Why are some people so afraid of climate change?

[Borgholio]

So Pat Sajak made a proclamation the other day that those who support the idea of Global Warming are unpatriotic racists.

Add another celebrity onto my "Used to enjoy watching" list. But worse, on FB there are more people coming out in support of him than criticizing him. The pro-Sajak crowd use all the usual arguments that liberals are in it for the money, that "enough" scientists doubt climate change to make it a hoax, that Greenland used to be fully green, that the world overall has been cooling down over the last century, etc...

I wonder, why are so many people against climate change? Why do they feel threatened by it? It's very easy to trot out a graph showing the progress of the industrial revolution, the steady increase of greenhouse gases, and the overall gradual rise in global temperature, and find that they match very closely. Why is this such a mind-blower for these people?

[Guardsman Bass]

There's the people who are obviously afraid of it for economic reasons, like coal and gas company owners.

But for the broader conservative public in the US, it ties into old, recycled fears from the Cold War. Lots of them think it's a false or exaggerated "trojan horse" designed to saddle America with more regulations or Socialism, not helped by their distrust of scientists for other reasons (many of these same people are creationists).

[Broomstick]

Also, there's a segment that fears they'll have to change their lifestyle, habits, or make do with less and it scares the hell out of them.

[Purple]

Also, there's a segment that fears they'll have to change their lifestyle, habits, or make do with less and it scares the hell out of them.

This. The problem really is that it has become a buzzword these days which politicians use to appease the public by enacting meaningless or worse yet harmful legislation. Like for example regulating the kind of bulb I am allowed to plug into my light socket instead of doing the actual green thing and making sure the electricity that powers it is atomic. So in the end it becomes a thing that is an overused excuse for politicians to blunder around and make life miserable for the common fool who than goes on to cheer them on for it.

[Iroscato]

Several factors are at play as far as I can see. One of them being the operative word of 'change'. People, as a rule despise change, we naturally build a comfortable existence around us and any external force that threatens that can easily be seen as bad.
Many people see it as a way for their freedom to be curbed, for their wallets to be emptied just a little quicker, and develop a suspicion of it as a result.
Perhaps another factor is that it's so far beyond their control - the entire climate is shifting, and there is nothing that can stop it. Maybe when faced with something that huge and terrifying, people choose to simply deny it, and stick their head in the sands.
Source: my own experience with incredibly stupid people, both in real life and online.

[Gandalf]

Also, people are entrenched in their positions, so there's a lot of ego at stake in this issue.

[Formless]

Partisanship is probably one of the biggest reasons among the masses, I think. Some political parties have, due to their economic relationships, decided to make a point of arguing against the science that they don't understand, spreading conspiracy theories, and slandering the institution of science, in the hopes that their lower level constituents will make a big deal about it to show their tribal affiliations. And it works, and for many people that's all it takes. No rational thought, because their only interest is being in the "right" camp. No pun intended.

Also, its a faraway problem, both in the sense that the effects of global warming * accumulate slowly in human terms and in the literal sense that things are happening far away from where they live. So it is easy to fall into the trap of "if its not my back yard, I don't care [I only care about local weather patterns, and right now its snowing outside]".



* (frankly, "Global Warming" is the term I prefer, politically correct or not, because that's what's causing all the Climate Change scientists worry about. No one is talking about the Albedo Effect, because global COOLING isn't what's happening)

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think, broadly, most people are simply apathetic and ill-informed. Part of this is the consequence of people who do feel threatened spreading misinformation and whatnot. But, in general, I think most people consider it an abstract problem that they don't particularly care to understand. Hell, even if you can get an average person to admit global warming is happening, it is harder to convince them this is a problem worth caring about. Most people (as Formless alluded to) are looking at local weather patterns; most people if told that the weather is going to get warmer as a result of climate change are just going to shrug and say, "Good, I like warm weather." They aren't going to go out of their way to do the research that would elucidate all the deleterious effects of this warming.

[bilateralrope]

Also, there's a segment that fears they'll have to change their lifestyle, habits, or make do with less and it scares the hell out of them.

This. The problem really is that it has become a buzzword these days which politicians use to appease the public by enacting meaningless or worse yet harmful legislation. Like for example regulating the kind of bulb I am allowed to plug into my light socket instead of doing the actual green thing and making sure the electricity that powers it is atomic. So in the end it becomes a thing that is an overused excuse for politicians to blunder around and make life miserable for the common fool who than goes on to cheer them on for it.

Why are you so opposed to energy saving bulbs ?

Why do you say that they don't count as an "actual green thing" ?

[Purple]

Also, there's a segment that fears they'll have to change their lifestyle, habits, or make do with less and it scares the hell out of them.

This. The problem really is that it has become a buzzword these days which politicians use to appease the public by enacting meaningless or worse yet harmful legislation. Like for example regulating the kind of bulb I am allowed to plug into my light socket instead of doing the actual green thing and making sure the electricity that powers it is atomic. So in the end it becomes a thing that is an overused excuse for politicians to blunder around and make life miserable for the common fool who than goes on to cheer them on for it.

Why are you so opposed to energy saving bulbs ?

Why do you say that they don't count as an "actual green thing" ?

Because the thermoelectric plant burning coal and gas from Russia contributes much more pollution than the slight change to a less shiny bulb cancels out. Especially since now have to use two of them to get the same level of light in my rooms. So it's a crap token measure meant to appease the masses. And as always, I feel that such measures only serve to divert people away from fixing the real problem that the governments don't want fixed because it would be inconvenient, costly or unpopular.

In other words, it's a shiny band aid that you apply over an infected wound to make the patient feel better whilst doing nothing to actually heal it. And once that is done, he is happy and you are happy and all is well until the infected limb falls off. Ordinarily, I'd just find such measures disgusting and spit on them. But since in this case, they actually cause harm to my quality of life that disgust has turned to outright hatred and wrath.

[Borgholio]

I dunno which bulbs you're using, Purple, but I use CFL and LED bulbs that put out even more light than the old incandescent bulbs, and they use 1/4 the amount of electricity. And while you're right, just one bulb isn't going to matter much, if you have millions of homes switch out a dozen bulbs each...THEN it makes a difference.

[Broomstick]

The CFL's do have the problem of containing mercury, which is a problem when they break (although the amount in one bulb is miniscule you wouldn't want to be around a lot of broken bulbs and, hey, mercury isn't good for you on general principal) and a problem when they eventually burn out, as I discovered a couple years ago. You are supposed to throw them out with the trash and no one else is willing to take them... so you sneak them out in the trash and they wind up in landfills. Now, as I said one or two of these isn't a problem.... millions piled in one place mean mercury contamination.

I'm not sure about possible toxic fallout from LED's - there might be some issue with manufacturing although I haven't heard about one.

Which doesn't mean those different types of bulbs are the worst of all worlds, it's just that there aren't solutions with zero issues of their own.

[Purple]

Bottom line is that I feel solutions to large global problems need to come in the form of a systemic fix that meshes seamlessly into our existing lives without changing them for worse (like switching from coal to nuclear for electricity) rather than in the form of token gestures that don't contribute sufficiently, have negative side effects AND make our lives miserable to boot.

[Borgholio]

Broom - It's been reported by the EPA that the amount of mercury in many broken CFL bulbs is still far less than the amount pumped into the air by even a single coal powerplant. So yeah you're right it's still a bit of a problem, but all those incandescent bulbs being phased out could result in the shutdown of a coal powerplant which is the preferred option.

Purple - I agree with you completely, nuclear would be the best option overall. But it's not happening. So, we have to do what we can by reducing consumption so that we don't need as many fossil fuel powerplants.

[Purple]

Purple - I agree with you completely, nuclear would be the best option overall. But it's not happening. So, we have to do what we can by reducing consumption so that we don't need as many fossil fuel powerplants.

And this is where we disagree. Band aid solutions are newer acceptable. And every step you take toward accepting second best is one of you actively undermining proper solutions.

[Borgholio]

So you believe that since we are incapable of implementing the best solution, we should not even try to implement the second best? All or nothing?

[Purple]

So you believe that since we are incapable of implementing the best solution, we should not even try to implement the second best? All or nothing?

Yes. By rejecting all band aids and campaigning to increase pressure we can force our governments to do what needs doing. That's how all major societal changes happened in the past. Nothing changes until people refuse to take any more table scraps and demand more.

[Borgholio]

I see what you're saying, but I think it's reckless to play chicken with governments that are too dysfunctional to be the ones to swerve away first...

[Purple]

I see what you're saying, but I think it's reckless to play chicken with governments that are too dysfunctional to be the ones to swerve away first...

Given that all world governments right now are that dysfunctional what other option do we have? I mean, it's not like the EU is Somalia. And yet...

[Lagmonster]

The deniers aren't the worst problem. Those people would feel guilty if they were wrong, and that's good - it means that you can back them into a corner and force them to change. The real problem are the people who don't give a shit if it's real or not, or who are fairly convinced it is, but in either case have no intention of giving up their consumption habits or changing their lifestyle.

For example, my city reduced garbage collection to bi-weekly, and implemented separate recycling bins and an organic waste bin system, coupled with restrictions on the amount of trash one could throw out per two-week cycle. The result: Sales of contracts to private waste hauling companies shot through the roof. That's right: Affluent people would rather pay an economic penalty than take an action that inconveniences them.

Full disclosure: I've used such a service. Little guy with his own truck; cost me a bit over $500 for the summer. In the hot sun, garbage STINKS if you leave it for two weeks, and the organic waste bins reek of ass and horror even in the coldest days of winter.

[salm]

I don´t know a single climate change denier besides the people I see online who are from other countries.
Climate change being a hoax really isn´t a "thing" here.
It doens´t get any signifcant media coverage I´m aware of either.

Therefore it appears to me like this:
Corporations don´t want to know anything about climate change because that would force them to implement expensive, cleaner technologies.
In some countries they have sucessfully lobbied a significant percentage of the population into believeing that climate change is nonsense.
In other countries they have not been sucessful.

Either that, or Germany has been lobbied into believing in climate change by evil scientists to such a degree that nobody doubts it and all sceptical thought has been smashed.

Since I can´t see any profit for scientists to falsely promote the idea of climate change being real I have no reason to doubt them.
On the other hand corporations profit a lot if they promote the idea of climate change being a hoax (at least in short term but that´s what counts) so there is reason to doubt them.

[bilateralrope]

Bottom line is that I feel solutions to large global problems need to come in the form of a systemic fix that meshes seamlessly into our existing lives without changing them for worse (like switching from coal to nuclear for electricity) rather than in the form of token gestures that don't contribute sufficiently, have negative side effects AND make our lives miserable to boot.

From where I sit, changing bulbs is cheaper for me. Yes, the bulbs cost more up front, but their lower electricity use adds up. Factor that in and the cost per hour of lighting is cheaper with energy saving bulbs. Even when the energy savers are providing more light than incandescent bulbs.
So how exactly do they make your life worse ?

So you believe that since we are incapable of implementing the best solution, we should not even try to implement the second best? All or nothing?

Yes. By rejecting all band aids and campaigning to increase pressure we can force our governments to do what needs doing. That's how all major societal changes happened in the past. Nothing changes until people refuse to take any more table scraps and demand more.

Hypothetical question: If a better solution than nuclear comes along, one that is even less politically viable, would you say dump nuclear in favor of it ?

Or a less hypothetical question: Assume a switch to nuclear. Energy saver bulbs use less power so, over a large enough population, mean less nuclear plants. Would you prefer more nuclear plants or energy saver bulbs ?

[Purple]

From where I sit, changing bulbs is cheaper for me. Yes, the bulbs cost more up front, but their lower electricity use adds up. Factor that in and the cost per hour of lighting is cheaper with energy saving bulbs. Even when the energy savers are providing more light than incandescent bulbs.
So how exactly do they make your life worse ?

They cost more up front, they emit an ugly light that I do not feel comfortable around, they emit less light, they are ugly. Etc.

Hypothetical question: If a better solution than nuclear comes along, one that is even less politically viable, would you say dump nuclear in favor of it ?

Probably yes. It would depend on the way it is better than atomic.

Really, it depends on what makes it politically unviable and if that something is based in genuine morality or idiotic mass hysteria. If it was say powered by the souls of tortured children I would not agree with it.

But on a principal call it a yes.

Or a less hypothetical question: Assume a switch to nuclear. Energy saver bulbs use less power so, over a large enough population, mean less nuclear plants. Would you prefer more nuclear plants or energy saver bulbs ?

More nuclear plants. The simple math is that changes need to come in a way that is both large scale, systematic AND mesh seamlessly into our existing lives. Both factors are of equal importance to me. It's governments, economices and corporations that should have to make sacrifices and not the everyman.

[Broomstick]

They cost more up front, they emit an ugly light that I do not feel comfortable around, they emit less light, they are ugly. Etc.

Well, OK, that's you're opinion. Frankly, I can't tell the difference regarding the emitted light except in the most extreme cases and I don't think the CFL's are "ugly" any more than rotini pasta is "ugly".

Although we're switching over the LED's in my household. Even more efficient in energy usage than CFL's.

[Elheru Aran]

Although we're switching over the LED's in my household. Even more efficient in energy usage than CFL's.

And bloody expensive. Unless you get lucky and cop a sale, you're talking $10 each (easy). Not easy to replace them at that cost if finances are a concern, as I well know...