.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Friday, October 12, 2007

Here's what I don't get about global warming deniers....

I understand why heavy industry and petrocarbon corporations work to deny global warming. I can even understand why politicians might deny global warming to cater to these industries.

But why does a "Jethro in the street" with no real reason to support either side care so passionately that global warming is perceived as fake?

I think it has to do with their identity. I think global warming/green is perceived as a "weak" issue, and somehow if they support it, they might be gay.

Anybody got any better ideas?

posted by mikevotes at 3:23 PM

13 Comments:

  • That's part of it for sure. But I think there's a class element too....rich intellectual tree-huggers are seen as wanting to put the working class on the bread line.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:34 PM  

  • There are many, many people in America who are deluded by jingoistic mythology of American infallibility. Climate change (a term I think is more accurate that "global warming") issues, and by extension the human causes of climate change, forces these people to deal with difficult, humbling realities that they are too selfish and/or emotionally immature to deal with. Thus, they deny, deny, deny. These are the same people how see the poor as lazy, the under-insured as whiner. They see science as the enemy when it doesn't support their Pollyanna vision of America: Infallible, ever blessed land of rightness.

    There is also the class issue, I think, where the under educated simply resent and the educated. It is a bigotry not dissimilar to homophobia or xenophobia or racism.

    Bridging these two is the twisted ideology of fundamentalism... A cult of myth over reason.

    By Blogger -epm, at 3:58 PM  

  • Anon, so you see it as class identity? I can see that. So in my attempt at hamhanded analogy, the "non-Americans" are trying to force it on us "true Americans."

    Kind of part of a Red/Blue division. Interesting.

    EPM, That's intriguing, that global warming represents a challenge to a conception of American progress.

    Fiddling with it a little, that would also explain the refusal to apologize/acknowledge slavery or the Indian slaughters.

    The reaction to global warming is a denial reaction, a defense.

    That's pretty deep. I'm going to have to chew on that.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 6:09 PM  

  • Exactly my thinking.

    By Blogger -epm, at 6:39 PM  

  • I think I really like this idea.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 9:24 PM  

  • there is also a huge propaganda campaign going on. nonsense documentaries like 'the great global warming swindle' and so on...

    i urge everyone to watch this...

    http://tinyurl.com/2ee9km

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:15 AM  

  • I see it as a classic industry vs. environmental movement battle. I lived up in Humboldt county CA during the major battles over certain forests, and battle lines were clear. Using the the pejorative titles the two sides gave each other...

    The tree-hugging-dope-smoking-traitors vs. the flag-waving-brain-washed-rednecks.

    The global warming issue breaks down much the same way. There isn't a whole lot of logic to it, it is more like supporting your favorite football team, or flying your gang colors.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 5:30 AM  

  • Michael, and there's been a fair amount of money spent on that.

    And up until the last year or so, the media actually presented the it as a debate with the president saying "not all the facts are in."

    ...

    Praguetwin, Reshaping what you're saying, yeah. There's definitely an element of partisanship or team. But how was this turned into a partisan issue?

    On a broader level, how did environmentalism become partisan?

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 7:23 AM  

  • I think the environmental movement became partisan with Lady Bird Johnson. I know that when I was involved, you didn't meet a lot of Republicans involved in the movement. The Republicans have long viewed environmental movements as counter to their profit-making agenda.

    This is just the latest round in the battle.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 7:49 AM  

  • Really. That's pretty interesting.

    I mean, didn't Nixon push the first big environmental laws?

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 8:20 AM  

  • Well, I mean, Teddy Roosevelt was an environmentalist, but I think popular culture jumped on board with the Democrats in the late 60s.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 2:30 PM  

  • I wasn't trying to nitpick. I agree with your general point, I just question the point of division.

    Certainly it was in place by Reagan.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 3:44 PM  

  • I think the 80s election of Reagan sealed it. Remember all the conservation efforts of Jimmy Carter? That was spun as leading us into recession. Elect Reagan, be wasteful and follow your God-given right to be prosperous.

    The lines were clear at that point.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 5:01 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home