@snood,
snood wrote:
Which is exactly why, in saner times (before three years ago) the military was freely expressing that they considered climate change a major(some said the biggest) threat to national security.
The political polarization was influencing both sides of climate belief before the latest presidential election. Many Democrats were asserting climate claims not because they were objectively convinced of it but because there was political/social validation in doing so, and then because there were economic benefits associated with exercising government (spending and regulation) to do something about it.
What you have to realize about regulations, taxes, spending programs, etc. is that there are people who analyze how to trigger spending in any way they can, because doing so results in fiscal transfers that they can invest in or profit from.
So, for example, I read about this water-protection rollback the other day and of course my first response is to be offended, but then I have to think about who has an interest in triggering pollution fines by stimulating pollution of some water way.
Someone might love their local river, but not enough to avoid triggering pollution that will result in fines, which will transfer funds from the rich local corporation (that will be blamed for the pollution) to the cleanup effort or other mitigation efforts that will result from the fine.
Really it's no different than scamming insurance by causing a crash and then filing for an insurance claim to pay for the damage, doctor bills, etc. and then getting kickbacks from the people who get paid because they are grateful you chose them to fix the damage.
Yes, something needs to be done about climate-altering industrial-consumer practices; but we need to be more aware about how and why the climate-changing economic behaviors don't change even when the government is ostensibly pursuing reform.
In reality, if people really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions and other harms, they could - but because they care more about things like money and comfort and whatever else is threatened by reform, they will find ways to undermine and escape responsibility.
Think about it. Let's say the Trump administration suddenly completely agreed with climate reform and did something drastic like mandate 50% less automobiles on the roads. If they even tried to do that, corporations and local governments, unions, etc. would intervene and obstruct the government restrictions until the administration could be voted out and replaced with a more moderate one, which might still claim to have solutions to the problems but which would only achieve those reforms that were popular enough not to get them in trouble with the stakeholders.
