Your stance on climate change

[John Dule]

How many did you check off?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think that the observed rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is both anthropogenic and responsible for a rise in average temperatures and various other downstream consequences, and if humanity continues to emit carbon dioxide at its current rate, both humanity's collective quality of life and the diodiversity of life will suffer; although the planet will not be "harmed" nor is the survival of humanity at stake. Some of this change is going to happen regardless, but this is no reason not to act now. Green austerity that relies on rationing or taxation is best avoided (as is obsession about reducing population numbers). Ending electrical emissions are probably the easiest part of the puzzle to solve (most countries could entirely eliminate them within the next two decades with current technology, even without nuclear) and so anybody who believes that nuclear is an easy solve for the problem is kidding themselves. The mining of thermal coal should be phased out worldwide in the next decade or so, and areas dependent on fossil fuel extraction should be prepared to transition away from them (also, we don't want any Green Thatcherism so no abandoning workers to their fates)

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

My hottest take is that people, including people who are very progressive, vastly vastly underestimate the work it will take to halt climate change. We've built an economy around an ideology of personal fulfilment and mass production/consumption fostering not just GHG emissions but all-purpose waste and pollution. Changes required to reverse climate change will require such drastic changes in lifestyle and the global economy that it's unrealistic to expect anywhere near enough people to be on board with the changes. So, I'm convinced we're doomed for an Earth hellscape.

[Kamala's side hoe]

✅#1-4
"Believe"? There's pretty solid evidence for 1, 3 and 4. 2 depends on how you interpret it (I think the observed rate of temperature increase over the last 50-100 years is unprecedented as far as human history is concerned).


❌#5-7  It's too late for us to fix this; our solutions now have to focus on mitigating the severity of climate change  which would need to be done regardless of whether you can "fix" climate change or treat it as an issue to be fixed. My disagreement is with the fatalism, not the need for urgent action

✅#8 This problem cannot be solved solely through innovation; we need to reduce our personal consumption
✅#9 We need carbon taxes and caps on emissions
✅#10 We need subsidies to renewable energies like wind and solar
✅/❌#11 Nuclear energy should be our prime focus, as it is the energy source of the future
Very loaded statement that I don't entirely agree with, but any sensible energy plan moving forward must include ramping up nuclear.

✅#12 Small changes aren't enough; we need to completely reform our economy from the ground up
this should not be taken as an endorsement of actual socialism or an attack on private property

✅#13 Limiting population growth in western countries is an important part of the path forward
✅#14 Limiting population growth in developing nations is an important part of the path forward
We're already heading to a world population of 10-11 billion by 2100 as it is, let's definitely make sure we don't shoot past that

✅/❌#15 I support the Green New Deal and would like to see it implemented as policy
I don't care what such a policy looks like or what it's called as long as it 1) can actually be implemented, 2) achieves significant reductions in carbon emissions, and 3) improves the economic and social well-being of individuals and families

✅#16 We should be depopulating areas at sea level and establishing funds to help people in these regions relocate
on some level, yes

❌#17 We need to cease oil production immediately
we also use oil for non-fuel purposes
❌#18 We need to cease coal production immediately
would like to see this happen soon but it isn't realistic on a national or worldwide level

✅/❌#19 Plane travel should become far less common
conflicted. there should be serious effort to reduce plane travel but there aren't as many alternatives. we should also invest in alternative forms of plane travel that don't involve combustion- not sure how feasible this is if at all

✅#20 To decrease agricultural emissions, we should encourage vegetarian diets
or just eat less meat and animal products in general. no need to shame people for not giving them up entirely

✅#21 Insects are the food of the future; they provide protein and harvesting them is cheap and energy efficient
at some point the economics of feeding 10 billion people will incentivize this. not sure when, how, and what the world would look like when this becomes mainstream

✅#22 We should be developing technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere
this shouldn't come at the expense of reducing carbon emissions

✅/❌#23 Personal automobiles should be phased out in favor of cleaner public transport
over the very long-term, yes. in continent-sized countries like the US without robust train systems, cars are a reality we must live with

✅#24 Oil companies should be held legally culpable for the damage they've done to the planet

[John Dule]

Can someone who voted for the 30/12/0 years options please make their case in the comments? I hate being an "anti-science" guy, but I genuinely don't understand what the science is telling us here. You've got people like Biden saying we've got until 2050, Cortez is saying we have until 2030, and Andrew Yang is telling everyone that it's already too late and we need to head for the hills. I've studied climate change at my university but we only really delved into the causes (and how we know it's caused by us), not the timetable it's operating on. I have to say, it looks pretty stupid when multiple candidates say "I believe the science" and then they all offer up completely different interpretations for what the science is telling us.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I checked off:
- 1 through 6
- 8 through 10
- 12
- 15
- 19 and 20
- 22
- 24


7: Unsure, I guess we'll have to find out whether this is true.

11: While nuclear power generates less harmful emissions than fossil fuels, it's probably also more trouble than it is worth it. Public opinion in a number of countries is steadfastly against it. It costs a lot of money and ressources to build them and to keep them running (nuclear power is often heavily subsidized by governments, so we may just as well put these subsidies into renewables). And finally, the mining, processing, and eventually disposal of uranium also produces a lot of CO2 emissions, just as building and operating nuclear power plants does. That being said, shutting down the many nuclear power plants in places like France wouldn't really my main priority right now.

13: Probably unneccessary, since the population in Western countries is shrinking anyway.

14: Probably neccessary, but also unfeasible in the way the question seems framed. The most feasible and desirable way to do it is to learn from previous experiences that population growth often declines as soon as a society becomes on average wealthier and more educated. For instance, having a lot of children are often a subsitute for a non-existing social safety net like a lack of pensions. So at the end of the day, this can only be solved by more and better development aid IMO. (Although this also a bit of a dilemma: Empiricial evidence shows that the wealthier a society becomes the more CO2 emissions it produces. So the real challenge is to raise the standard of living in a way that doesn't worsen the carbon footprint too much. So, development aid must also go into renewables for instance.)

16: I have a problem with the first part of the sentence, since it sounds to much like forced relocation. In any case, we should help people leave areas severely affected by climate change if they have to or want to.

17/18: While certainly desirable as a goal, this wouldn't be feasible because it would probably cause the breakdown of our current civilization.

20: Checked this off, although it would already help A LOT if every person on the planet would only consume red meat once or twice a week at most.

21: GROSS! Well, because of that anticipated reaction I'm uncertain with regards to its feasibility. But it should be at least tried out.

23: A complete phase-out is probably not feasible (particularly in rural areas), but a reduction in the number of automobiles should be a goal (particularly in cities).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Can someone who voted for the 30/12/0 years options please make their case in the comments? I hate being an "anti-science" guy, but I genuinely don't understand what the science is telling us here. You've got people like Biden saying we've got until 2050, Cortez is saying we have until 2030, and Andrew Yang is telling everyone that it's already too late and we need to head for the hills. I've studied climate change at my university but we only really delved into the causes (and how we know it's caused by us), not the timetable it's operating on. I have to say, it looks pretty stupid when multiple candidates say "I believe the science" and then they all offer up completely different interpretations for what the science is telling us.

the issue is it's not as if there's some binary choice between "everything is fine" and "end of civilization". Like, even if all carbon emissions were to stop tomorrow, you'd still see some warming that we would have to adapt for. Ignoring for a moment potential climate triggers like in the clathrate gun hypothesis, the basic rule would be the more GHGs are emitted the more we'll see bad effects on humanity.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Firmly against. Not all of us wanna be stuck wearing shorts in October. I need my fall fashion!

[NeverAgainsSock]

❌ #20   To decrease agricultural emissions, we should encourage vegetarian diets         Factory farming is bad, but the carbon footprint of livestock is horribly overstated by those who don't understand the relevant stocks and flows.

I agree with you on every other one. I just am not sure I get this one. Deforestation & agricultural land conversion, energy costs to feed vast ruminant populations (which is highly inefficient over a plant-based diet), methane emissions from such ruminants (mostly cattle), transportation energy, etc. It seems to be a major focus of multiple studies of agricultural impact on climate (Drawdown, WRI, UNFAO).

Could you explain your thought process here?

[NeverAgainsSock]

❌ #20   To decrease agricultural emissions, we should encourage vegetarian diets         Factory farming is bad, but the carbon footprint of livestock is horribly overstated by those who don't understand the relevant stocks and flows.

