Dang it, I always take so long responding that the thread dies… oh well…

re: #393 Charles

in the case of climate change, it’s the old anti-government, anti-internationalist streak flaring up again. Climate change hits the hot buttons because any real solutions are going to require international cooperation on a scale we haven’t seen before, and possibly even compromises to some extent on national sovereignty

IMO there are 4 big reasons why the right has trouble with the climate change issue:

1) For years, global warming/cooling catastrophes have been predicted by people (often non-scientists) who seemed to have anti-American, anti-Capitalist motives. It’s hard for the right to start trusting the good science we have nowadays because of the bad pseudo-science in the past. Especially when it’s tied to policy solutions they view as anti-American or anti-Capitalist. As you say, the right has a hard time compromising national sovereignty or getting on board with big-government internationalist solutions, ESPECIALLY when it seems like Climate Change is merely an excuse for that agenda.

2) Sometimes environmentalism takes on a very religious-sounding tone. Sometimes it’s actually religious (earth-based religions; Gaia worship) while other times it simply uses religious-sounding phraseology (complete with a doomsday, prophets, and a plan of salvation.) There’s a perception among people on the right that much of “environmentalism” doesn’t actually help the environment, but serves as a substitute religion by making people feel pious. That’s a big turn-off for many religious people.

3) Many people have latched on to other scientific issues (like evolution) as a way to attack Christianity. While the average person thinks “scientific consensus” is a selling point, to those who’ve had their religious views attacked by people yelling “scientific consensus” it’s actually a reason NOT to trust it.

4) The scientific community has done a poor job of “selling” their case, particularly to the right. For one thing, the spokespeople haven’t been scientists, but rather, people like Al Gore and various Hollywood types — people the right already didn’t trust. The religious tone with which they’ve presented the case hasn’t helped. The “we must act now by giving up our national sovereignty” arguments don’t help. The term “global warming” doesn’t really communicate nuances like “winter storms get nastier”, and is therefore easily mocked. And many of those who’ve asked honest questions have been met with charges of “denier!” and “nutjob”, so they’re not likely to take the position seriously. Most of the right-wingers I know would like to do the right thing, but they have a hard time getting the message on account of the poor choice of messengers and poor methods of communication.

In order to make the case, we need to communicate it in such a way that it’s clear we’re not trying to sell an environmental religion, or selling out US sovereignty to the UN, or being suckered by those who are. We need to make it clear that human carbon output is a problem on legitimate scientific grounds, but that we’re not going to settle for bad solutions like “cap & trade” or feel-good platitudes. We need to provide clear descriptions of what the problem is and what needs to be done, and we need to give thoughtful recommendations for individual as well as government responses, while leaving room for honest questions and honest policy disagreements.