186

The reason is that if climate change would not be human-caused, then humans would not be able to prevent it by scaling down their greenhouse gas emissions. The chain of reasoning which is most supported by the scientific data we currently have available (check earth science stackexchange for more information) is: Our industry creates carbon dioxide and ...


142

Culture. In the US denial of climate science has been turned into part of the 'culture wars'. As such it is part of identity of many on the political right to decry global warming as a left-wing invention made up for political ends. Any effect on reality, jobs or international relations is secondary. And it seems that unlike many things, like repealing ...


97

Burning fossil fuels has a negative impact on the environment. This impact is relatively well understood and predictable. Nuclear power may have a negative impact on the environment, both when the fuel rods and reactors reach their end of life and when accidents happen. The problems of radioactive waste disposal are not solved and accidents are ...


92

The issue used to be popular in '70s. Not only there had been an artificial oil scarcity caused by OPEC cartel but also there had been a famous book The Limits to Growth that were based on best computer models of that era, finite amount of resources and exponential growth. The problem is, that if one took their calculation at face value, then we should have ...


82

Big business Politics (of either mainstream party) in the USA is dependent on money from big business. Many of those big businesses prioritise short term profit over long term environmental preservation, or have bonus systems that promote short term (<5 years) gains over long term (>100 years) gains. Climate change action may reduce short term ...


81

TL;DR: Many green political parties worldwide predate widespread concerns over climate change. A timeline of events is in order: 1988: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is created. 1990: IPCC releases its First Assessment Report. 1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is adopted. Compare this with the ...


80

As long as we're still debating the nature of the problem, we don't have to actually address it. This is perhaps a cynical view, but I see this as a misdirection: "if you don't like what people are saying, change the conversation." You're right that whether or not humans caused it is somewhat tangential - either way it's happening and we need to ...


75

These are some of the reasons mentioned by Trump that support the withdrawal from the agreement. 1. It increases energy prices should the US follow through its goals. The United States hopes to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent below the 2005 level in 2025, and also try to reduce emissions by 28 percent as per aims set out by the Obama ...


65

You need to consider short term intermittency (the wind not always blowing and the sun being down 50% of the time). That needs to be covered by some form of short term storage, most of which are expensive at scale. Or long distance grid interconnects. But worse than that, you have, at least in some areas, massive seasonal variations. I've looked at, but ...


59

Both of your examples use solar energy to convert carbon dioxide into fuel. They are cutting edge, meaning that they haven't yet been engineered into usable systems that people could buy. The proof of concept was only published in 2016 and 2017 for each. So, reasons: They don't actually exist in usable form (yet). It's not clear that we are better ...


55

I can explain why the Swedish green party Miljöpartiet is against nuclear power. They have lots of arguments against nuclear power, but those which they consider the most important are summarized on their web page about nuclear power: Nuclear power is dangerous. Fukushima 2011 is given as an example. Nuclear power causes pollution. Examples include uranium ...


54

Proposed solutions to climate change are (almost?) all based on handing greater power to the government, and Conservatives are traditionally for smaller government. Proposed solutions to climate change come at a cost of increased taxation or economic slowdown, and Conservatives are traditionally in favor of free market and lower taxes. Big business donors ...


53

The stated intention on their website is to bring economic disruption to the capital as part of the ongoing campaign to convince the Government to take meaningful action on the Climate and Ecological Emergency. Time will tell what the Government takes meaningful action on. The Guardian article to which Denis linked says that "the results of an internal ...


46

Because nobody would pay any attention. There are huge amounts of coal left – the World Coal Association says that currently proven reserves amount to 150 years' worth at current levels of extraction. People have been saying since the 1970s or earlier that we'll run out of oil and natural gas in a couple of decades, but we've always found more. ...


43

No, Trump cannot undo the UN climate change agreement. All he can do is isolate the USA from participating in it. The USA signed the Paris Agreement on 22 April 2016, and became a formal Party to it on 3 September 2016. John Kerry and his team put a lot of work into word-smithing it to ensure it could be agreed by the US president, without the Senate. It ...


