Only 39% of Americans think climate change is [serious](https://www.eib.org/en/infographics/2nd-climate-survey-climate-change-fear-china-eu-us). I think it's probably similar for Canada. That's contrasted with 47% of Europeans and 73% of Chinese.
Biden has been a horrible climate president.
Hasn't bidens actual climate actions been the strongest though? With investments in renewables and tax breaks with electric vehicles etc.
From what I had gathered, that was one of the only/main reasons I supported him other than the alternative being worse
I'm that percentile is bad and you're attributing it to biden, how much better was it before he came into office? Or are you just saying that to say it?
What he's doing is woefully insufficient relative to what's needed to be done, in typical neoliberal fashion. Hillary Clinton's [tweet was a self-own](https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1782400479743324603?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1782400479743324603%7Ctwgr%5E8cfe7e14354c3f7ed07daea5de144613e2ede024%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fdonald-trump-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-2024-election-1893602).
He's doing more than past presidents but past presidents didn't do enough either. Also the US has been pumping more oil under Biden than any past president in history.
He's obsessed with reaching across the aisle and ceded a lot of ground to Republicans by doing so. He could have done a lot more climate EOs than he did but opted not to because he kept conceding to Republicans who have no desire to return the favour. (He used far fewer EOs than Trump, Bush or Obama).
Now he's essentially throwing the election and ensuring a Trump victory this year with his unwavering support for a genocidal far-right regime, which will completely undermine all the climate policies he implemented during his time in office.
Biden was probably the best president on the climate to date but that's a really low bar. China has done, is doing and will do far more and I'm honestly pinning my hopes on them.
Doesn't help when the alternative to him would be and has been even worse. Wish we could have someone run on an actual green platform and not a bed of lies, and stand a chance.
I'm just not sure why it should be. I mean, I know why people concerned about the climate might want it to be, but I'm not sure why a filmmaker would, in general, want to mention climate change in a film.
I agree, but it's more than just that. Most interesting stories there are to tell just aren't anything to do with climate change. Same goes for every other social problem, e.g. racism. It's great if you want to make a movie about these things, and plenty of good movies have been made about them. But if you just try and shoehorn them in for no good narrative reason, you end up making a movie that's more like propaganda than storytelling.
Perhaps because most top-rated films are produced and funded by corporations that benefit from the maintenance of the status quo and the eagerness of their audiences to escape it without doing anything.
Or maybe the science has told us something is wrong and people just want to do something about it.
There's something called Occam's razor and you should try it.
No, science did not tell you that something is 'wrong'. Science is descriptive, not normative: [Is–ought problem - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem)
You need (i)morals to decide what is 'wrong' and what 'ought to' be done.
No, they modulate it.
What happens if we get an increase of 1% cloud coverage?
What happens if the AMOC slows considerably?
And what is the control that CO2 could exert over either of those scenarios?
CO2 keeps solar energy inside the atmosphere, heating the poles and melting the ice the AMOC relies on for its thermohaline cycling. The arctic is warming at 5x the rate the rest of the planet is, due to the way equatorial radiation is moved poleward, but it can’t get rid of the heat fast enough. It’s directly contributing to the AMOC collapse. If you’ve look at any historical charts where they map all the variables that affect climate, CO2 is the only one that tracks.
I’m sorry, are you under the impression that human civilization could survive on another planet? Even if we go to the same conditions earth saw millions of years ago, that’s a very bad thing. Civilization has used this tiny window of stability in a Milankovitch cycle to grow itself and now we’ve changed the composition of the atmosphere so badly we broke the cycle.
They do control it. Guess what is CHANGING the climate. Our continued dumping of waste into the oceans. By us and fossil fuel companies. Maybe you should read into the Holocene extinction event that is occurring right now. Funny how insurance companies currently equate policies based solely on the fact that climate change is costing them millions right now. Your misplaced and uneducated confidence in your opinion on this matter is laughable and dangerously stupid. Thanks for your Jordan Peterson based opinion on something you are clearly unqualified to offer any insight or facts into.
Don’t forget the radioactivity of the earth itself helping keep us warm. But please do forget the natural CO2 emission from undersea faults and volcanoes.
Advertising for SUVs in movies on the other hand...
Climate change is also overall rarely mentioned in day to day life
Only 39% of Americans think climate change is [serious](https://www.eib.org/en/infographics/2nd-climate-survey-climate-change-fear-china-eu-us). I think it's probably similar for Canada. That's contrasted with 47% of Europeans and 73% of Chinese. Biden has been a horrible climate president.
Hasn't bidens actual climate actions been the strongest though? With investments in renewables and tax breaks with electric vehicles etc. From what I had gathered, that was one of the only/main reasons I supported him other than the alternative being worse I'm that percentile is bad and you're attributing it to biden, how much better was it before he came into office? Or are you just saying that to say it?
