Comments on: The New Climate Change Debate

By: cookie

cookie — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:21:59 +0000

Well who else matters? lol
References :

By: mjmayer188

mjmayer188 — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:19:59 +0000

The state of the planet is not all about us, but the rest of the world seems to think we should pay for it.

The programs and treaties that have been passed around would dramatically affect the US economy and exempt "developing nations" such as China and India. It gives them an advantage over the US.

We should all reduce pollution, but we need to maintain a level playing field.
References :

By: littlerobbergirl

littlerobbergirl — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:17:59 +0000

tuba; its scary innit?
we have hopefully gone through that phase in the u.k. now, and all parties have some kind of environmental policy.

we did have precedent; our most conservative prime minister of the 20th century, Margret Thatcher, was one of the instigators of the IPCC. she got the heads up in the early 80s that all was not well, as a chemist she took it seriously. if we all had started mitigation measures 20 years ago we wouldn't be in this fix now.

its far to important a subject to be playing political games with.
References :

By: kidphysicist

kidphysicist — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:15:59 +0000

I'm sorry if this sounds racy, discriminating and offensive…. but I think a lot of people would agree that the simplest answer to your question is……….. because most Americans are stupid….. I said most…. not all….. think about it…
References :

By: UK sense

UK sense — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:13:59 +0000

Lack of responsibility, realism and courage to do anything. Like in most countries including my own.

Avoidance. Same reason some people divert the subject when they are losing the argument.
References :
The fact that 90% of people have an IQ below 100 and the media are in a zombie control of the political lanscape

By: nomaggie

nomaggie — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:11:59 +0000

As to your last question the answer is no. We tend to think the world revolves around us. Just look at the fact we call ourselves Americans. Ask a typical American if a Canadian or Mexican is American -(which of course they are, 1st also North American, second Central or South American) - they'll say no.
References :

By: Tuba in the Rose Parade

Tuba in the Rose Parade — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:09:59 +0000

There are elements within the Republican Party strongly aligned with big oil, car makers, etc. There is also a substantial antisemitic voting block, sympathetic to high oil prices as a way to fund the war on Israel. Trying to paint environmentalism as a "liberal" , "socialist", or "communist" cause legitimizes their agenda, at least in the eyes of the gullible within the Party. It is very similar to the political climate in the USA just prior to WWII.
References :

By: Dr Jello

Dr Jello — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:07:59 +0000

There is not one American who is for polluting the planet. Many people are responsible and just do the right thing.

Others don't think anything is being done unless government has laws telling the people how they should act.

This is the American schism. Does one choose to act responsible, or do people require to be responsible by the use of force, loss of money, or jail time?

Pollution control is a multi billion dollar business. The free market is demanding change and the market place is meeting that challenge.

However this isn't good enough for some. There are those who want the gvmt to force people into cars they think best for them. This is the liberal mindset, and should be opposed.
References :

By: donfletcheryh

donfletcheryh — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:05:59 +0000

One attempts to corral as many uncommitted voters to one's side as possible. If one has any group more likely to support one, one then tries to co-opt them on the basis of membership in the group.

This works in many situations, because others in the group are not willing to cause a group split based on something that is not central to the group's main philosophy.

If for instance a Republican is going on about protecting Christian values, as Republicans, a Republican who is a Jew is likely to just suck it up rather than offend a large part of the Republican group by asking that we keep Religion out of politics.

Now climate change debate comes as two segments. One is science based, and one is leadership based… in this case leadership is personified in AL Gore.

We can see the science based debate as going on entirely separated from the leadership based debate. The Leadership based debate is pro and con Al Gore as leader. Well, it could have been pro and con Ralph Nader, if Ralph had created An Inconvenient Truth. And it could have been pro and con any of the Republican hopefuls had they created it.

But politics being what it is, if one side tries to lead, the other side must oppose, or find some way to steal the thunder of the leading person.

The interesting fact that many Democrats got on side with Al Gore quite quickly and a lot of anti-Gore people just happened to be in the other camp makes it a natural for political division.
References :

By: insighthere

insighthere — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:03:35 +0000

Why do Americans tend to assert that Climate Change Debate is all about Republican vs Democrat?
For example people who say Climate Change is real are often branded "Liberals". Some Americans also claim that spreading the Climate Change message is nothing more than a method of controlling ordinary Americans. Has is not occurred to Americans than there are 5.7 billion human beings OUTSIDE of the USA and the state of the planet is not all about you?