SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the a-Republican-speaking-sense-to-other-Republicans-and-others dept.
The Center for American Progress reports:
Arnold Schwarzenegger posted a note on Facebook on [December 7] that made a very good point about climate change and renewable energy: It really doesn't matter what you believe.
The former California governor addressed people who think climate change is a conspiracy or a hoax, and asked them whether the deaths from pollution are acceptable, whether fossil fuels will last forever, and--to paraphrase greatly--what kind of world they want to live in. This excerpt pretty much sums up his argument to climate deniers.
There are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.
I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.
I'm guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice--who would ever want to breathe those fumes?
It's a strong point, but even more importantly, it's a bipartisan point. We are in an era where addressing climate change is largely split down party lines, especially in Congress. Moderate Republicans like Schwarzenegger, who believe a healthy environment and climate are public goods, haven't yet been able to sway people who think that clean energy is going to kill the economy.
But Schwarzenegger should know that a green economy can work. As governor of California, he worked with the Democratic-led legislature to enact the nation's first comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions reduction law and the nation's first low-carbon fuel standard. Now California is the nation's leader in both solar installations and solar jobs.
2 nitpicks: If it's electric, it's called a motor, not an engine. "Power plant" would have been more apt.
The electric car would need a way to allow the wheels to turn without the car going anywhere.
...and if the gasoline car's engine is "running full blast", you'll need a load (dynamometer).
Otherwise: Brilliant.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Sunday December 13 2015, @09:55PM
Honest question: If climate change is a conspiracy, what is motivation of the conspirators? What do they have to gain?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @10:33PM
The answer is not 42, it's always money.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Fluffeh on Sunday December 13 2015, @10:39PM
If you are assuming that the conspiracy is that there is no climate change - and the conspirators are the ones saying that there is - then clearly they are trying to either make a greener world on someone else's dime or are pushing their own brand of clean-energy something-or-others.
If on the other hand you are saying that the conspiracy is in deniers saying that there is no such thing - then they are clearly looking out for their current interests in making money through their current ways and don't want some upstart coming in and telling them or their business to clean up it's act for the sake of the rest of the world.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 13 2015, @11:34PM
> Honest question: If climate change is a conspiracy, what is motivation of the conspirators? What do they have to gain?
That, sweet, sweet research grant money!
Big Oil's trillions of dollars in revenue is just a drop in the bucket compared to all the money those baller scientists are getting suckling at the sweet teat of the government.
Seriously, that's what deniers believe.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 14 2015, @01:17PM
Big Oil's trillions of dollars in revenue is just a drop in the bucket compared to all the money those baller scientists are getting suckling at the sweet teat of the government.
Why should we expect Big Oil resistance to "climate change"? They're making record profits off of this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @04:15PM
You're leaving out power, and not in the oil/solar sense. A large part of all of the stop global warming proposals include vast expansions of government power. Which is really the default mode of operation for a bureaucracy, but doesn't do anything but encourage the conspiracy theories.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday December 14 2015, @08:33PM
Breathing in L.A., avoiding river fires, and unleaded gasoline were once considered vast expansions of government overreach landgrabbing too...
(Score: 1) by AlphaMan on Monday December 14 2015, @10:22PM
The other "motivations" I've heard are "they want to wreck the world's economy" and "they want to control our lives". So, it looks like a dead heat for stupidest reason.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @12:01AM
They want to get good environment for free, which is a communist’s idea.
We need a market for clean earth so we can make money selling it to people. To get there it has to be polluted first. In fact the only way to get people from one commodity to the next is to exhaust the old one. For example, we used to have whales for oil and once we killed most of them we switched to fossil oil. That's capitalist's way.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @01:59AM
More significantly, a dude named Drake noticed that, in some places in Pennsylvania, petroleum oozes to the surface.
He figured if he drilled down he would find more and could pump that out.
His experiment was successful.
...and it was cheaper to get that stuff than to get whale oil.
To overcome the blind profit-driven greed of incumbent businesses continuing to do the things which are destroying the ecosystem will require courage on the part of some politicians.
...and, I suspect, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jiro on Monday December 14 2015, @12:54AM
One possible answer is carbon taxes, but a simpler one is "nothing". People are capable of doing all sorts of things for their ideology and prejudices. These things need not have any prospect of any benefit more concrete than "we're good guys and they're bad guys". What did the movie industry hope to get by blacklisting Communists in the 1950's? Nothing, really. You could blame it on the public hating Communists, but what did the public hope to get by not watching movies run by Communists? Did they seriously think that their movie ticket would bring them some financial harm? Or did they just want to stick it to the Russkies regardless of whether they benefitted from it or not?
What do KKK members get from hurting blacks? Nothing--except they don't like blacks very much so they value hurting them. Plenty of people don't like the right or businesses very much and would do lots of things to take them down a peg and make them get what's coming to them.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Monday December 14 2015, @02:39AM
If we are looking for the simpler explanation, which of the following seems more plausible:
A) Based on a preponderance of empirical data and modeling, a majority of the international community of scientists concludes that climate change is occurring and the consequences to society could be dire.
B) A majority of the international community of scientist have conspired to perpetrate the hoax of climate change because "they don't like businesses very much."