Why Do Stupid People Still Deny Climate Change?

[Walter]

Jul 9, 2021 13:36:39 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jul 9, 2021 12:50:05 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

You missed the point here, Daleko.

The thread is about the ludicrous denial of climate change in our society-- which has been directly funded and promoted by fossil fuel industry propaganda for years!

Mitigating catastrophic climate change isn't just about private economic incentives.

It's also about public education and political will.  The two go hand in hand.

That's precisely why fossil fuel industry moguls (Exxon, the Kochs, et.al.) and their GOP puppets have tried to bamboozle the public for years about the problem.

We can't save the country and our planet without public education and the political will to mitigate the problem.

As an example of the stupid, Donald Trump fought tooth-and-claw to undermine California's modest efforts to legislate basic fuel standards for automobiles.

And you're old enough to remember when Big Oil bribed GM to defer making fuel efficient automobiles.

OK, your thread, your direction. For me, however, it's about results. Make it cost effective and people will embrace change. In this country anyway. What's done in China and India is a separate conversation.

Make it profitable and the supply of that solution will be available. The death of carbon as a solution to a consumer need was dated the day it began. That has been the history of mankind. You want to embrace a more expensive solution, have at it. You don't want to motivate change by not focusing on a lower cost alternative that would benefit everyone, you'll get what you got. Science, that you support, has failed to generate that expansive support. 

And you missed what I said "BUT, with the knowledge that private enterprise is not good at doing expensive things not done before"...

Create a solution to that issue THEN, let private enterprise commercialize it. Who cares what it takes to "buy in".

But if you want to sing the same song and dance w/o the end game focus of lower cost of use, you'll get what you got and we'll be having this same conversation again and again. Your message is not reaching critical mass for change. Don't change the message at the peril of humanity, if you believe that's where we are headed.

Not all decisions are monetary in nature. Many are lifestyle in nature. You choose a path of behavior that helps. Good example, (if a bit unrelated to CC) Plastic straws gum up recycling machines and so are diverted to trash instead. Solution: You could spend money on a reuseable straw. Or, you could go back to paper straws. Or, hey don't use straws. So, as you can see, cost is only a small piece of the potential solution. The point is YOU need to make the commitment, not based on your wallet, but based on the collective fight against CC, of sustainability, and of the realization of the finite nature of FFuels.

[daleko]

Jul 9, 2021 13:36:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 9, 2021 13:12:21 GMT -5 daleko said:

My opinion on how to get it done. Results mattered I thought. You want to get it done "your way", <shrug>. The world climate that is being impacted doesn't care how, nor do I. If you think the current sales focus is making progress, press on. I'll support what I said. Make it as inexpensive, as the current cost and everyone wins. If you don't think that's possible, don't get in the way, imo.

You miss my point.
There are things to do, decisions that can be made that are not at all monetary in nature. Rather, they are about embracing the need, setting the example and going the extra mile in a thousand small ways when you can. For instance, I can make a design decision that is cost neutral but bad for CC. I can choose to use X product or Y product at the same price point, and choose the one that is the best at combatting CC or I can go the other way. And you could make a hundred cost neutral purchase decisions as a consumer and drive commerce from the back end if you had a mind to.

Distilling it down to, 'I'm not interested in addressing CC unless I can make a buck." is NOT a particularly positive, proactive vibe, IMO. It's a copout. It's a way that obviously you don't agree with or believe is attainable. 

Fight reality all you want. Monetary motivation, by lowering user costs, will get it done. Along w, perhaps, the lack of a monetary penalty. Focusing on the big impactors.

You don't agree? Carry on w the message that isn't getting the traction you desire.

[daleko]

Jul 9, 2021 13:43:05 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 9, 2021 13:36:39 GMT -5 daleko said:

Not all decisions are monetary in nature. Many are lifestyle in nature. You choose a path of behavior that helps. Good example, (if a bit unrelated to CC) Plastic straws gum up recycling machines and so are diverted to trash instead. Solution: You could spend money on a reuseable straw. Or, you could go back to paper straws. Or, hey don't use straws. So, as you can see, cost is only a small piece of the potential solution. The point is YOU need to make the commitment, not based on your wallet, but based on the collective fight against CC, of sustainability, and of the realization of the finite nature of FFuels.

