People Twitter

But think about all the billionaires losing profits!

There is really a strong argument that energy independence should have put renewable energy as part of the defense budget and been rolled out a long time ago if not for this stupid culture war that has formed around it. Let's rectify that issue already.

But then I won't be able to race my black-smoke-belching rolling-coal truck with my manly man buddies :(

The absolutely unthinkable: financial losses for the people who have been making money by covering up the fact that they are destroying the planet for their own profit.

Add in one of the best-financed propaganda/obfuscation campaigns maintained for seven decades and public opinion mirrors what it gets fed from big-oil-owned media outlets.

This is such a straw-man argument. I'm highly in favor of renewables, but I'm not blind to what other people think.

Say you're someone who legitimately doesn't believe that climate change is happening, or at least that if it's happening it's not being caused by humanity. (People who believe those things are definitely out there.) In that case, what's the worst thing that can happen?

• Having cheaper energy from renewable sources?

Obviously this isn't something that people who think climate change is a hoax are concerned about. They're worried that renewable sources will be more expensive and less reliable.

• Never running out of oil?

People who don't believe in climate change also don't think we're anywhere close to running out of oil. In fact, they think it's the same people pushing the "climate change hoax" that are pushing the idea that the planet is running low on oil. "Peak oil" has been predicted for decades, and they just keep finding more and more oil.

• Being independent from unstable countries with bad human rights records?

The US is the #1 global oil producer. Canada is 4th on the list. Brazil is 8th. Mexico is 11th. Norway is 13th. With Natural Gas it's similar, US is #1, Canada is #4, Australia is #7, Norway is #9. Aside from the obvious jokes about the US being an unstable country with a bad human rights record, this concern is overblown. If OPEC limits production the prices will go up, but that means more profit will flow to the US. Assuming this is meant for a US audience, that's obviously a good thing for their economy. If it's meant for say the UK, there's going to be more dependence on fossil fuels from Russia, but it isn't like all fossil fuels come from enemies of the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_production

• Having cleaner air?

A lot of the people who are pro-fossil fuels are older. They've seen the air quality go up consistently over their lives. They don't think of the current world as a hellscape with dirty air, they see it as the cleanest air they've ever had. The problem is that the pollutant that most people are worried about now is invisible and... unsmellable? Unlike the soot and smog that makes pollution so obvious.

• Investing in local and domestic research, education and fabrication

The US is the country that produces the most oil and the most natural gas, it also makes the most gasoline / petrol by far. Domestic research, education and fabrication is a US thing when it comes to oil and gasoline. By contrast, most solar panel components are produced in China. 96.8% of photovoltaic wafers are made in China. Wind Turbines are also largely made in China.

Sure, theoretically investment could mean that generation is shifted away from China and to manufacturers in the west. But, when was the last time the west ramped up manufacturing to compete with China in anything?

--

The reason that so many people are opposed to change are:

• They've been convinced that climate change is a hoax. Nobody realistically knows how to fix people's beliefs about this. And, it's unlikely to change unless there's a radical change in media company ownership and bias, which means it's probably going to take decades to fix. It's more likely that the climate change deniers will die off of old age, than they're going to change their beliefs.
• They believe the current system works, so why change it? This is key. Even if they believed that climate change is real, it's really hard to convince someone to change a system that works.
• They believe (probably correctly) that the current system is good for their economy. Of course, most of the profits are flowing to the rich, and not being shared with the workers. However, the current system does employ a lot of workers.
• They think that renewable systems only work when it's sunny or when it's windy. There's a bit of truth to that, and for continent-wide purely renewable grid, you'd need to figure out some way of storing energy for when conditions aren't right for renewables. But, the problem is overblown because those solutions are coming online as fast as the grid is being updated.

They think it's a hoax meant to funnel money into the pockets of scammers pushing these new green techs. They think it's just enriching liars who want to vilify things these people loved, all while making things somehow worse. Their vision isn't of a better future, they see a scammer getting rich while their power goes out every time it's cloudy outside or the wind stops.