42

To give a somewhat glib answer, Fox News. In a 2019 poll, 12% of Republicans who watch Fox News believe in man-made climate change; the percentage among Republicans who don't watch Fox News rises to 28%. Of course, this doesn't explain the profile of Fox News viewers in any further detail. There's an older academic study (2011) which looked at additional ...


37

It's from a combination of factors. The following is the perspective from the United States: Conservatives are, on the whole, more aligned with business and/or industry Since industry is most likely to be adversely affected by the consequences of regulations to reduce global warming (emissions restrictions, for example) there is an incentive to deny global ...


33

tl;dr- Recycling CO2 at the scale that we're producing it's pretty expensive. Sure, we can technically do it, but it'd have to be cheaper than just switching to clean technologies to be worthwhile. It's a technical issue rather than a political one. First, CO2 does have some industrial uses. For example, it's useful in carbonating soft drinks — though we ...


33

tldr: future expenditure to provide clean energy to the world, is very much in line with current expenditure to provide mostly dirty energy to the world. The reason the switch isn't happening fast enough is due to the incumbents' political power, and the fact that their capital expenditure is a sunk cost. You ask why does it cost trillions of dollars to ...


30

(Note: not all Green parties oppose nuclear; see the greens are no longer anti-nuclear in Finland) If we got all our energy from nuclear power, identified resources with extant widely deployed reactor types would last us five (5) years. This is unsustainable. (However, there exist technologies at various levels of readiness levels that can potentially ...


29

Bear in mind that Trump is already seeking to terminate Obama's Clean Power Plan, among other environmental initiatives. This makes it unlikely that the US will meet its commitments under the Paris accord, and those commitments are anyways nonbinding. Yes, this includes the outstanding pledge of $2bn to the Green Climate Fund. As NPR reports, ...the ...


26

Remember that the Paris Accords was a non-binding agreement with the US agreeing to do a lot, with other countries doing little, if nothing. That was the chief criticism of it Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called ...


24

Trump has just won the elections. Can he somehow stop the US from participating in the UN COP21 climate change agreement (which was already signed formally by the US)? Yes In order to be binding in the United States (US), a treaty must be ratified by two thirds of the Senate (67 Senators). UN COP21 was not. It was just signed by Barack Obama. It is ...


23

Here's a link to some documentation on the survey. It was an invitation-only survey, and 10,257 Earth scientists were invited (from a database listing all geosciences faculty and working scientists). It was web-based, and 3,146 invitees participated. They broke the respondents down based on area of expertise and if they are actively publishing. Regarding ...


23

Too much hyperbole in reporting might distort the perception of what happened. That was not an "attack" as in the usual sense of "terrorism" but a badly coordinated small and temporary disruption of transport to grab the public attention. Even internally other members of Extinction Rebellion (XR) were not much agreeing on this action. ...


22

Yes, and a qualified no. International law and domestic policy are separate. And complicated. According to the UN Treaty Database, Obama signed the Paris Agreement on April 22, 2016 and accepted it on September 9, 2016. These words have specific legal meaning. Signatures are subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval. Obama's signature signaled the ...


22

Part of the problem is that EU companies are annually issued free carbon tax credits to a certain amount to satisfy obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme - these can be traded or "cashed in" against ETS allowances for emissions. The EU recently suspended free credit issuances to British companies, in preparation for Brexit, but did not release ...


22

To speak purely to the Christian theological point -- some theologians have interpreted Genesis 9:11 to be relevant: And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. U.S. Representative John Shimkus (Republican) made this ...


21

It's easier (and more energy efficient) to produce less CO2 than to make it and then try to capture it and break it apart. Rather than use solar energy to break CO2 apart, you could use that same solar energy to replace fossil fuel, and you'd get more energy out of it. It takes more energy to break CO2 apart than you get out of burning carbon to produce ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible