The absolutely unthinkable: financial losses for the people who have been making money by covering up the fact that they are destroying the planet for their own profit.
Add in one of the best-financed propaganda/obfuscation campaigns maintained for seven decades and public opinion mirrors what it gets fed from big-oil-owned media outlets.
This is such a straw-man argument. I'm highly in favor of renewables, but I'm not blind to what other people think.
Say you're someone who legitimately doesn't believe that climate change is happening, or at least that if it's happening it's not being caused by humanity. (People who believe those things are definitely out there.) In that case, what's the worst thing that can happen?
- Having cheaper energy from renewable sources?
Obviously this isn't something that people who think climate change is a hoax are concerned about. They're worried that renewable sources will be more expensive and less reliable.
- Never running out of oil?
People who don't believe in climate change also don't think we're anywhere close to running out of oil. In fact, they think it's the same people pushing the "climate change hoax" that are pushing the idea that the planet is running low on oil. "Peak oil" has been predicted for decades, and they just keep finding more and more oil.
- Being independent from unstable countries with bad human rights records?
The US is the #1 global oil producer. Canada is 4th on the list. Brazil is 8th. Mexico is 11th. Norway is 13th. With Natural Gas it's similar, US is #1, Canada is #4, Australia is #7, Norway is #9. Aside from the obvious jokes about the US being an unstable country with a bad human rights record, this concern is overblown. If OPEC limits production the prices will go up, but that means more profit will flow to the US. Assuming this is meant for a US audience, that's obviously a good thing for their economy. If it's meant for say the UK, there's going to be more dependence on fossil fuels from Russia, but it isn't like all fossil fuels come from enemies of the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_production- Having cleaner air?
A lot of the people who are pro-fossil fuels are older. They've seen the air quality go up consistently over their lives. They don't think of the current world as a hellscape with dirty air, they see it as the cleanest air they've ever had. The problem is that the pollutant that most people are worried about now is invisible and... unsmellable? Unlike the soot and smog that makes pollution so obvious.
- Investing in local and domestic research, education and fabrication
The US is the country that produces the most oil and the most natural gas, it also makes the most gasoline / petrol by far. Domestic research, education and fabrication is a US thing when it comes to oil and gasoline. By contrast, most solar panel components are produced in China. 96.8% of photovoltaic wafers are made in China. Wind Turbines are also largely made in China.
Sure, theoretically investment could mean that generation is shifted away from China and to manufacturers in the west. But, when was the last time the west ramped up manufacturing to compete with China in anything?
--
The reason that so many people are opposed to change are:
- They've been convinced that climate change is a hoax. Nobody realistically knows how to fix people's beliefs about this. And, it's unlikely to change unless there's a radical change in media company ownership and bias, which means it's probably going to take decades to fix. It's more likely that the climate change deniers will die off of old age, than they're going to change their beliefs.
- They believe the current system works, so why change it? This is key. Even if they believed that climate change is real, it's really hard to convince someone to change a system that works.
- They believe (probably correctly) that the current system is good for their economy. Of course, most of the profits are flowing to the rich, and not being shared with the workers. However, the current system does employ a lot of workers.
- They think that renewable systems only work when it's sunny or when it's windy. There's a bit of truth to that, and for continent-wide purely renewable grid, you'd need to figure out some way of storing energy for when conditions aren't right for renewables. But, the problem is overblown because those solutions are coming online as fast as the grid is being updated.
They think it's a hoax meant to funnel money into the pockets of scammers pushing these new green techs. They think it's just enriching liars who want to vilify things these people loved, all while making things somehow worse. Their vision isn't of a better future, they see a scammer getting rich while their power goes out every time it's cloudy outside or the wind stops.
The core is about change. To accept climate change means they have to make changes to their lifestyle, and they don't like having to change. Beyond that, it's rationalizations and bad faith arguments from the usual grifters and corporations layered on top of that to justify the position they chose emotionally.
-
you might inconvenience them by taking away their plastic straws, plastic grocery bags, or making them separate recyclables.
-
you prevent them from rolling coal or dumping other combustion byproducts in the air, or toxic waste in the ground or water. That costs money to clean up or filter.
-
you make things cost more when you force them to expend effort to responsibly harvest natural resources like trees.
Basically watching the earth burn is cheaper, more profitable, and less inconvenient to the people who have a problem with having clean air and water, and a habitable planet.
-
Uh, yeah, actually. Those are exactly the things that the people who create and stoke climate denialism are afraid of. It's in the intrest of the fossil fuel industry to make these exact things unpopular.
Not a denier, but people fear the immediate costs. It's not clear what meaningful climate action looks like. But realistically it would very likely mean a higher cost of living in the immediate future, because not all economic sectors can be trivially decarbonized. There are also possible immediate benefits. But in any case that's what people fear.
They'd have to admit that man could do something to the planet that their little tin god either can't or won't. There's more to it but biblical literalists are dangerously crazy when it comes to the future of the planet
One of the rationales of sane people regarding alternative energy sources is the cost of using "more expensive" energy sources when cheap (at least for the time being), albeit more polluting, alternatives like coal and natural gas are readily available.
The argument is that if Country A switches to full renewables, in the time it takes for the prices to become low enough to be competitive against coal, Country B, which is unscrupulous in its development and continues using coal as its main energy source, would gain a significant advantage over Country A.
