Home | About | Donate

Majority of Americans Agree Fighting Climate Change a 'Moral Obligation'


#1

Majority of Americans Agree Fighting Climate Change a 'Moral Obligation'

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

A majority of Americans believe they are "morally obligated" to fight climate change, a new poll by Reuters/IPSOS has found.

Of the 2,827 people surveyed in the poll, 66 percent said world leaders are ethically bound to reduce carbon emissions, while 72 percent believed that responsibility lay with themselves as well. In addition, 64 percent believe that rising greenhouse gases, which drive climate change, are caused by human activity.


#2

Of course Reuters major news media sees America in the language it understands. Yes everything we do is looked at in terms of war. Americans agree Fighting climate change a moral obligation. Yes what we do, we turn it into a war. Sad that means we will not end Co2 emissions because America loses its wars. Lost the war on drugs. Lost the war on poverty. Lost in Vietnam. Lost in Iraq. Lost in Afghanistan.

Plenty of other ways to look at a problem without it having to be a fight. How about finding solutions, ending Co2 emissions, or a movement to improve global climate conditions. Can we maybe think about things differently than always through adversity.


#3

Lost war on drugs too- but that wasn't so much a war on drugs, like poverty, as much as it was one for select groups profiteering under the guise of "war"


#5

1 Forget the leaders who created social and environmental catastrophe. Numero uno. The ability to focus distributed intelligence is democracy. A fast track to more greased palms for a global economy already operating at 1.5 Earth's pollution recycling services would be funny if it were not the plan.


#6

Back in the mid 1980s, Beyond War, a philanthropic and educational organization had sprouted up which was dedicated to ending racism, bigotry and global conflicts and raising awareness that war is obsolete. Being a war veteran, I joined Beyond War and worked with many wonderful educated professional people to achieve this noble cause. During that time another threat to global security was becoming apparent to our organization that began to eclipse even the need to end global war. The “greenhouse effect” and “global warming” were now on the table as being the greatest and most urgent challenge that humanity was facing. Thus, Beyond War morphed into a new focus with a new name, “Foundation For Global Community”.

Since that time, I have devoted myself to learning about alternative energy and building and installing a number of solar hot water heaters, solar air heating systems and sun rooms. I did this because I listened to the scientists and climatologists who were ringing alarm bells back then about too much CO2 and other gasses going into the atmosphere due to human activity. They said that it would eventually wreak havoc with our climate. The “global warming” theory that humans were part of the problem soon became hotly debated by oil and coal companies and the politicians they sponsor. The concept of “global warming” has been beaten back and ridiculed so much so that there is still much confusion, denial and doubt in people’s minds as to whether we humans are having an impact on the weather, though that is not the case in many other countries.

Now that serious climate change has descended upon us, people in this country are finally starting to wake up and take responsibility. We do have control over our destiny!


#7

Well, considering that 80% of prior posters all pushed the blame citizens/voters meme when not arguing that the public didn't care or was not aware of global warming/climate change (cum chaos), now that polls show that a majority DOES care and DOES know, leave it to this forum's Regulars to try to attack the frame. Your argument is tangential and about as important as John Edward's hair... to refresh your memory, a media chorus went after that item to shift the public away from noting his discussion about Two (wealthy and poor) Americas.


#8

You muddle into a false equivalence all of the following:

  1. Who people will vote for
  2. Will they vote for those who understand climate change
  3. Will candidates be allowed to reach voters

As if elections aren't fully tied up by Big Money inside the USA, martial empire, today.

What you appear to be relating is the usual--Blame Voters nonsense. Then you try to dress it up with the Fox News style "fair and balanced" caveat that those in power view climate change as ONE issue among many.

This is another fake frame since it gives no mention to the enormous financial power (which translates to media influence, the purchase of policy via paid political puppets, and the use of think tanks to cloud the key issues and applicable factors) of Big Oil, as well as Big Agriculture. Both are huge contributors to climate change.

Essentially, you are using this poll to pretend there is an equal playing field between average citizens who need to get to work and must use the transportation options available to them, and those who control the agenda since they sit on all the key boards of directors, inside Congress & the senate, or run banks. In other words, the 1% who writes the checks (campaign $ well exceeds actual salaries) of those in not just the U.S. congress and senate.

This problem is global in scope and MANY world leaders are equally beholden to Big Oil & friends.


#9

Your personal efforts are positive, but just because YOU know how to install a solar-powered generator is not the same thing as that of every person having power over their own destiny. What's that Ayn Rand crossed with Swiss Family Robinson?

Let's face it--using YOUR metric, how far did your anti-war efforts go considering that since the 1980s, thanks to a planned false flag, it's been ALL war (and spreading), ALL the time plus a ridiculously bloated MIC-dedicated budget.

Imagine if all the BILLIONS upon BILLIONS poured into the Death Machine had instead been diverted into Green technologies and intelligent energy systems?