Agree many parts to the equation, all I'm suggesting, essentially, is to focus on the what's in it "for me", whoever the "me" is, as a means to getting a critical mass to move forward, as you want to see it progress. If you gain the financial mercenaries, who cares. I think it's misguided to assume that to not obtain a financial equilibrium because of the change, will not delay the critical mass you seek. If people can make money on the change, who cares.

It's time, imo, to focus on a big change that impacts bigly. With a message that doesn't include doing it for the sake of doing what "is right". Get to the goal, however you have to. And use whoever you have to. For me, that's improving the bottom line cost. Why not include everyone? Why not include everyone who makes decisions based on their wallet? Unless you think that isn't possible. In which case, get out of the way, IMO.

[Walter]

Jul 9, 2021 14:46:59 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jul 9, 2021 13:43:05 GMT -5 Walter said:

Not all decisions are monetary in nature. Many are lifestyle in nature. You choose a path of behavior that helps. Good example, (if a bit unrelated to CC) Plastic straws gum up recycling machines and so are diverted to trash instead. Solution: You could spend money on a reuseable straw. Or, you could go back to paper straws. Or, hey don't use straws. So, as you can see, cost is only a small piece of the potential solution. The point is YOU need to make the commitment, not based on your wallet, but based on the collective fight against CC, of sustainability, and of the realization of the finite nature of FFuels.

Agree many parts to the equation, all I'm suggesting, essentially, is to focus on the what's in it "for me", whoever the "me" is, as a means to getting a critical mass to move forward, as you want to see it progress. If you gain the financial mercenaries, who cares. I think it's misguided to assume that to not obtain a financial equilibrium because of the change, will not delay the critical mass you seek. If people can make money on the change, who cares.

It's time, imo, to focus on a big change that impacts bigly. With a message that doesn't include doing it for the sake of doing what "is right". Get to the goal, however you have to. And use whoever you have to. For me, that's improving the bottom line cost. Why not include everyone? Why not include everyone who makes decisions based on their wallet? Unless you think that isn't possible. In which case, get out of the way, IMO.

My Q to you is: Why are the two mutually exclusive?
I can drive demand (and profit) in many ways, as we have discussed previously.
Filtering every decision through a financial lens works, but it isn't the only way; so too does social pressure in the form of trends, style and 'hipness'.
Smoking is ending for a lot of reasons. Health and cost are two. But so too is the notion that smoking just isn't cool anymore. In fact, it is almost anti-cool.
That latter aspect is what I am talking about with CC.
Corporate America is starting to see and exploit the 'cool factor' in CC. You can make money THAT way, right?
Point is, I don't see the upside in limiting your embrace of CC unless you are a Denier with a desire to cash in on ANYTHING that earns a profit, regardless of its environmental impact. If that's the problem, then be up front and say so. Then at least I know who I am talking to.

[DrSchadenfreude]

Jul 9, 2021 15:08:36 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 9, 2021 14:46:59 GMT -5 daleko said:

Agree many parts to the equation, all I'm suggesting, essentially, is to focus on the what's in it "for me", whoever the "me" is, as a means to getting a critical mass to move forward, as you want to see it progress. If you gain the financial mercenaries, who cares. I think it's misguided to assume that to not obtain a financial equilibrium because of the change, will not delay the critical mass you seek. If people can make money on the change, who cares.

It's time, imo, to focus on a big change that impacts bigly. With a message that doesn't include doing it for the sake of doing what "is right". Get to the goal, however you have to. And use whoever you have to. For me, that's improving the bottom line cost. Why not include everyone? Why not include everyone who makes decisions based on their wallet? Unless you think that isn't possible. In which case, get out of the way, IMO.

My Q to you is: Why are the two mutually exclusive?
I can drive demand (and profit) in many ways, as we have discussed previously.
Filtering every decision through a financial lens works, but it isn't the only way; so too does social pressure in the form of trends, style and 'hipness'.
Smoking is ending for a lot of reasons. Health and cost are two. But so too is the notion that smoking just isn't cool anymore. In fact, it is almost anti-cool.

Although, speaking of smoking, Daleko has a point.

I was planning to re-order some of my favorite cigars this week-- for the first time in over a year-- and I discovered that the price has nearly TRIPLED !!

My secret has been discovered.

I used to buy Montecristo Media Noche cigars for $4 or $5 bucks a stogie... Now they're $12.50 !!   

Economic forces are driving me to quit smoking cigars altogether.   

And just think.  I'll be reducing air pollution and climate change...   