The core is about change. To accept climate change means they have to make changes to their lifestyle, and they don't like having to change. Beyond that, it's rationalizations and bad faith arguments from the usual grifters and corporations layered on top of that to justify the position they chose emotionally.

Educated populations tend to be more liberal, and exhibit more critical thinking. It's not a guarantee, but it tends to form a shield against blind indoctrination and especially religious fundamentalism.

Conservatives do not want an educated population.

• you might inconvenience them by taking away their plastic straws, plastic grocery bags, or making them separate recyclables.

• you prevent them from rolling coal or dumping other combustion byproducts in the air, or toxic waste in the ground or water. That costs money to clean up or filter.

• you make things cost more when you force them to expend effort to responsibly harvest natural resources like trees.

Basically watching the earth burn is cheaper, more profitable, and less inconvenient to the people who have a problem with having clean air and water, and a habitable planet.

Uh, yeah, actually. Those are exactly the things that the people who create and stoke climate denialism are afraid of. It's in the intrest of the fossil fuel industry to make these exact things unpopular.

The having fewer billionaires is always left out and always the reason none of the other stuff seems to matter

Not a denier, but people fear the immediate costs. It's not clear what meaningful climate action looks like. But realistically it would very likely mean a higher cost of living in the immediate future, because not all economic sectors can be trivially decarbonized. There are also possible immediate benefits. But in any case that's what people fear.

I guess some people would lose their jobs and the economy in some areas could be hit hard

They'd have to admit that man could do something to the planet that their little tin god either can't or won't. There's more to it but biblical literalists are dangerously crazy when it comes to the future of the planet

We made a better world for nothing 😡

unstable countries with bad human rights

those are always preceded by a us coup, to extract oil cheaply and in peace.

One of the rationales of sane people regarding alternative energy sources is the cost of using "more expensive" energy sources when cheap (at least for the time being), albeit more polluting, alternatives like coal and natural gas are readily available.

The argument is that if Country A switches to full renewables, in the time it takes for the prices to become low enough to be competitive against coal, Country B, which is unscrupulous in its development and continues using coal as its main energy source, would gain a significant advantage over Country A.

You could even argue that for Country B, switching to alternative energy sources would be unfair, considering that Country A enjoyed decades of rapid growth and development using cheap coal, whereas Country B would not. Since Country A won't fully switch to alternative energy sources to maintain its supremacy, and Country B won't change for the sake of its development, we're effectively in a deadlock.

Personally, I think all countries should work together and switch to renewable energy sources to reduce the impact of climate change. Unfortunately, the world is not so simple, and the conflict is more nuanced than simply "keeping profits vs. creating a better world."

But how will people know the size of my pp if my car doesn't go vroom vroom.

The argument (I say this as a midwesterner who has lots of relatives and such who are regurgitating the prepublication lines) always comes back to “the tech isn’t there yet” “you can’t recycle panels or turbine blades” “panels and turbine blades don’t last worth a damn”.

Whether or not any of that is true idk so how can I argue? My plate is pretty full on reading material.

So find the arguments they’re using and go from there.

With some exceptions the answer is likely very simple:

They aren't denying climate change because they believe it isn't happening, that doesn't matter. They're denying it because they:

1. Are among others who claim they deny and so they conform or become outcasts
2. Dislike and fear change they don't understand on a fundamental level
3. Fear challenging those beliefs because doing so risks admitting a regular part of their life has been lived in the wrong

Eventually these three things combine until denial becomes their natural state.

But but muh coal mining towns!

I remember when there were programs to retrain coal miners to work with renewable resources, completely paid for by the renewable resources companies, but Big Coal and Big Oil threw a fit. I think Manchin ended up killing a lot of those things since his daughter or son is an exec in a coal company that he also invests in or some shit.

All of those things lower profits of the current few people profiting the most (oligarchy).

The rest is just like sports - 'my team is better than yours regardless of record'.

But Exxon Mobil said I'd get hair on my palms and go blind.