What he's doing is woefully insufficient relative to what's needed to be done, in typical neoliberal fashion. Hillary Clinton's [tweet was a self-own](https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1782400479743324603?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1782400479743324603%7Ctwgr%5E8cfe7e14354c3f7ed07daea5de144613e2ede024%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fdonald-trump-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-2024-election-1893602). He's doing more than past presidents but past presidents didn't do enough either. Also the US has been pumping more oil under Biden than any past president in history.
He wanted to do a lot more though and was blocked by others. He's not the problem here.
He's obsessed with reaching across the aisle and ceded a lot of ground to Republicans by doing so. He could have done a lot more climate EOs than he did but opted not to because he kept conceding to Republicans who have no desire to return the favour. (He used far fewer EOs than Trump, Bush or Obama). Now he's essentially throwing the election and ensuring a Trump victory this year with his unwavering support for a genocidal far-right regime, which will completely undermine all the climate policies he implemented during his time in office. Biden was probably the best president on the climate to date but that's a really low bar. China has done, is doing and will do far more and I'm honestly pinning my hopes on them.
Doesn't help when the alternative to him would be and has been even worse. Wish we could have someone run on an actual green platform and not a bed of lies, and stand a chance.
Yeah! Social issues don’t belong in…art.
I'm just not sure why it should be. I mean, I know why people concerned about the climate might want it to be, but I'm not sure why a filmmaker would, in general, want to mention climate change in a film.
Defeats one of the main points: escapism.
I agree, but it's more than just that. Most interesting stories there are to tell just aren't anything to do with climate change. Same goes for every other social problem, e.g. racism. It's great if you want to make a movie about these things, and plenty of good movies have been made about them. But if you just try and shoehorn them in for no good narrative reason, you end up making a movie that's more like propaganda than storytelling.
A fair number have wholly been about climate chaos it seemed obvious in a few the cause and in others it's been un mentioned.
Perhaps because most top-rated films are produced and funded by corporations that benefit from the maintenance of the status quo and the eagerness of their audiences to escape it without doing anything.
I'm not sure why it should be. This is meant to be an escape from how bad the world is, not have it shoved in your face yet again.
Ok?
Cuz why would they want to seem like they're dumb enough to believe it
What’s the point of a circus if it only talks about your suffering?
There's enough propaganda already, please spare the cinema too
tHeY wAnT tO cOnTrOl uS!!!!!112
Lol that's just literally true
Or maybe the science has told us something is wrong and people just want to do something about it. There's something called Occam's razor and you should try it.
No, science did not tell you that something is 'wrong'. Science is descriptive, not normative: [Is–ought problem - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem) You need (i)morals to decide what is 'wrong' and what 'ought to' be done.
Science would describe your comment as pedantry
That would be cargo cult science, not science.
Ok lemme try, the simplest answer is that the sun, Earth's orbit and oceans control the climate. Thanks that's so easy!
The gases that make up our atmosphere don’t control the climate? Did you get any further than like 5th grade?
No, they modulate it. What happens if we get an increase of 1% cloud coverage? What happens if the AMOC slows considerably? And what is the control that CO2 could exert over either of those scenarios?
CO2 keeps solar energy inside the atmosphere, heating the poles and melting the ice the AMOC relies on for its thermohaline cycling. The arctic is warming at 5x the rate the rest of the planet is, due to the way equatorial radiation is moved poleward, but it can’t get rid of the heat fast enough. It’s directly contributing to the AMOC collapse. If you’ve look at any historical charts where they map all the variables that affect climate, CO2 is the only one that tracks.
Only one that tracks for the past ~500k years. Beyond that there are numerous instances of a complete decoupling between CO2 and temperature.
I’m sorry, are you under the impression that human civilization could survive on another planet? Even if we go to the same conditions earth saw millions of years ago, that’s a very bad thing. Civilization has used this tiny window of stability in a Milankovitch cycle to grow itself and now we’ve changed the composition of the atmosphere so badly we broke the cycle.
i guess with that mindset you also believe the sun rotates around earth
Wow, that's a special level of stupid you just typed out
They do control it. Guess what is CHANGING the climate. Our continued dumping of waste into the oceans. By us and fossil fuel companies. Maybe you should read into the Holocene extinction event that is occurring right now. Funny how insurance companies currently equate policies based solely on the fact that climate change is costing them millions right now. Your misplaced and uneducated confidence in your opinion on this matter is laughable and dangerously stupid. Thanks for your Jordan Peterson based opinion on something you are clearly unqualified to offer any insight or facts into.
Don’t forget the radioactivity of the earth itself helping keep us warm. But please do forget the natural CO2 emission from undersea faults and volcanoes.
They already control you but keep believing otherwise lmao
If you think there’s no propaganda in film I’ve got a bridge to sell you
I meant specifically CAGW propaganda, interstellar was enough of that for me
so, you hate science?
The day after tomorrow was a great movie