[daleko]

Jul 9, 2021 15:08:36 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 9, 2021 14:46:59 GMT -5 daleko said:

Agree many parts to the equation, all I'm suggesting, essentially, is to focus on the what's in it "for me", whoever the "me" is, as a means to getting a critical mass to move forward, as you want to see it progress. If you gain the financial mercenaries, who cares. I think it's misguided to assume that to not obtain a financial equilibrium because of the change, will not delay the critical mass you seek. If people can make money on the change, who cares.

It's time, imo, to focus on a big change that impacts bigly. With a message that doesn't include doing it for the sake of doing what "is right". Get to the goal, however you have to. And use whoever you have to. For me, that's improving the bottom line cost. Why not include everyone? Why not include everyone who makes decisions based on their wallet? Unless you think that isn't possible. In which case, get out of the way, IMO.

My Q to you is: Why are the two mutually exclusive? They aren't but for reasons below I'll choose my focus. I get to do that.
I can drive demand (and profit) in many ways, as we have discussed previously. You are mixing profit for corp and individuals. Separate and we are talking or I am about a sales message that currently isn't being sent to the masses. Essential we will beat GW and reduce your costs of using carbon, w/o an associated cost of conversion.
Filtering every decision through a financial lens works, but it isn't the only way; so too does social pressure in the form of trends, style and 'hipness'.
Smoking is ending for a lot of reasons. Health and cost are two. But so too is the notion that smoking just isn't cool anymore. In fact, it is almost anti-cool. What then drove the growth of "E Ciggys"?
That latter aspect is what I am talking about with CC.
Corporate America is starting to see and exploit the 'cool factor' in CC. You can make money THAT way, right? And I have, sizable money this year and last but that's not I'm speaking to in the beginning of my intrusion. Though I did include it into the discussion. It's about changing the way to communicate the goal and perhaps how we get to the goal.
Point is, I don't see the upside in limiting your embrace of CC not limiting anything, just what I think will generate results with the Masses unless you are a Denier I'm obviously not as passionate as you are with a desire to cash in on ANYTHING that earns a profit, regardless of its environmental impact. If that's the problem, then be up front and say so. Then at least I know who I am talking to. I am not averse to cashing in on many things. Anything would be a stretch.

Support what you like and fits your perspective. I'm not limiting what you chose. I'm choosing a different method of selling a concept. Why is financial exclusive? Why not financial? For me, the path to critical mass acceptance will depend on financial benefit or, for the masses, no individual financial cost. Don't agree, <shrug>. Don't agree that, as a result, it could happen, if it was agreed to, as a goal. That's misguided. Want to hang your hat on the cool aspect to generate the mass acceptance that will be necessary? Go for it. I'll applaud and promote a cheaper alternative path to what we have now. My choice and based on where we are, a change is the message could be productive. 

If we are at a critical stage as some contend, we are beyond cool making it happen. What I am suggesting is a full court press to convert the masses where said conversion costs them nothing. Don't agree, carry on with what's being done. I'll focus on what I believe can happen if .......... and if I can make a buck on that change, I'm not sure why that is bad. You obviously don't believe that can happen and perhaps are comfortable with that.

[Walter]

Jul 9, 2021 16:55:15 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 9, 2021 15:08:36 GMT -5 Walter said:

My Q to you is: Why are the two mutually exclusive?
I can drive demand (and profit) in many ways, as we have discussed previously.
Filtering every decision through a financial lens works, but it isn't the only way; so too does social pressure in the form of trends, style and 'hipness'.
Smoking is ending for a lot of reasons. Health and cost are two. But so too is the notion that smoking just isn't cool anymore. In fact, it is almost anti-cool.

Although, speaking of smoking, Daleko has a point.

I was planning to re-order some of my favorite cigars this week-- for the first time in over a year-- and I discovered that the price has nearly TRIPLED !!

My secret has been discovered.

I used to buy Montecristo Media Noche cigars for $4 or $5 bucks a stogie... Now they're $12.50 !!   

Economic forces are driving me to quit smoking cigars altogether.   

And just think.  I'll be reducing air pollution and climate change...   

I never smoked a cigarette in my life, but I did smoke cigars...one bout with lung cancer later, I'm done with cigars.
Word!

