Damn, the denial of reality by Republicans continues to grow. Overall, a majority of respondents – 53% – said addressing climate change should be given priority even at the risk of slowing the economy. That included 80% of Democrats and 54% of independents. But almost three-quarters of Republicans (72%) said the economy should be given priority, even at the risk of ignoring climate change. That is up 13 points since 2018 A solid majority (56%) overall called climate change a major threat, including almost 9 in 10 Democrats and a slim majority of independents. But 70% of Republicans said it's either just a minor threat or no threat at all. A similar majority (55%) said climate change is having a serious impact now and an even larger majority (62%) said it is having a great deal or at least some effect on their communities. But in each case that included majorities of Democrats and independents with Republicans feeling the opposite way. In fact, a plurality of Republicans – 43% – said climate change won't have a serious impact on their communities at all. Another third said it will only have a minor one.
The same people who religiously believe in the climate apocalypse also believed in every word governments told them about Covid. They also have and had a strong urge to try and silence dissenting voices.
https://reason.com/2023/08/03/stuck-behind-an-suv-blame-me/ Stuck Behind an SUV? Blame Me. by Bruce Yandle August 3, 2023 4:20 pm I recently pulled into a store parking lot and noticed a woman with only a small bag of groceries heading to her car. She slipped behind the steering wheel of a 5,000-pound SUV, quickly cranked the turbocharged 200-horsepower engine, and drove away. Recognizing an engineering masterpiece that had evolved in a highly regulated world, I couldn't help but think about the front-row seat I had to the events that accidentally spurred the rise of these vehicles. As the White House moves to subsidize the domestic manufacture of electric vehicles and their batteries, and as it writes regulations calling for tougher fuel economy standards, it's worth remembering how we got to this point. The White House has promised that this will all have a positive impact on global climate change and save us money when fueling our SUVs. Hopefully that's true, but no one in government is systematically keeping score and reporting. The industry has become so overloaded with subsidies and regulations that it's hard to tell what policies, if any, would reduce production costs and save consumers money, let alone help solve climate change. Back in 1977, as a senior economist on President Jimmy Carter's Council on Wage and Price Stability, I participated in Department of Transportation (DOT) proceedings that set the first fuel economy standards for the U.S. fleet. What transpired is a great example of what can happen when federal regulations become completely entangled with a major economic sector. The forces at play help to explain why a woman happily drives a 5,000-pound SUV to transport 10 pounds of groceries. I can assure readers that no one in those proceedings thought the Ford F-150 pickup, beginning in 1982, would top the all-vehicle bestseller list for 41 consecutive years. And we could have never guessed that truck-like SUVs would become vehicles of choice for U.S. consumers. We couldn't have; SUVs did not exist at the time. We expected just the reverse. Cars would get smaller, we thought. Fuel economy would rise, and large, weighty vehicles would be a thing of the past, primarily because of the regulations being put in place. The move to regulate fuel economy came about a few years earlier, following the 1973–74 Arab embargo that suddenly ended the flow of oil from OPEC nations. In the face of skyrocketing oil prices, Congress froze gasoline prices to protect American consumers from pocketbook shock. Then came the hard part. Elected officials sought to require U.S. automakers to build the smaller, more economical cars that unquestionably would have been built had gasoline prices been allowed to rise freely. Yet the fuel economy standards hit passenger sedans hard while leaving light trucks, which were not seen as passenger vehicles, almost untouched. As the fuel economy standards began to bite consumers, they found that trucks provided comfort and safety no longer available in the downsized sedans. Truck sales surged, and in 1990, Ford placed a four-door body on a Ranger truck frame and introduced the Ford Explorer, a passenger vehicle that satisfied the government's truck definition. This inspired an explosion of similar SUV production across the industry. Trucks became beautiful, expensive, and highly desirable. All the while, the fuel economy standard for trucks remained less strict than for sedans. To make things even better for U.S. producers, almost-prohibitive tariffs on European light trucks were extended to the rest of the world. Many foreign producers eventually jumped the tariff wall and built trucks and cars here, but the home-grown industry enjoyed an early advantage. Over the years, regulatory priorities changed. America became the world's leading oil producer. Old fuel efficiency worries were bolstered by concerns about smog, emissions, and climate change. Electric vehicles became the politically hoped-for solution. But instead of overhauling the aging fuel efficiency apparatus—perhaps even moving to a straightforward tax on carbon emissions—politicians added more ornaments to the fuel economy Christmas tree. It now includes requirements for producers of too many gasoline-powered vehicles to subsidize those that make electric cars. Today's DOT-proposed fuel economy regulations can only be met by a significantly enlarged electric fleet. These are accompanied by proposed emission regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency. Now we're left with a maze of regulations and rules that I doubt anyone can fully explain. The industrial organization that results is so opaque that no one can tell what anything really costs when factoring for the credits, subsidies, or tax breaks paid for or enjoyed by all involved. Perhaps it's time to start anew. Why not wipe the slate clean, support carbon and other offset markets to reduce undesirable emissions, and let the chips fall where they may? It may take time, but customers and automakers can respond more effectively than the regulatory state has. We should be able to learn from the 46 countries already using market forces, along with an unbiased analysis of the whole thing. This suggests calling on the Joint Economic Committee to organize a study and publish the findings. Perhaps the National Bureau of Economic Research could become involved. It's time we better understand why ordinary people are driving extraordinary trucks to fetch a loaf of bread and milk from the market. And if it's time to go electric, we'll know what not to do. BRUCE YANDLE is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, dean emeritus of the Clemson College of Business and Behavioral Sciences, and a former executive director of the Federal Trade Commission.