You could even argue that for Country B, switching to alternative energy sources would be unfair, considering that Country A enjoyed decades of rapid growth and development using cheap coal, whereas Country B would not. Since Country A won't fully switch to alternative energy sources to maintain its supremacy, and Country B won't change for the sake of its development, we're effectively in a deadlock.
Personally, I think all countries should work together and switch to renewable energy sources to reduce the impact of climate change. Unfortunately, the world is not so simple, and the conflict is more nuanced than simply "keeping profits vs. creating a better world."
With some exceptions the answer is likely very simple:
They aren't denying climate change because they believe it isn't happening, that doesn't matter. They're denying it because they:
- Are among others who claim they deny and so they conform or become outcasts
- Dislike and fear change they don't understand on a fundamental level
- Fear challenging those beliefs because doing so risks admitting a regular part of their life has been lived in the wrong
Eventually these three things combine until denial becomes their natural state.
The argument (I say this as a midwesterner who has lots of relatives and such who are regurgitating the prepublication lines) always comes back to âthe tech isnât there yetâ âyou canât recycle panels or turbine bladesâ âpanels and turbine blades donât last worth a damnâ.
Whether or not any of that is true idk so how can I argue? My plate is pretty full on reading material.
So find the arguments theyâre using and go from there.
But Exxon Mobil said I'd get hair on my palms and go blind.
But but muh coal mining towns!
I remember when there were programs to retrain coal miners to work with renewable resources, completely paid for by the renewable resources companies, but Big Coal and Big Oil threw a fit. I think Manchin ended up killing a lot of those things since his daughter or son is an exec in a coal company that he also invests in or some shit.
All of those things lower profits of the current few people profiting the most (oligarchy).
The rest is just like sports - 'my team is better than yours regardless of record'.
What if we go through all the work to make a better world for no reason?
But my coal job! I live in Virginia! If I'm not going to slave in the mines, by Jove, what else can I do? Install solar panels? Ha! I think not!
(I've never really heard one of these people give a satisfactory explanation for why not, but for the moment I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to lived experience. Be nice if I knew though.)
I think it's mostly tribalism and fear.
For everyone, to some extent, belief is social. You tend to believe what your in-group believes. If your in-group is big on science and admitting fault and such, it's not so bad. But if your beliefs are... I'm too tired to be nice... Right wing dog shit ahistorical afactual nonsense.. then you're in a worse place as far as having beliefs that match reality goes.
Secondly, fear. Admitting climate change and pollution exist means admitting uncomfortable truths. It means admitting things need to change, that the future may be from, and you have some culpability in the current state. The way things are now is familiar and comforting. Most people are, frankly, cowards, and will go to great lengths to avoid this kind of fear. Especially if it involves them not being a completely faultless person.
The longer you go being a denialist, I imagine the harder it is to change. Admitting fault isn't something most people do well. Again, because they are on some fundamental level cowards. Many people are deeply uncomfortable with admitting they were wrong about anything. Admitting you were fooled by climate denialism is a blow to the ego. Can't have that. Better stick to the current stance. And if it happens that the in-group also believes that, great, that's comforting.
We should probably come up with a way to make right wingers (the most scared people of all) think that addressing climate change plays into their in-group. Convince them solar is AMERICAN INGENUITY and that coal is a Chinese plot to poison the white race, and maybe you'd make some surprising (and awful) allies.
That or, like, completely destroy the Republican party, spend fifty years hard deploying green technology, and wait for conservatives to defend it because that's what they know, now.
We made the world a better place for NOTHING?
It costs the shareholders money and destroys many billionaires empires.
Having cheaper energy from renewable sources?
They think it's more expensive due to the very first time they saw renewables used when they weren't as cost effective as oil, and have been propagandized to with that narrative ever since by billionaire-owned media.
Never running out of oil?
They think there's always going to be enough, and we can just take more from other countries or also use coal to fix that problem.
Being independent from unstable countries with bad human rights records?
They don't care about anyone who's not American, and even then, they're very distanced from the reality of the working class.
Having cleaner air?
They simply never consider this as it's never brought up by any of the media they watch. They also probably just don't think it's a big deal since "I can breath this air just fine already!"
Boosting local economy
See: people like Donald Trump saying clean energy would help china and harm the American economy
Investing in local and domestic research, education, and fabrication?
See above.
These people definitely want these things, they just don't actually believe it will do anything in the first place to help with them, or simply aren't aware that an issue exists at all because of the heavy pro-oil propaganda they've lapped up over the years.
Yeah but have you thought about woke? /s
These are considered a negative for people who actively want Neo Feudalism
Big car doesn't go vroom vroom
Climate change deniers parrot the oil companies that want all the monies
They can't help but take a hit at MENA countries. Who destabilized them? They never mention that; and as if your human rights track record is any better, just different. They also never mention that the US is the biggest producer of oil.
It's not black and white. Renewable energy is better than burning oil, agreed.
But i.e. there is no recycling process for old wind turbines (carbon fiber) - they need to be replaced after 30 years or solar panels (composite material). And e-cars need batteries which need lithium (mines). Also rare earths are needed for generators and electric motors - rare earths are... rare and the production requires lots of energy and produces toxic waste (in China... which has kind of a monopoly on it. )
Maybe solvable problems in the long run but currently these are unsolved issues...
