Is fear of the polluter pays principle driving denial of the reality of man made global warming?

Question

We have a situation where every possible ultimately inconsequential shred of evidence, contrived but shallow argument or disreputable debating tactic is being mustered to deny the reality of man made global warming. Are people so concerned about a few adjustments to their lifestyle that they are not prepared to face facts?

Answer 1

Where are you seeing this? So far when I've been looking up the global warming debate, I've seen some convincing evidence for both sides. Some people just foolishly think that because a lot of scientists (and some people that aren't!) say something, it has to be true! Science is about testing hypothesis, not consensus.

Answer 2

Pays who ?  I think GW missed Michigan, it was a near blizzard on the way home tonight.

Answer 3

Sounds like you are the one not prepared to face facts. The world hasn't warmed in nearly 10 full years. 1998 is STILL the hottest year on record. Last year median temps actually showed some cooling. Do yourself a favor and stop listening to Al Gore. He is drumming up business for his carbon trading company...that's right he profits from the very fear mongering he generates. Profits greatly.

Answer 4

Not really--though it's a possible reason why some are sucked into the misinformation campaign you describe--a lot of these people have become convinced that change will be financially expensive, or even ruinous, for them.

But the driving force isn't fear of polluters having to pay the cost incurred. It's far more basic.  

Look, the corporate interests behind the propaganda are the fossil fuel industries--oil, coal, natural gas. And their fear siis simple: alternative energy technology, implemented on a large scale, along with shifts to fuel efficient, and eventually electric or hydrogen cars, eliminates the need for fossil fuels.  And that technology, fully implemented, would be CHEAPER for consumers, as well as being clean. They are not worried about an added business expense--even a large one. They are becoming obsolete--and their survival is at risk.

Answer 5

I think that's a big component, in that oil companies like Exxon are afraid of the "polluter pays" principle.  Asbestos companies were forced to retroactively pay for the health damage their products caused, and oil companies are afraid of the same result.

I recently read an article saying that Exxon's products are responsible for 5% of overall anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and people are already trying to sue them to hold the company accountable for their effects.  None of the lawsuits have succeeded yet, but it's only a matter of time.

Oil companies like Exxon are funding disinformation campaigns due to fear of this principle, which is providing justification for people to remain in denial about the reality of man-made global warming.

Answer 6

We live in a country founded upon the principle of freedom, specifically the freedom to pursue happiness however you define it, which means to determine and live your own lifestyle.

People don't want to give up either the lifestyle they have established and worked hard to be able to financially maintain or the freedom to continue in the same pursuit.

Moreover they're not defending their lifestyles against "facts" - they're defending their lifestyles against an unproven theory.

EDIT - and if you're going to analogize to the stock market, then what you're saying is equivalent to someone in January 1930 saying "the market was up for several years and it's only been down for one quarter."

Answer 7

Of course not.  Man made global warming isn't a reality, as you have no idea if it will be warmer or colder 5 years from now.

[Edit] I would have no problem placing a wager with you at even odds.

I'm guessing that there's a reason why you are using a 3 year old graph.

Here's some new data.  Plot this data on Excel and tell me how the data is trending.  It's quite spectacular!

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

[Edit] Let me know if you have any ideas on how to place this wager.  My guess is that in 5 years you'll admit to believing in global warming as much as you will admit you were too scared to fly in an airplane on Dec 31, 1999.

Yes, 0.01% of co2 is far too small to effect anything.  100ppm over 100 years is just one molecule of co2 per 1 million parts per year.

[Edit] I would say the market is flat.  

$100 is a good start.  Isn't it a little low if you think "global warming" is a sure thing?  Sounds like you don't have much confidence......

Answer 8

If all the external costs we currently ignore were included in the upfront cost of our products it would blow your mind.   Maybe not yours; most people don't have a clue.