I think this is a really interesting discussion, as there now are really tangible differences between the fumes/soot of old and the muskville of the present/future. In my town coal is still burnt in residential fireplaces in winter. Regardless of climate change I just don't want to breath it in. But... it's cheap, it's available, these families have a coal burner installed, it's cold outside and there are people, often kids and elderly shivering inside.
There's no doubt most people would agree breathing fumes isn't fun. But at night when you're broke and your kids are shivering, what matters is protecting them in the now.
It's just a small and very specific example but the same dichotomy runs right through this issue. We're trying to switch one of the most fundamental aspects of our society feom one thing to another. And it's really hard and really slow. But it is happening.
I'm a greenie environmentalist and I consistently vote that way, but it's a mistake, I think, to ignore the power of immediate need and familiarity.
My convoluted and inarticulate point is that perhaps there is too much dogmatic fundamentalism from the greenies such as myself. Populations have to be led, not forced, to change. And Trump's stance on climate change, and the fact his stance seems to gel with millions, is not really so hard to understand.
I myself know nothing about climate change. And I'm a fairly clever chap who spent some years as a science journalist.
And I don't KNOW about it. I've accepted the views of all those scientists I've interviewed, of the data they've shown me, and decided their research is far better than any I'll ever do.
So I believe it is true. Others don't. And I think we risk this sort of current pushback if we don't treat their scepticism with enough respect.
Sent from my SM-G920I using U2 Interference mobile app
I have no desire to belittle how someone else feels. I want to have a conversation.
