5 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
I took a course in the early 2000s where our textbook started off with 'The Land Ethic' and then had essays chronologically providing support and/or rebuttals.
I recall at the time being appalled at the essays concluding the only way climate change would be solved was through technology. I didn't fully understand how hard it would be to actually do anything meaningful in enough time when a large percent of the world's population is in doubt or complete disbelief.
I also think part of the big disconnect on the political spectrum is many on the left conflate the types of ideas in Leopold's essay with specific ways to mitigate climate change.
Comment by vorpalglorp at 26/01/2020 at 13:01 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
What is the alternative?
Comment by [deleted] at 26/01/2020 at 14:22 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The biggest part of the disconnect on the political spectrum is that in the process for making the appeal for change to combat climate control, the left almost always incidentally increases government overreach. This naturally and automatically makes them the enemy to classical liberal and neoconservative political worldviews.
The classic mistake of leftist movements is to assume that when something needs to be done on a massive scale, the vector for action should always be the government. Government action can start a process and encourage popular action but only popular action will actually achieve the goals inherent in mitigating the worst damage of climate change.
And by making an enemy of half the nation, left-wing political activists encourage those individuals to dig in their heels and deny harder, which only makes popular action all the more difficult.
If left-wing activists spent less time condemning those who aren't on their level yet, and more time leading by example, we may have already solved the worst of the climate change issues by now.
I'm personally of the opinion that climate change has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen, with or without us, and that more study is needed to separate normal climate fluctuations from the anthropogenic (man made) element. I see a disturbing amount of thought that any climate fluctuation at all is automatically anthropogenic and that gives humanity entirely too much credit IMHO. We are not as powerful as we think we are.