The social anatomy of climate change denial in the United States (2024) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50591-6 Abstract Using data from Twitter (now X), this study deploys artificial intelligence (AI) and network analysis to map and profile climate change denialism across the United States. We estimate that 14.8% of Americans do not believe in climate change. This denialism is highest in the central and southern U.S. However, it also persists in clusters within states (e.g., California) where belief in climate change is high. Political affiliation has the strongest correlation, followed by level of education, COVID-19 vaccination rates, carbon intensity of the regional economy, and income. The analysis reveals how a coordinated social media network uses periodic events, such as cold weather and climate conferences, to sow disbelief about climate change and science, in general. Donald Trump was the strongest influencer in this network, followed by conservative media outlets and right-wing activists. As a form of knowledge vulnerability, climate denialism renders communities unprepared to take steps to increase resilience. As with other forms of misinformation, social media companies (e.g., X, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok) should flag accounts that spread falsehoods about climate change and collaborate on targeted educational campaigns. Discussion Using data from Twitter (now X), we used AI techniques and network analysis to delineate a comprehensive social anatomy of climate change denialism in the U.S., at the state and county levels. We identified geographic clusters of climate change denial in Republican counties, especially rural ones, and among residents who do not have a college education. This provides critical knowledge for identifying segments of the population that would benefit from targeted efforts to expand awareness of the risks associated with climate change and strategies to increase local resilience.
Article has some reasons why. They left out the russian sanctions that distorted heating gas prices during the winter. Cali's energy market is severly disfunctional as anyone who can remember Enron will attest. Fixing or addressing that would be the best outcome if there's any political consequences for higher util prices. The biggest driver of California utility bills stems from adapting to climate change, not preventing it. Wildfires are becoming more common as weather patterns become more extreme, and aging utility equipment has sparked some of the worst blazes in the state. Utilities now are charging their customers billions to bury and upgrade lines to reduce the risk of sparking more fires. They’re also building out transmission and distribution systems to accommodate growing demand from electric cars, appliances, data centers and even cannabis grow houses. Those costs are expected to keep growing to accommodate the shift to renewables. The utility Southern California Edison estimates that, all told, the costs of generating, storing and transmitting all the renewable energy California needs could be $370 billion by 2045. Other main drivers of high utility bills, according to the CPUC, are the reimbursements that utilities must pay for rooftop solar power and the costs of programs for low-income ratepayers. Renewable power itself, which utilities are required to procure under state law, is already costing less than fossil fuel-based alternatives for many customers of California’s investor-owned utilities, according to a 2022 CPUC analysis. That’s with the exception of San Diego Gas and Electric, whose customers pay more for renewables. Cheap, abundant renewables are the dream climate policymakers are pursuing that they say will make everything fall into place. The CPUC analysis shows that contracted prices for renewables peaked in 2007 and are declining. Solar and wind now cost a third what they did then, and old, expensive contracts are expiring. Southern California Edison’s analysis shows that average household energy costs, when factoring in shifts from gas to electric cars and natural gas to electric appliances, will go down.
The idea that gas vehicles can be effectively outlawed by fiat, without an act of Congress is a disgrace. This is the real threat to democracy. https://pjmedia.com/rick-moran/2024...s-rule-that-would-phase-out-gas-cars-n4927484 The Biden administration has issued its final rule governing tailpipe emissions that will force automakers to phase out gas cars by requiring up to 60% of new cars sold by 2032 to be EVs or hybrids. The emissions standards are so draconian that only a fleet dominated by EVs will meet the government's standards. The New York Times calls it "the most significant climate regulations in the nation's history." It's also virtually guaranteed to keep millions of Americans out of the new car market and create enormous chaos on the roads. The infrastructure, including enough charging stations and mechanics to service tens of millions of electric vehicles, simply won't be there. But in the name of "battling climate change," no price is too steep, no inconvenience too stupid to endure. "Three years ago, I set an ambitious target: that half of all new cars and trucks sold in 2030 would be zero-emission," said Mr. Biden in a statement. "Together, we've made historic progress. Hundreds of new expanded factories across the country. Hundreds of billions in private investment and thousands of good-paying union jobs. And we'll meet my goal for 2030 and race forward in the years ahead."
Except the rules aren’t outlawing gas vehicles by fiat. The standards are fleet standards so you could still have gas powered engines as long as there is a mix of engines powered by other technologies to meet the overall standard.
Only the Xweeter and the poster would think the real life version of Senator Tankerbell was a good guy.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ourism-sea-levels-climate-crisis-quintana-roo The 700-mile coast of Quintana Roo has been eroded at a rate of 1.2 metres a year, with some parts losing up to 4.9 metres a year, according to Mexico’s tourism ministry. Beaches are disappearing, and some are only maintained artificially with sand dredged from the seabed. Often they are little more than strips of sand, no wider than a dirt road. Sometimes the strand has completely vanished, leaving waves breaking against the walls of swimming pools, restaurants and houses. Hurricanes are expected to increase in intensity due to higher ocean temperatures, leading to storm surges and exacerbating beach erosion. In 2005, Cancún lost large swaths of an eight-mile beach after Hurricane Wilma, which were later artificially restored, and then hit again by Hurricane Dean two years later. In 2020, the Riviera Maya region experienced 17 tropical storms and 13 hurricanes in one of the most active hurricane seasons on record. Algal blooms have also plagued the coast of the Riviera Maya, a phenomenon scientists have linked to warming sea temperatures. The beachfront along the coast is frequently lined with mounds of rotting black seaweed. In Tulum, the seaweed is often stacked high in piles with workers shovelling it on to wheelbarrows on the shore and hotel owners despairing over where to put it all. --- There are some signs that the reality of the climate crisis may be slowly dawning on parts of the Riviera Maya tourism industry. In 2019, the Quintana Roo government entered into the world’s first coral reef insurance policy with premiums paid by hotel owners as well as the local government. The first payout of $800,000 (£590,000) came in 2020 after Hurricane Delta damaged reefs and beaches.
Also, I am currently in the Maldives. First came here 21 years ago. Sea level here is exactly the same as back then.
If anyone wants to know what's happening to global sea levels, it's not hard to find. https://www.statista.com/statistics...the past three decades,the same month in 1993. They are rising, of course. That's because warmer water expands slightly and b/c of all the land-ice that's been melting. Y'all just need to argue that it's no big deal. The idea that anyone is arguing it's not happening is just so beyond data as to be some sort of Fox-induced lobotomy. (Sorry, but damn, y'all. Shift your goal posts again. You've been really good at that for over 30 years.)
Yes. Often people use the outer most range of a prediction to label the science as faulty. But there is no arguing with the measurements.
If it happens it happens. We are way too selfish to prevent it, and any attempt to delay the process is negated by folks who could give two fks.