I agree with you on every other one. I just am not sure I get this one. Deforestation & agricultural land conversion, energy costs to feed vast ruminant populations (which is highly inefficient over a plant-based diet), methane emissions from such ruminants (mostly cattle), transportation energy, etc. It seems to be a major focus of multiple studies of agricultural impact on climate (Drawdown, WRI, UNFAO).

Could you explain your thought process here?

Land degradation is a real concern, but methane breaks down much more quickly than carbon dioxide. Moreover, energy and resource costs aren't nearly so bad once you account for what gets recycled in even modestly sustainable livestock operations.

I eat a mostly vegetarian diet and would politely encourage anyone else to do the same for environmental, humane, and health reasons, but the idea that livestock are an important driver of climate change compared to fossil fuel emissions just gets too little scrutiny.

1 - Methane. You are right, it takes about 12 years for methane to break down which is less than the 20-200 year impact of CO2. However, a couple of big things: A. Methane has a climatic impact of any methane molecule released today is 100 times more heat-trapping than a molecule of carbon dioxide B. Even if we had 12 years to wait (we don't) until all the methane we emit today is gone, WE KEEP EMITTING IT AND MORE EACH YEAR! On a pretty large scale too!
2 - Energy Recycling Farms doesn't make it so bad for the climate. Well, the net impact is. According to the UN FAO,animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases worldwide and livestock account for an estimated 9% of global CO2  emissions, estimated 35-40% of global Methane emissions and 65% of NO2 emissions. If there are some sustainable farms that don't have a net-negative climate impact, please let me know. I'd love to check them out.
3 - Agriculture getting too much attention. Project Drawdown estimates that if just half the world reduced their meat intake to 57g of meat a day - about a pound a week - there would be a net decrease in emissions of 66.5 gigatons of CO2 (and CO2 equivalents) by 2050 - per year that's 2.217 Gigatons a year (or the equivalent of UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Canada COMBINED). And that's just meat CONSUMPTION, not even the vast inefficiencies in agriculture & livestock that make it such a producer of GHGs.

If you're interested, I would highly recommend reading the WRI Sustainable Food Futures report on this issue. Fascinating stuff.

[Sumner 1868]

It exists, it will be bad for coastlines, it won't be an Armageddonist event.

[538Electoral]

Why is this issue political?

[John Dule]

Oooh, we got a NOTA.

[Kamala's side hoe]

Can someone who voted for the 30/12/0 years options please make their case in the comments? I hate being an "anti-science" guy, but I genuinely don't understand what the science is telling us here. You've got people like Biden saying we've got until 2050, Cortez is saying we have until 2030, and Andrew Yang is telling everyone that it's already too late and we need to head for the hills. I've studied climate change at my university but we only really delved into the causes (and how we know it's caused by us), not the timetable it's operating on. I have to say, it looks pretty stupid when multiple candidates say "I believe the science" and then they all offer up completely different interpretations for what the science is telling us.

I think the underlying idea here is "if we do X, then there's a Y% chance Z happens". I haven't paid too close attention to the debates or who's been saying what, but it sounds like Biden is saying that we need to accomplish ABC and XYZ by 2050 in order to stay within 2 C of warming, while Ocasio-Cortez is like "we have until 2030 to get to zero emissions or else we have no chance of staying within 2 C".

Yang seems to be focusing more on adapting to a changing climate, partly because the structural changes we would need to make in order to reach a +2 C world are at best mildly unrealistic, but more importantly because we've already locked in a certain amount of long-term climate change with the amount of greenhouse gases we've already put into the atmosphere. Even if we were to magically stop all CO2 emissions tomorrow, and atmospheric CO2 levels stayed constant for the next several hundred years- we would still be experiencing more heat waves, floods, droughts, and extreme weather than we did in the past. So there would still be some level of change to adapt to.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Why is this issue political?

I think at one point I've read an assassment along the lines of "leftists got there first in adopting it as cause which made it harder for the conservative movement to jump on the bandwaggon, due to political tribalism".

