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.

    • fox [comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

        • CrimsonSage [any]
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

            • CrimsonSage [any]
              ·
              2 years ago

              "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.

                • BerserkPoster [none/use name]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  I think people are having a hard time with your assertion that visiting friends is luxury consumption, really. Social interaction is important for humans

                • CrimsonSage [any]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  So long as you seem to be willfully and militantly misinterpreting what I am saying I don't see much point in further discussion.

            • Homestar440 [he/him]
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              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.