The hour is late, and while John and Jane might scale back on personal consumption (not eating meat being a good start, along with driving less and walking/biking more), this problem is on a global scale and turning the "power" over to the average individual is ridiculous. Genuine leadership and mandates from high places are necessary in mobilizations that might mimic the efforts of W.W. II. At that time, scarcity was recognized and metals used for the war effort.

This time, a similar call needs to go out. But so long as the corporate capitalism machine, 100% unchecked, barrels over nation after nation, consumption will remain the sacred cow and those who COULD lead the way to massive change will likely remain beholden to Big Money.

The Oil divestment movement is helping, so are the protests against fracking and oil pipelines. Two other factors--how BRICS will reshape the global economy and the worth of the U.S. dollar coupled with the actual rigors of climate-based destabilization will also alter the calculus. And that's IF the imbeciles in power don't manage to foment a third world war.


#13

As the world is trying to emulate the latest US fads, maybe you in the "homeland" should start some genuine changes, most importantly scaling back your global domination. You should try and show the rest of the world how to live a sustainable life. You are right and it's not only John and Jane scaling back and living off the grid and eating cactus and riding a buggy, but you should put a brake on your military. They seem to be everywhere and not in a good way. I've been travelling extensively for most of my life, but for the last couple of years I've been on the road most of the time and what I'm seeing is mind-boggling: places you wouldn't expect US military to have any business to be is so numerous that you can't NOT see. Of course, there are other militants, but they are mostly fighting the US army or US mercenaries or a US puppet government. Maybe you should vote in politicians who put domestic politics and repairing the welfare of all US Americans, then they'd have to scale back the global empire.
I've seen that the world's most beautiful places are being mined, de-forested, harvested, exploited in tremendous ways. Vast areas are being used as dump for barely used "things". There are not many pristine areas around. If it is not any of the aforementioned, it is built in with houses, shacks, warehouses, factories and such.
Of course the weather/climate is changing, that is natural, "Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Don't resist them - that only creates sorrow. Let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like." Lao Tsu. In any case, change is natural, living things do change. However much is our contribution is debatable, but we are most certainly responsible for environmental degradation and species extinction and all kinds of diseases.
I am trying to be optimistic and positive, but it is very difficult. We as a species have lost our ways and it'll be difficult for the coming generations to undo the damage we've caused during the last two centuries


#15

My opinion about any opinion poll given to the American public is that you get a confused and conflicted result. Even if we have a concern about climate change do we want our utility bills to triple if we got to alternatives like wind or solar. Will we accept a a reduced standard of living if that is the consequence of moving to these diffuse unreliable and expensive energy sources? My guess is that we will not. The left assumes that alternative energy sources can serve our needs for economical and reliable energy and be brought on line at reasonable cost. This is just as much a lie or fantasy as climate denial. The only way out that I see are safer and cheaper ways of producing nuclear energy. The only option that looks promising to me are Thorium breeding LFTRS. For that opinion I am excoriated by left leaning environmentalists who are just as much in denial about our real energy options as the climate deniers they mock. Lucky for us the Chinese are going forward on this track. After we have exhausted our options and found wind and solar expensive dead ends we can buy this viable technology from them.


#16

SR- This one blew right by you and you stepped right into the frame. My comment suggests we do not follow the lead of the media in conceptualizing any problem as a war as we lose wars and it seems ACD is important to everyone. I also suggested we gather to find solutions, end Co2 emissions, and form movements to improve global climate conditions. I suggest we look at these problems not as enemies but as problems and put our collective resources together to solve them. As opposed to being adversarial.
So I guess this is a prefect example. I suggest we get along to get along and I get from you double capital letters and insults about hair. So if its open carry and stand my ground do I get to shoot?


#18

3 realms of action are crucial, and mutually reinforcing, but one is crucialer.

The essential problem of our civilization is our individual and collective inability/unwillingness to feel connection to life, including the life in people, other beings and ourselves. All the problems we think of as problems come from this one, and ultimately, what will save civilization is enough people waking to recognition of the psychological nature of the problem. Then they’ll begin to search for and get some vague framework of what needs to change, from their own newly-sensed inner wisdom and love, and from others, now that they can better choose who (and what) to trust and believe. The reason we’re addicted to consumption, conquest and busyness, and thus the reason for climate catastrophe and the larger ecological crisis, is all the unconscious fear, rage, shame, hatred and grief that we’re deadening ourselves to. Once we’re willing to feel that—both the emotions and the deadening, and the black-hole-of-denial unit they create together—the hold that it has on us is broken. Then we can pursue the things we need in the world, to survive in the world:

personal life changes, including those with family and community—growing as much of our own and our community’s food, fiber, medicine and material as we can; replacing broken large systems with smaller, more personal and more aware ones.

and also political action. Political action can’t in the end save us without the others, but it is the most urgent and important of the 3 right now, to buy us enough time to allow the inner changes to happen over generations, and to allow enough financial and social space for us to be able to contemplate and implement the personal, family and community changes that will go for low-hanging fruit of our consumptive lives, inspire ourselves and others to go further, and show what’s possible to those predisposed to denial and selective negativism (like tammons, with his/her litany of grossly false statements about energy that yap at the heels of the only forms that can provide safe, affordable, democratic life for all).