The reason why leftists beat conservatives to it is because strict measures to combat climate change usually hurts (or at least forces them to adopt radical change) traditional industries like fossil fuels or automobiles and since conservatives tend to be pro-business they're at the very least reluctant not to protect these businesses. Strictly speaking, climate change measures also leads to subsidization and protection of certain industries like renewable energies, emission free automobiles, or public transport. But since those industries either didn"t exist in the beginning of the climate change debate or were not as poqerful as the other ones, the priority for pro-business conservatives lay on "protecting" the former. So, it also played a role that maintaining the status quo appeared as the safer and easier route compared to transformation, particularly since conservatives are believers in the free market as opposed to government intervention.

That being said, the ideological split between conservatives and leftists on climate change is much more severe in America than it is in Europe. Mainstream conservatives in Europe tend not not question the existence of human-made climate change and they also support implementing measures to halt climate change, although usually not to the same wide-ranging extent as leftists. Outright climate change denial is more the domain of right-wing populists and the far-right in Europe.

Why this difference to America? Maybe because European conservatives are by nature less pro-free market and more interventionist than their American counterparts due to the existence of the European welfare state. And it's also possible that the fossil fuel and automobile industry has been slightly less powerful in Europe due to America being a more automobile-centered culture with less emphasis on public transportation (which in turn is probably a result of America being a much bigger country with more areas which have a rather low population density).

And last but not least, the two-party system in America means that basically all right-of-center movements and ideologies were lumped together into single political party (with the climate change denial faction then growing and taking over that party), while im Europe these camps are segregated im mainstrem conservative and right-wing populiat parties which lead to a containment of climate change denial ideologies.

[John Dule]

Can someone who voted for the 30/12/0 years options please make their case in the comments? I hate being an "anti-science" guy, but I genuinely don't understand what the science is telling us here. You've got people like Biden saying we've got until 2050, Cortez is saying we have until 2030, and Andrew Yang is telling everyone that it's already too late and we need to head for the hills. I've studied climate change at my university but we only really delved into the causes (and how we know it's caused by us), not the timetable it's operating on. I have to say, it looks pretty stupid when multiple candidates say "I believe the science" and then they all offer up completely different interpretations for what the science is telling us.

I think the underlying idea here is "if we do X, then there's a Y% chance Z happens". I haven't paid too close attention to the debates or who's been saying what, but it sounds like Biden is saying that we need to accomplish ABC and XYZ by 2050 in order to stay within 2 C of warming, while Ocasio-Cortez is like "we have until 2030 to get to zero emissions or else we have no chance of staying within 2 C".

Yang seems to be focusing more on adapting to a changing climate, partly because the structural changes we would need to make in order to reach a +2 C world are at best mildly unrealistic, but more importantly because we've already locked in a certain amount of long-term climate change with the amount of greenhouse gases we've already put into the atmosphere. Even if we were to magically stop all CO2 emissions tomorrow, and atmospheric CO2 levels stayed constant for the next several hundred years- we would still be experiencing more heat waves, floods, droughts, and extreme weather than we did in the past. So there would still be some level of change to adapt to.

This makes sense. Thank you; these debates leave so little room for nuance.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It exists, it will be bad for coastlines, it won't be an Armageddonist event.

Unfortunately, melting glaciers won't "just" make ocean level higher, sinking many coastal areas and islands.

First off, such a massive influx of water would deprive oceans from a lot of oxygen, leading to catastrophic consequences. Second, glaciers are important source of fresh water, with desalinization technology being too complex and expensive for the mass use (not to mention it produces a lot of pollution). Third, a possible apocalyptic scenario is possible, if melting glaciers frees unknown viruses or germs we have no immunity against.

[lfromnj]

Aren't people usually just overestimating melting glaciers?
Like yes there is a risk of some sea ice causing a iceslide to fall in but  Ice is less dense than water so when its in the water it rises up the ocean level by more than what the same amount of water being added would do.

[7,052,770]

The poll should have had more geoengineering questions, such as pumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere or creating more clouds to reflect more sunlight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening

Aren't people usually just overestimating melting glaciers?
Like yes there is a risk of some sea ice causing a iceslide to fall in but  Ice is less dense than water so when its in the water it rises up the ocean level by more than what the same amount of water being added would do.

Lots of glaciers are on land, such as Greenland and Antarctica.

