Specifically, 80–90% of Americans underestimate the prevalence of support for major climate change mitigation policies and climate concern. While 66–80% Americans support these policies, Americans estimate the prevalence to only be between 37–43% on average. Thus, supporters of climate policies outnumber opponents two to one, while Americans falsely perceive nearly the opposite to be true.
public opinion has practically no impact on policy outcomes in the US. it wouldn't matter if 5% or 95% of Americans support strong action against climate change cause we're not in the driver's seat, the bourgeoisie are and none of them will do enough to stop this madness. the whole reason we're in this drastic position now is because none of them did anything but obstruct action against climate change for decades.
Remember this study?
https://pnhp.org/news/gilens-and-page-average-citizens-have-little-impact-on-public-policy/
I think that's what people are responding to when they underestemiated public support. They retain the idea (despite everything) that the bourgeois democratic state responds to public opinion or is in some way justified by popular support - so if something hasn't happened for 20 years (like meaningful reform in the face of climate change), then ipso facto it must not have public support. But of course, the bourgeois states derives legitimacy from the only faction with actual power under capitalism and THAT'S who they respond to. And they've decided they're going to ride out climate change, but honestly at some point previously I'm not sure if capitalism is even responding to human movement anymore or if it's gone totally off the rails or if it's taken on its own prerogatives now with computation and complexity and kinda just running itself for its own needs.
100%. that nothing will meaningfully change is obvious to anyone paying even the slightest attention, the causes are less so because we're inundated constantly with the lie that this is democracy.
the ambient but powerful sense that something is deeply wrong and can't easily be fixed extends to other issues. and if one is stuck in the framework that America is at least supposed to be a democracy, then there must be something nefarious misleading the demos. If you're a liberal, the people have been duped by Russian, Chinese, and/or Republican disinformation. If you're a conservative, the masses have been corrupted by wokeism, groomers, cultural Marxists, etc.
If one in five people you speak to flies off the handle in rage at the mention of climate, then you stop mentioning it to anyone.
Everyone then perceives support as less than it is.
spoiler
The same is true of class
Even worse, if you continue to bring it up, your peers will start to blame you for making the hog squeal so loud and get annoyed when you talk about it
The manufacturering of consent by capitalist politicians and businesses is a powerful thing
Crazy how when you spend twenty years perpetuating climate hoax propaganda, a sizeable portion of the population doesn't think others take it seriously
I don't really think its false at all. While 66-80% whatever might claim to support the policies, once it comes down to "brass tacks" and the powers that be start to wail about how "expensive" everything is I immediately expect that number to plummet.
Even less of the percentages they claim realize that the only true "solution" to climate change is either extinction or socialism.
This is just how most issues are though. Public support swings wildly depending on how the question is phrased and once you propose a specific solution and enumerate its consequences, almost no one supports it
While I don’t doubt a large amount of Americans will say they support major climate change initiatives, none of them are willing to change their lives in any meaningful way or give up their conveniences. They won’t get rid of meat, their car, their Mickey D’s, their single-family homes. I really think the average person expects “major climate change initiatives” to be banning plastic straws or something.
I get your frustration, but this seems pretty close to “how big is your carbon footprint” style blaming of individual consumers for how the world is set up. I fucking hate cars, but I can’t just decide on my own to “give it up” like you might give up junk food, I have commitments and participate in activities with friends that I have to drive to, and so do my wife and daughters. There’s no alternative transportation system here. I agree Americans love treats, but even if they wanted to, in a lot of cases, they really don’t have the choice of just “giving it up” on an individual level.
Its the same deal as the catch 22 of taking away old people's licenses. They live in a place where they need to drive to survive, yet they're no longer able to drive. They cause accidents because they have no other option to push driving past the point of safety.
yeah it's definitely not down to individual choices or whatever, but the total restructuring of the economy necessary to prevent climate apocalypse would result in major change to the American lifestyle, and i'd like to know what the opposition to such a restructuring would be. Even though the results in this study are interesting, and i'll admit surprising to me, the specific policies they're asking about are:
-
requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and use the money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax) by an equal amount.
-
Requiring electric utilities to produce 100% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by the year 2035.
-
generating renewable energy (solar and wind) on public land in the USA
-
a “Green New Deal” to produce jobs and strengthen America’s economy by accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. The “Deal” would generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from clean, renewable sources within the next 10 years, upgrade the nation’s energy grid, buildings and transportation infrastructure, increase energy efficiency, invest in “green” technology research and development, and provide training for jobs in the new “green” economy.
Like, these basically amount to "should we press the Fix the Climate button or not?" The Carbon Tax proposal is specifically formulated to be as uncontroversial as possible, and the GND proposal omits all of the controversial parts of the actual GND brought before congress. It's essentially the Democrat position on climate policy, which is that private sector scientists are gonna have that Fix the Climate button ready by 2050 at the latest, and by then we'll definitely have the political power to press it, and at no point will anything major have to happen to the American way of life.
This is exactly what I was getting at; you said it better than I could. When the choices are laid out like “Should we save our future and have no negative impacts on your life whatsoever, or should we do nothing” of course the majority of people will support it.
-
I get that and I was afraid I would come across too much like that’s what I’m saying. I don’t believe rugged individualism will save us from climate disaster. When it boils down though, if a goal is to, say, make these oil and gas companies accountable, that is going to be giving up your car eventually. Because there will be no gas on a consumer level. Or if we want to give up factory farming, there will be no more McDonald’s because food cannot and should not be that cheap to produce. I just don’t believe that the average person realizes that in order to achieve actual progress when it comes to climate change, eventually your treats will need to be curved or extinguished altogether.
I think the broader point here is that cars are basically necessary to participate in even the most atomized forms of society until such time as public transit and walkable cities are made the only option for development. Putting yourself in solitary confinement isn't going to change shit, and neither is any measure to reduce driving going to work as well as giving better alternatives.
This is just liberal consumption rhetoric. The person you are responding to was very clearly talking about basic levels of social interaction in our car focused society. Individual consumption choices, not tied into a broader structural framework, is literally just liberal buying a prius moral posturing at this point.
"Activities with friends are not basic requirements to function."
Yes it is.... we are social organisms and to expect people to cease all social interaction is just absurd, and a political argument we would be doomed to lose. You can only get so much from virtual interaction.
And yeah i understand the scale if death and destruction that climate is going to cause I am a biologist and am painfully and intimatelyaware of the climate science. I see the nightmare every fucking day, but telling people not to perform basic social consumption is not going to fix anything without larger structural change. So long as we live under a system of private market distribution, individual reductions will simply lead to greater consumption in other sectors. That is how fucked we are.
And no I am not saying "go hog wild and burn gasoline for fun in a pit in your back yard." I am talking about normal social average consumption. Driving to see a friend once a week is no what is going to destroy the planet. Staying healthy and sane is also important.
And I didnt even slightly imply we should roll coal or go and splurge. Yes, if possible, emphasis on the if possible, take what mitigative steps you can. Even if it doesn't actually structurally change anything it atleast works to change social expectation. But going to extremes of asceticism is simply liberal moral purity posturing.
I think people are having a hard time with your assertion that visiting friends is luxury consumption, really. Social interaction is important for humans
Isolating yourself in the pod doesn't solve climate change. It's probably more effective to go out and talk to people, do activism to change the status quo than to just lock yourself up and never leave your house
So long as you seem to be willfully and militantly misinterpreting what I am saying I don't see much point in further discussion.
Activities with friends are not basic requirements to function.
Wow, the mental health understander has logged on. Please, Maslow, explain what behaviors are “basically functioning,” and which are decadent luxuries that we can’t afford, cause id’ve thought social interactions with others would be in the first category but evidently not. Also, super great idea to discourage meeting up with others because it’s immoral, that’ll really put the spark to any revolutionary momentum.
Yes ultimately these changes need to come from government, but people will throw an actual fit over giving up meat, cars, homes. That popular people's government won't remain popular for long tbh, there would have to be some concessions in other areas to extract these things. My thought is possibly a combination of lab grown meat to replace animal agriculture (this tech is coming, but our government could put more money into R&D for this), giving everyone an appropriate home/apartment/townhouse or whatever is deemed necessary, full employment for people with good paying jobs. People will still get mad as hell about single family homes but idk, there would definitely need to be some give and take
If this country were even close to a functioning democracy it would be so much better
Something something a democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism
Episode 87: Nate Silver and the Crisis of Pundit Brain :citations-needed:
