecting protected salmon and steelhead. Something will have to give.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

A frog spp is destined to be federally listed in CA and one of the main threats to its existence are current conservation measures for protecting protected salmon and steelhead. Something will have to give.

---

Let me get this straight. Man built dams which fucked the salmon. Now man releasing water from those dams unnaturally is fucking the frogs. But it is somehow the salmon's fault? Seems like if man just GTFO both the salmon and the frogs would be happy.

There were 75 million people in the US in 1900., most in the east, very few in the west. There are now 300 million people in the US all over. 225 million more people who need water an infinitely more electricity than those 75 million needed in 1900. Gonna break a few eggs, salomon and frogs to make that happen.

Can we do better? I hope so.. but there will be tons of collateral damage no matter how we try to go about it.

But the frogs are turning gay!!!

If the salmon also turn gay they might get some needed legislative assistance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WMD

Some good stuff in here, but we need to increase the percentage of EVs at the same time we increase electricity generation from clean sources. We need to set high targets for both and then we must hit those targets.

The solution that can address climate change the fastest and cheapest is to electrify everything that can be electrified and generate that electricity from clean sources. This will require 3-4 times more electricity than we generate today, but overall energy use will be cut in half. We save about 25% of total energy used today by not looking for, digging up, transporting and refining fossil fuels into energy (40% of international shipping alone is to transport fossil fuels). We save another 25% of total energy because electricity is so much more efficient than burning things for heat or power. But building that much generation from renewables is a massive undertaking and we need to start now!

---

The problem is there is no "we". There are several "theys". The auto companies who are mandated to make ecars whether there is power or not. The electric companies who may or may not increase capacity and if they do will have to do it by drastically increasing rate. The SCOTUS, who says only Congress can regulate carbon emissions, not the executive branch. When you say "we" need to do all these things simultaneously, you are papering over the problem with platitudes. There is no plan and no currently available governmental/regulatory mechanism to make it happen. What would be needed would be the kind of production controls, activity restrictions, rationing, and other regulation the US had in WWII. But on an even bigger scale. It would probably mean nationalizing multiple industries. Do you see that happening any time soon, if ever? What happened when governments tried to impose some pretty easy covid restrictions and mandates. What do you think will be the result if the govt were to take the steps that will be necessary to solve the climate crisis. In a country with 400M private firearms?

Meanwhile California is looking at blackouts this week.

This is fucking sobering:

https://time.com/6209432/climate-cha...-we-will-live/

Canada, here we come.

Looks like Europe's idea of sustainable energy is cutting down protected old growth forests in Eastern and Northern Europe to make wood pellets to burn for energy. They actually subsidize this industry, placing "wood" as the number one "renewable energy source" in Europe, ahead of wind and solar. People are apparently dumb enough to think burning wood is an environmentally friendly alternative to burning fossil fuels even though burning wood produces more carbon dioxide. Awesome.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...d-pellets.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

There were 75 million people in the US in 1900., most in the east, very few in the west. There are now 300 million people in the US all over. 225 million more people who need water an infinitely more electricity than those 75 million needed in 1900. Gonna break a few eggs, salomon and frogs to make that happen.

---

And if you think that's bad, consider the actual population is now 332 million.


If they break Salomon this place will be coming for them with pitchforks!

"Looks like Europe's idea of sustainable energy is cutting down protected old growth forests in Eastern and Northern Europe to make wood pellets to burn for energy. They actually subsidize this industry, placing "wood" as the number one "renewable energy source" in Europe, ahead of wind and solar. People are apparently dumb enough to think burning wood is an environmentally friendly alternative to burning fossil fuels even though burning wood produces more carbon dioxide. Awesome."

There is a push in the environmental world to sustainably source wood pellets. Trees grow. Fossil fuels do not. But you knew that.

Relevant:

https://time.com/6209432/climate-cha...-we-will-live/

Excerpt...

"While nations rally to reduce their carbon emissions, and try to adapt at-risk places to hotter conditions, there is an elephant in the room: for large portions of the world, local conditions are becoming too extreme and there is no way to adapt. People will have to move to survive.

Over the next fifty years, hotter temperatures combined with more intense humidity are set to make large swathes of the globe lethal to live in. Fleeing the tropics, the coasts, and formerly arable lands, huge populations will need to seek new homes; you will be among them, or you will be receiving them. This migration has already begun—we have all seen the streams of people fleeing drought-hit areas in Latin America, Africa, and Asia where farming and other rural livelihoods have become impossible."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenstateofmind

There is a push in the environmental world to sustainably source wood pellets. Trees grow. Fossil fuels do not. But you knew that.

---

If that's our plan, grow trees and burn them, then we are truly fucked. And as that article points out, they aren't just harvesting fast growing plantation trees, they are harvesting old growth trees from national parks.

Sounds to me like people in wealthy parts of the world pat themselves on the back saying their wood pellets are "sustainable" while ignoring the fact that those poor countries where those wood pellets are coming from don't give a fuck, and any kind of protection laws as just a suggestion.

I read about the wood pellets five or ten years ago.
It’s savage. And stupid.

Just burn the methane. Let the trees grow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heckacali

Relevant:

https://time.com/6209432/climate-cha...-we-will-live/

Excerpt...

"While nations rally to reduce their carbon emissions, and try to adapt at-risk places to hotter conditions, there is an elephant in the room: for large portions of the world, local conditions are becoming too extreme and there is no way to adapt. People will have to move to survive.

Over the next fifty years, hotter temperatures combined with more intense humidity are set to make large swathes of the globe lethal to live in. Fleeing the tropics, the coasts, and formerly arable lands, huge populations will need to seek new homes; you will be among them, or you will be receiving them. This migration has already begun—we have all seen the streams of people fleeing drought-hit areas in Latin America, Africa, and Asia where farming and other rural livelihoods have become impossible."

---

Fucking terrifying. This whole thing is spiraling faster than anyone predicted. I have so much climate anxiety, especially for my kid and what she’ll witness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

For starters, state takeover of PGE and SoCalEdison.

---

And SDG&E. Honestly, there is no way to get to where we need to be with our current dance partners. Dead end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

Second, use taxpayer dollars as well as rate payer dollars to expand generating capacity as fast as possible with non-carbon sources.

---

No need to start with ratepayer dollars, use the retired PG&E dividends. Use Patti Poppe's $52m per year. Or tax the rich with items like Prop 30...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

(Truckee gets a pass because no one makes solar panels rated for our snow loads),

---

They get a pass on solar for sure, but not on all-electric buildings. As Truckee Town Council moves to vote on all-electric new construction requirements later this year, please take the time to show your support.

If Crested Butte can do it, so can we!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The SnowShow

Fucking terrifying. This whole thing is spiraling faster than anyone predicted. I have so much climate anxiety, especially for my kid and what she’ll witness.

---

And you put her in that position because of that compulsory breeding program we have in this country, right? :rolleyes2

I'm in my mid 60's, and have a son in his mid 30's, and thank God he has the good sense to realize it would be nothing but cruel and selfish to have children. He's been right about a lot more than he's been wrong about.

Wish I had listened to him, we would both be a few million dollars richer, and much better positioned to deal with a rapidly changing climate, but I found it awfully hard to listen seriously to someone in his 20's about investment opportunities that were centered on a world that will soon look completely different from the one I was born into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Core Shot

I read about the wood pellets five or ten years ago.
It’s savage. And stupid.

Just burn the methane. Let the trees grow.

---

We could burn the rich people and all their stuff... Eat the rich?

sorry if this has already been posted ....but this vvv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sytWLB4-W-M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mar123

sorry if this has already been posted ....but this vvv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sytWLB4-W-M

---

So, what I got out of that was because EV's won't solve the whole problem, we shouldn't bother using them as part of a solution.

https://youtu.be/6CXRaTnKDXA?t=03m51s

Yup; unless you've got a magic wand, you're part of the problem.

Putting it out there cause I thought it had some valuable insight and I pretty much agree with what he says.

EV's are great in theory, but the current situation we're putting the cart before the horse. Its pointless to have EV's powered by fossil fuels, yep they are...until we have clean energy its pointless ...Solar, Hydro, and Wind are cute and not everyone can benefit from those... its going to take Nuclear energy to make it work globally...Industry and Agriculture are the main contributors so its silly to go after folks driving gas cars when its going to have zero impact if you dont go after Industry and Agriculture FIRST! AND the negative impacts of mining cobalt, lithium, and nickel on the earth to produce all the batteries for the WORLD? and what we'll do with them after? We should be targeting industry first, agriculture second, setting up the infrastructure to support EV's, then lets deal with producing/transitioning to EV's last.

Shoot they were asking people not to charge their EV's in California over the weekend...pretty clear we dont have the infrastructure, and thats a very small percentage compared to gas powered vehicles in CA...imagine if everyone was driving EV's would be a disaster.

If we go into this EV thing without a concrete plan its going to be an absolute shit show.

I'd encourage everyone to do some research on cobalt and lithium mining watch some YouTube videos...toxic cost of going green. Its all a good idea in theory but we gotta figure something out thats sustainable. Theres only a very few people driving EV's now....imagine if the whole world was driving them and what the impacts on our planet would be not only to produce them but how to power them as well.

Its a tricky thing cause its not going to happen with one administration or by slapping a bunch of regulations on industry that cripple business...its going to have to happen with time and innovation...it cant be forced upon people.

Thats all I got haha...post and ghost. bye.

Quote:

---

Their conclusion: Nearly 650,000 individual, privately owned parcels, across as many as 4.4 million acres of land, are projected to fall below changing tidal boundaries by 2050. The land affected could swell to 9.1 million acres by 2100. According to Thursday’s analysis, properties with a collective assessed value of $108 billion could be affected by the end of the century, based on current emissions. But, the authors noted, because complete property values were not available for all counties, the actual total is likely to be far higher.

---

:)