That inner emptiness is crippling too many, too deeply and too irrevocably to be filled in 15 years, the time we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 90% and implement other changes—reforestation and the transformation of agriculture to permaculture—to resequester the GHGs we’ve already emitted as fast we can. Except for those who started a long time ago, we can’t heal ourselves in time, let alone those others who are the ones blocking the necessary actions, but if enough can come to the realization of the problem, it will be like beginning therapy—of course not enough alone to fix everything, but often, it's enough just to start, to allow us the willingness to believe in the possibility of progress, to make us work hard enough to actually make progress.

http://www.theclimatemobilization.org Here’s one way to start the political action we need right now. It does assume a certain level of working within the system will be enough; I don’t think that’s true but this as the first level of action can be supplemented by others they way the Satyagraha movement acted on multiple levels at once—protest, appeal, negotiation, and at the same time replacing dysfunctional and oppressive and destructive systems with new ones: personal food, fiber, medicine, material and energy production, Transition Initiatives and more, including revolution, either metaphorical, real or both.


#21

The never-answered question:

Why do the moderators - under each software system that has been used for commenting - provide SR full run of this forum to endlessly attack everyone?

Her work here has ALWAYS been starkly contrary to the posted community guidelines.

Just on this thread: Three separate personal smears.

Two of which were responded to with simple straightforward refutations. Of course she typically does not respond to a clear tight demonstration that her premise is mistaken...

She has convinced herself, that the feeling she gets in her gut when she reads the word "we," is an accurate barometer of the secret professional duplicity of the person unfortunate enough to have used the word. The feeling in her gut! She "knows" you are a plant! She once called me a "little shit eater" because i noted her solipsism. Sad indeed! It is OK to call people little shit eaters here, apparently.

There is a millienia-old socio-linguistic record of using "we" with hundreds of common connotations and shadings of meaning. Very plain, linguistically. Except to certain relentlessly "blameless" people...


#22

Are you the new Shizel? Whoazzer, all-caps don't work.


#25

How many of those supporting doing something about Climate Change didn't vote in 2014 or voted Republican?


#26

I'll second that,,,


#28

i believe i understand your points.

When CD dropped the Disqus platform and announced they were working on a new commenting structure, i wrote an e-mail to them (that i ended up not sending before they launched the new system).

In my un-sent e-mail, i offered my assessment that any anonymous system would not function, unless at least the moderators actually require verification of who the commenters are, and "curate" the commenting community, actively removing people who demonstrate they will not follow basic guidelines of respect. And not keeping an open path for blocked people to endlessly return.

i never completely worked out my thoughts so i never sent it, but i was hopeful when the new "Commons" rolled out that it would be a great improvement. It does seem improved to some degree, so i guess i'm still hopeful that they will continue to get better at "curating."

It also seems like their hope is that structured self-management of "The Commons" will take care of the basics of curation without the need for intensive moderator oversight, but i'm not seeing how that will actually function.


#32

Even the wisdom of a Chinese philosopher can't change the fact that Anthropogenic Climate Disruption is real. It is not debatable at this point. Believing that is akin to following a wayward guru.


#33

RandyBo: Ignore SR's attacks. Like you I have looked at what I personally can do, and have tried to proceed in that direction. After years of studying I am re-building my home as close to zero grid input as possible. We are not wealthy, and at this point I don't see how it will be completed. I do this for two reasons: to give my children a chance to survive what is coming and hopefully to use what I learn here to help others. The other thing I have done is to remove myself from the game. During the latter portion of my professional career as a land surveyor I became involved in the gas fracking boom. Not independently, but through the efforts of my employer. Professionally it was the best gig I ever had: given a large degree of autonomy and freedom as long as I performed those tasks assigned to me; recognition as an authority in my field; brand new 4-wheel drive vehicle and gas card; and the best money I ever made strictly in the field of surveying and the best package of benefits and bonuses I have ever seen. I walked away from all of that because I believed it was wrong. Wish I could do more, but I am in the belly of the beast. And I should have started at least ten years earlier than I did.


#34

Hello Chicken, I'm not denying climate change, but don't prescribe to the dogma that it is all the people's fault. Partly it is, but hard to know how big a part we are playing in the change. I've just stated that "we the people" are not doing that much damage to our environment as the various "industrial complexes": military, agricultural, pharmaceutical, mining/extracting, etc, etc. I'm all for living a simpler life, but that's not quite enough - we should stop or at least reduce these industries.
OK, I could've said "panta rei", if you didn't like the Chinese one