This is a false dichotomy of economy versus climate change and only applies to a very short term. As I’ve noted several times and will continue to that even those who deny climate change are admitting they are taking a financial hit from things like increased insurance premiums and higher property taxes to deal with coastal and flood issues. Most of American is paying more in energy to keep cool this summer. It’s no longer long term costs but actual costs we are paying now for climate change.
You would think so, but that's why that poll is a bit shocking. There are now more Republicans denying the impact of climate change than a few years ago. A larger majority of them now think it's either minor or has no impact. Just amazing. My soap box - I know I'm biased, but damn, the whole right-wing base is getting further and further divorced from reality. Why? I think it's because they're consuming way too much junk—24/7 junk that is now much more readily available and easily propagated through media such as Facebook, Twitter, Fox News, and of course, politicians. I keep reconfirming this belief when I see postings here of tweets that are just downright junk and stupid. Then these polls yield results that confirm my thinking (maybe it's confirmation bias), but the hits keep coming. And, of course, it's more than just climate change. It's Jan 6, vaccines, the Paul Pelosi male prostitute attack, and so many other conspiracies based on junk. No one is unsusceptible to the now 24/7 readily available junk, and it's bringing down everyone in general, but it has had and continues to have an oversized impact on the right as a whole. It's sad to see.
I hear ya. There is so much cognitive dissonance right now regarding so much of society. I brought up the example in another thread of a MAGA friend of mine who got health care from MN's ACA program who simultaneously would rail against Obamacare.
That was 500 million years ago, and temps were 10C warmer, and would have been even higher if it were not for the fact that the Sun was much cooler a half billion years ago. The last time in recent history CO2 levels were as high as they are today was 3 million years ago, and the temperature was 2C warmer. So that means at the current levels, we still have another 2 degrees of warming to come not accounting for any other increases in CO2 levels.
It's funny when people complain about dissenting voices being snuffed out by others...when they themselves can't stand to critically think and explore the possibility they themselves may be wrong.
Biden expected to create Grand Canyon national monument to block new mining, sources say The Arizona monument would be aimed at safeguarding areas near Grand Canyon National Park that local tribes want to protect from uranium extraction https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim.../04/arizona-national-monument-uranium-mining/ excerpt: President Biden is leaning toward designating a vast area near the Grand Canyon as a national monument to safeguard it from uranium mining, according to five people familiar with the plans. Leaders of local tribes and environmentalists have spent years lobbying to protect areas near the park from potential uranium mining, which they say would threaten aquifers and water supplies. They have asked Washington to double the protected area around the canyon by including 1.1 million acres of public lands in a Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Grand Canyon National Monument. Biden is doing a tour through Arizona next week. The White House previously announced that the president would make climate change and his environmental agenda a focus of his stops on the tour. more
National Monument authority has got to be one of the greatest abuses we have. A president can unilaterally seize thousands of acres of state land without Congressional authorization or the state having any say.
White House asks Cabinet agencies to ‘aggressively execute’ return to in-person work https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/white-house-cabinet-in-person-work/index.html the federal government has some 2 million employees. Gotta think this move will increase gasoline consumption and highway congestion . . . not a very good move for the climate
When will people realize there in most cases "localized governments" having more control of these type of lands just eventually means "how can I get mega corps to buy out all the land for maximization of profits". So in reality the local governments would abuse power with self interest to become personal wealthy. So far more corruption at the local level. If we allowed all our federal lands to be eaten up by the interests of small town politicians we would have zero nature reserves, zero hiking trails etc. It would all just be land for extra ting profit. Seems like a hellscape.
In a relative scale? Yes feds are typically significantly less corrupt than local level politics both in urban and rural regions so this even isn't a rant on conservative rural America. Urban America run by Democrats can be awfully corrupt also. Feds have higher standards and a.lot more mundane careerist rather than grifters. Local level politics has a lot more grifters and part time politicians who are in it to maxamize their small business interests.
Federal land, not state land. The power was given by the Antiquities Act of 1906. Congress can always update the act, but they have chosen not to for over 100 years, indicating it's simply not anywhere close to being the greatest abuse as you think, and they aren't that concerned about it.
Beyond the catchy title of the article, the impact of clouds on the global climate is still not a well-known factor. Here is the actual article mentioned in that tweet (interesting geo-engineering possibility) https://www.science.org/content/art...st-geoengineering-fueling-record-ocean-warmth Another article discussing the uncertainty of cloud impact: https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...limate-change-clouds-equilibrium-sensitivity/ Geo-engineering proposal : https://www.anthropocenemagazine.or...MIjfSp7LrIgAMVLyjUAR31ngEhEAAYAiAAEgJrm_D_BwE