[Walter]

Jul 9, 2021 17:05:49 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jul 9, 2021 15:08:36 GMT -5 Walter said:

My Q to you is: Why are the two mutually exclusive? They aren't but for reasons below I'll choose my focus. I get to do that.
I can drive demand (and profit) in many ways, as we have discussed previously. You are mixing profit for corp and individuals. Separate and we are talking or I am about a sales message that currently isn't being sent to the masses. Essential we will beat GW and reduce your costs of using carbon, w/o an associated cost of conversion.
Filtering every decision through a financial lens works, but it isn't the only way; so too does social pressure in the form of trends, style and 'hipness'.
Smoking is ending for a lot of reasons. Health and cost are two. But so too is the notion that smoking just isn't cool anymore. In fact, it is almost anti-cool. What then drove the growth of "E Ciggys"?
That latter aspect is what I am talking about with CC.
Corporate America is starting to see and exploit the 'cool factor' in CC. You can make money THAT way, right? And I have, sizable money this year and last but that's not I'm speaking to in the beginning of my intrusion. Though I did include it into the discussion. It's about changing the way to communicate the goal and perhaps how we get to the goal.
Point is, I don't see the upside in limiting your embrace of CC not limiting anything, just what I think will generate results with the Masses unless you are a Denier I'm obviously not as passionate as you are with a desire to cash in on ANYTHING that earns a profit, regardless of its environmental impact. If that's the problem, then be up front and say so. Then at least I know who I am talking to. I am not averse to cashing in on many things. Anything would be a stretch.

Support what you like and fits your perspective. I'm not limiting what you chose. I'm choosing a different method of selling a concept. Why is financial exclusive? Why not financial? For me, the path to critical mass acceptance will depend on financial benefit or, for the masses, no individual financial cost. Don't agree, <shrug>. Don't agree that, as a result, it could happen, if it was agreed to, as a goal. That's misguided. Want to hang your hat on the cool aspect to generate the mass acceptance that will be necessary? Go for it. I'll applaud and promote a cheaper alternative path to what we have now. My choice and based on where we are, a change is the message could be productive. 

If we are at a critical stage as some contend, we are beyond cool making it happen. What I am suggesting is a full court press to convert the masses where said conversion costs them nothing. Don't agree, carry on with what's being done. I'll focus on what I believe can happen if .......... and if I can make a buck on that change, I'm not sure why that is bad. You obviously don't believe that can happen and perhaps are comfortable with that.

The problem is that by not embracing the fundamental notion of the problem, you open the door for precious time to be lost. You allow bad decisions re CC to be made because there isn't enough vocal social and political buy-in. Hence, you might get Keystone pipelines and Arctic drilling investment instead of some sustainable gizmo that makes oil obsolete, and neither of which moves us in a carbon free direction.

And my problem with your attitude is that you're happy to cash in on pipeline or drilling stock without seeing the bigger picture.

You want to bring down cost of the technology? Okay. Then support joint private/public funding of R&D that hastens that day, and punish those who want to kill such endeavors.
The latest wall to wall Repub denial of funding ANYTHING associated with CC in the latest infrastructure deal is the sort of social obstruction I'm looking to end.
If you're not going to reward politicians for doing the right thing, then are you not obstructing your own desire to hit a working cost threshold for the tech? And by doing so, aren't you giving away that window of opportunity to corner the market for those goods and services by becoming the world leader because you were first?

There's a line in the movie Margin Call, where DD Lewis character says, "There are three ways to make money in this world. Cheat, be smarter, or be first."
You seem to be eschewing that third option.

[daleko]

Jul 9, 2021 19:03:44 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 9, 2021 17:05:49 GMT -5 daleko said:

The problem is that by not embracing the fundamental notion of the problem, you open the door for precious time to be lost. Are you losing time now? You allow bad decisions re CC to be made because there isn't enough vocal social and political buy-in. Hence, you might get Keystone pipelines and Arctic drilling investment instead of some sustainable gizmo that makes oil obsolete, and neither of which moves us in a carbon free direction. With the end game I suggest, w the focus I suggest, it'll be embraced. But in any case, there isn't enough "market money" available to initiate that transcendental change. 

And my problem with your attitude is that you're happy to cash in on pipeline or drilling stock without seeing the bigger picture. Separate issue. Again market money isn't big enough to solve the problem in the fashion I believe necessary to generate the results the masses will attach to. Again, my intent is to change, or add if you like, the method of persuasion to reach that untapped support you seek. 

You want to bring down cost of the technology?  Okay. Then support joint private/public funding of R&D that hastens that day, and punish those who want to kill such endeavors. Current technology isn't the answer I seek. IMO, not the answer that will generate the masses, globally, to support. Cheaper and seamless than current carbon.

The latest wall to wall Repub denial of funding ANYTHING associated with CC in the latest infrastructure deal is the sort of social obstruction I'm looking to end.
If you're not going to reward politicians for doing the right thing, then are you not obstructing your own desire to hit a working cost threshold for the tech? And by doing so, aren't you giving away that window of opportunity to corner the market for those goods and services by becoming the world leader because you were first? I'm not giving away anything. Last time I checked this is a world issue, w international markets to invest in AFTER a solution is created, as noted in points three and four.

There's a line in the movie Margin Call, where DD Lewis character says, "There are three ways to make money in this world. Cheat, be smarter, or be first."
You seem to be eschewing that third option. Many ways to legally make money. Incl taking the oldest  technology, using it to fulfill needs. Your soundbite is misguided, if your intent is to apply a fictional movie quote to the real world. Even junk dealers can make a nice living.

Let's go back to sq 1 of my intrusion. If you are happy with the progress of CC incl public support, I have nothing to offer. If you are not, try something different, as an alternative tool but not the only tool. For me, what resonates is no extra cost to implement and zero add-on cost to use. I think you would get additional support using that method of persuasion. Getting the necessary masses interested in the solution, as you perceive the problem. Enough to create support for funding necessary as noted in point 3 below.

You disagree, apparently. Lost in all of your pivoting, which I allowed to happen, and "problems w me", which franky I could care less about, back to the core, here are parts of my first post to Willie in the thread.

"1) The issue is poor salesmanship and an incomplete product to sell. If you want to replace carbon, replace it with something that has an equal/lower cost of use. That doesn't require a personal investment. That will motivate change. And make it seamless." Again if you are satisfied w the progress, this is all moot.
"2) If a massive change is necessary to reduce carbon impact, and many think that is the case, a lower cost of ownership and use is necessary to sell the concept across a broad base. Don't like that approach to reach the masses? <Shrug> Keep bitching." Most believe any change must be massive. Transcendental. That'll be expensive. 
"3) BUT, with the knowledge that private enterprise is not good at doing expensive things not done before, that this endeavour will be expensive, alternative forms (of financing for development) needs to be created"
"4) that will create profit opportunity for private enterprise who will sell lower cost alternatives to the public. Here and around the globe." That is to say AFTER the solution is developed THEN private enterprise attaches their expertise in making and fulfilling, what they do well ftmp, to the solution train. And there will be winners and losers in that train. Invest wisely. 
  

[Walter]

You keep saying, "AFTER the solution is developed..." as if there is a magic bullet out there that will change everything and floodgates of acceptance will open.
I do not think that is the nature of the problem.
IMO, there are dozens, heck...hundreds of overlapping and intertwined issues that all need to be addressed at the same time.
Hence a multi-functioning momentum needs to be constructed over time.

Some of the crucial problems needing solution may not even exist yet as problems because of incremental development and innovation.

So, to me, it is the race that matters, because there is no finish line. There is no time or place where we stop and say, "We're done! We got it! Now we can all start buying stuff!"

[daleko]

Jul 10, 2021 14:24:49 GMT -5 Walter said:

You keep saying, "AFTER the solution is developed..." as if there is a magic bullet out there that will change everything and floodgates of acceptance will open.
I do not think that is the nature of the problem.
IMO, there are dozens, heck...hundreds of overlapping and intertwined issues that all need to be addressed at the same time.
Hence a multi-functioning momentum needs to be constructed over time.

Some of the crucial problems needing solution may not even exist yet as problems because of incremental development and innovation.

So, to me, it is the race that matters, because there is no finish line. There is no time or place where we stop and say, "We're done! We got it! Now we can all start buying stuff!"

I've given you carte blanche to ask the bigger Q, worthy, imo, of the bigger answer to construct when I said, "BUT, with the knowledge that private enterprise is not good at doing expensive things not done before, that this endeavour will be expensive, alternative forms (of financing for development) needs to be created"

That to me is the bigger issue. An issue that will need the masses, really world-wide, to support. 

[Buckeye Dale]

"STUPID PEOPLE" are those that think they know it all with barely 400 years of data, and can't answer how they're blaming people for the (at LEAST) five ice ages & warm ups that have occurred...
Remember that old commercial...