[Frodo]

I believe that the world's temperatures are getting warmer, that the CO2 increase we have seen is overwhelmingly caused by human agency especially since the advent of the industrial revolution, and that we should develop technologies that can remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

[Kingpoleon]

YES: 1. I believe the world's average temperatures are getting warmer    
YES: 2. I believe that the warming patterns now are unprecedented in the historical record         
YES: 3. I believe that this warming is caused by an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere         
YES: 4. I believe that this increase in CO2 is caused by human industry         
NO: 5. At best, we have until 2050 to remedy this crisis     
NO: 6. At best, we only have 12 years before we do irreparable damage to our planet         
NO: 7. It’s too late for us to fix this; our solutions now have to focus on mitigating the severity of climate change         
YES: 8. This problem cannot be solved solely through innovation; we need to reduce our personal consumption         
YES: 9. We need carbon taxes and caps on emissions         
YES: 10. We need subsidies to renewable energies like wind and solar         
NO: 11. Nuclear energy should be our prime focus, as it is the energy source of the future
~SORT OF: 12. Small changes aren't enough; we need to completely reform our economy from the ground up         
~: 13. Limiting population growth in western countries is an important part of the path forward         
YES: 14. Limiting population growth in developing nations is an important part of the path forward         
~: 15. I support the Green New Deal and would like to see it implemented as policy         
NO: 16. We should be depopulating areas at sea level and establishing funds to help people in these regions relocate    
NO: 17. We need to cease oil production immediately         
NO: 18. We need to cease coal production immediately         
YES: 19. Plane travel should become far less common         
NO: 20. To decrease agricultural emissions, we should encourage vegetarian diets
NO: 21. Insects are the food of the future; they provide protein and harvesting them is cheap and energy efficient         
YES: 22. We should be developing technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere         
~: 23. Personal automobiles should be phased out in favor of cleaner public transport         
NO: 24. Oil companies should be held legally culpable for the damage they've done to the planet.

We should instate a high speed rail program, running off of solar and wind power, traveling at speeds of 200-250 miles per hour; initiate a carbon tax of $10 a ton, increasing it to $31 a ton within five years; increase the federal gas tax by fifteen cents; use the funds to pay for the high speed rail network and solar/wind/hydroelectric power; instate a 5% surcharge tax on all airline tickets, generating $8.9 billion*, which will also go to paying for the above.

*(Delta, United, American, Southwest, Allegiant, JetBlue, Spirit, Alaskan, Hawaiian, Sun Country generated ~$178.5 billion in revenue in 2018)

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I believe that the Earth is getting warmer through both natural and man-made processes.  But, the US is contributing relatively little to the man-made part per-capita compared to other nations.  Regardless, I simply don't buy into the global warming hysteria.  If the Earth warms 5-10 degrees, all it will mean is more pleasant winters.  Florida and NYC aren't going to sink below the sea.  If places like that were, we would have started to see high-profile examples of that already, as the Earth has warmed several degrees.

TL/DR: Global warming is real, but no big deal.

[Kamala's side hoe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4vjGSiRGKY
2018 TEDtalk- "100 solutions to reverse global warming | Chad Frischmann"

8 of the top 20 proposed solutions to man-made climate change have to do with food production. Eating a "plant-rich diet" has the 4th largest impact on greenhouse gas emissions. In comparison, only 4 of the highlighted solutions have to do with energy and electricity.

[Frenchrepublican]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385?s=20

[Farmlands]

I believe that the Earth is getting warmer through both natural and man-made processes.  But, the US is contributing relatively little to the man-made part per-capita compared to other nations.  Regardless, I simply don't buy into the global warming hysteria.  If the Earth warms 5-10 degrees, all it will mean is more pleasant winters.  Florida and NYC aren't going to sink below the sea.  If places like that were, we would have started to see high-profile examples of that already, as the Earth has warmed several degrees.

TL/DR: Global warming is real, but no big deal.

It's not about "not buying" into the consequences. You can't tell the future by common sense and gut alone. Carefully researched models point towards Florida and Chesapeake Bay sinking deep into the sea by 2050. By the way, enjoy heat waves? There's going to be a lot more of those in the summer, specially in Europe, not just pleasant winters.