General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists [View all]Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)is why most people don't take environmentalists seriously.
"I'm not sure which IPCC report you read. Because your post reeks of climate-denialist nonsense"
The one that my colleague has.
"-- Deny and/or downplay the fact that carbon emissions are the single largest contributor to global warming."
Water vapor is the largest contributor to global warming. There is a feedback system though which leads to increased Co2 being released from sequestration that leads to increased water vapor as a result.
"Toss in some Heritage Foundation buzzwords like "heavy handed government regulation and taxation."
A carbon tax is heavy handed and clumsy. Not all nations of the world will agree to such a tax, and pollution/global warming doesn't recognize man made boundaries and divisions. Furthermore, mitigating deforestation and protection of wetlands will do more to address/mitigate global climate change.
"Claim that "it still isn't clear as to how" global warming is caused (seriously, if this isn't straight out of the Petroleum Instutute playbook...)"
It isn't certain and that is how science works. Science isn't about a yes or no answer that the masses yearn for, and more importantly just like the last IPCC report there is nothing definitive in this report. The difference with this report from the previous is that there is more evidence of anthropogenic influences then we had known.
"Oppose things like the carbon tax by pointing at "other causes" but offer absolutely no potential solutions."
I already did offer a solution and that is find ways to mitigate deforestation and protect remaining wetlands. Like the previous IPCC report, this new one also lays out some ideas of how to reduce/mitigate global climate change.
"Even if you actually believed that it was land-use or whatever else causing most of the global warming (which is false: land use only accounts for about 10% of net CO2 emissions), how do you expect that to change without "heavy-handed" government regulation or taxation? People aren't going to stop deforestation without government action any more then they are going to stop burning fossil fuels. "
I mentioned no where about land use so you are in essence arguing with yourself. This fixation on Co2 with global climate change is dangerous and myopic because water vapor and methane must be taken into consideration. For effective mitigation approaches all green house gases must be discussed and how they are interrelated. Anything less than that is intellectual dishonesty which is why people look down on environmentalists so much lately.
There has to be economic incentives generated to mitigate deforestation, but not all countries of the world agree on that. Some countries are LDCs so they are obviously mortgaging their futures for the short term gains. The MDCs will have to lead the way but don;t expect full cooperation from the LDCs.