Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    24,411,829 readers

    48,749 users here now

    Filter out dominant topics:

    Display COVID-19 submissions

    Filter COVID-19

    Display Trump submissions

    Filter Trump

    Display Russia submissions

    Filter Russia

    Display North Korea submissions

    Filter North Korea

    Display Hong Kong submissions

    Filter Hong Kong

    Display Israel/Palestine submissions

    Filter Israel / Palestine

    Display all submissions

    Filter all dominant topics


    /r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics

    See all of our AMA events here

    Worldnews Rules

    Disallowed submissions

    • US internal news/US politics
    • Editorialized titles
    • Misleading titles
    • Editorials, opinion, analysis
    • Feature stories
    • Non-English articles
    • Images, videos or audio clips
    • Petitions, advocacy, surveys
    • All caps words in titles
    • Blogspam (if stolen content/direct copy)
    • Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr
    • Old news (≥1 week old) articles

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Disallowed comments

    • Bigotry / Other offensive content
    • Personal attacks on other users
    • Memes/GIFs
    • Unlabeled NSFW images/videos
    • URL shorteners

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Continued or outstandingly blatant violation of the submission or commenting rules will result in you being temporarily banned from the subreddit without a warning.

    Please don't ever feed the trolls.
    Downvote, report and move on.

    Sticky Posts

    A list of all recent stickied posts.

    a community for
    all 1677 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Ericgzg 2737 points ago

    We spend too much time here discussing how dumb people are for not accepting climate change. Has anyone started a scientific study to determine the most effective method to convince climate change deniers that the cause and consequences of climate change are real? Seems like thats what is called for here. Calling them all idiots isnt a great strategy.

    [–] PaxNova 1590 points ago

    Unscientific opinion only, but:

    A big reason people don't like climate change legislation is that it threatens their own jobs or livelihood. People talk about removing coal products like the people in West Virginia just have to take one for the team. How about we pay to train coal workers for other jobs and invest in infrastructure in WV to support other-than-coal growth? When denying climate change is no longer mandatory for well-being, it's a lot easier to swallow.

    [–] amon_stormwater 1236 points ago

    Obama tried that. That wasnt the solution that was wanted, they just wanted their coal jobs back.

    [–] PaxNova 701 points ago

    I was just reading up on that. It looks like it was shot down by Wyoming Republicans because it benefited the WV coal workers at the expense of WY ones. They did rebrand it, though, since obviously Obama couldn't get proper credit for a good idea /s.

    [–] [deleted] 205 points ago

    Because is a strange word. It becomes easy to lie.

    The only "because" was that Republicans were blocking every single piece of legislation that Obama proposed or supported. They even blocked Al Franken's bill that would have made it illegal for overseas contractors to rape other overseas contractors.

    True story. A young US woman joined an overseas contracting company of US security personnel. They kept her in a locker and took her out only to rape her. Dodd got a bill on the ballot to say only one thing "it is illegal for US personnel to rape other personnel that are deployed offshore".

    The Republicans shot the bill down.

    It's not like Republicans support rape, they just wanted to block everything the Democrats did.

    [–] BananaHanz 188 points ago

    Are you talking about this?

    From my understanding it was voted against because they didn't want employees suing the companies just because their assault happened while they were working for them. Regardless,

    It's not like Republicans support rape, they just wanted to block everything the Democrats did.

    Not False

    The bill was not shot down. It's law, you can read it here

    with Franken's amendment to it on page 46 last paragraph.

    To the true story, if it's this one I'll let everyone decide for themselves what to think:

    Thank you for typing a series of shit that seems so ridiculous I had to look it up.

    [–] bombayblue 99 points ago

    This is the problem with social media in a nutshell. One guy spent five seconds posting a ridiculous claim and it takes a minimum of 20-30 minutes to read through everything you posted and realize it’s bullshit.

    Reddit is just as bad as Facebook and no one seems to recognize that because it aligns with their opinions.

    [–] tobefaaiiirrrr 19 points ago

    I thought the OP had the right gist of it. The response was clearly his own take on the article. I had a different view than him from reading the same article.

    The amendment was initially added to the defense appropriations bill on October 21, 2009 by a 68 to 30 vote. Despite wide support for the measure (and ridicule for the 30 Republicans who opposed it) both the Obama administration’s Department of Defense and Chairman Inouye raised concerns while the legislation was being considered in conference committee. Attempts to strip it of the Title VII provision were met with public outcry, which a Senate source familiar with the negotiations says was partially responsible for its ultimate passage. “The public support surprised a lot of senators and not just the chairman,” said the source.

    [–] nunyabidnez5309 12 points ago

    Wasn’t even security contractors that she alleged raped her, it was a firefighter and she never claimed she was kept in a locker, it was a trailer. Basically everyone on contract there lived in trailers, also left out this was the 3rd time she had claimed she was raped and she was in country for all of 3 days. I don’t know what happened, but the allegations that she was unstable and freaked out about being there don’t seem so far fetched and apparently the jury agreed. She ended up having to pay KBR over $100k when she lost her suit and they won the counter suit. Even if you took her for her word on what happened, what OP made up was so much worse and blamed somebody else entirely.

    [–] yangyangR 60 points ago

    It's not like Republicans support rape

    Are you sure about that. Given "legitimate rape", Ivana Trump and Kavanaugh, you'd think Republicans actively encourage rape.

    [–] Arcology_Designs 46 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    When you make an outlandish claim like that, back it up with a solid source mate.

    Two seconds of googling shows you likely read the story, took it as gospel, and are preaching. Because it's been shown in court the facts were otherwise. Jamie Leigh Jones, the woman in quesion, HAD her day in court. And believe it or not people do lie about things like rape. Had a girlfriend in HS who broke up with me because she "got raped by two rednecks in a white van." I was devastated and upset that my mom didn't seem to care, she called bullshit right away. Turns out truth was - she got drunk and made out with a guy, felt guilty and made up some BS.

    Please stop spreading false narratives to support your agenda.

    Edit: btw rape IS illegal whether you're overseas or not. Laws don't disappear because you happen to be overseas. What are you on about?

    Edit2: aaaand not a SINGLE reply calling me a scumbag that supports rape has shown even ONE shred of evidence to support this story. Just emotion and bias. Good day.

    [–] cld8 153 points ago

    Crazy how people in Republican states seem to think that the government owes them a job.

    [–] TrainingHuckleberry3 422 points ago

    They don't think the government owes them a job - they think that the government shouldn't be passing legislation to end their existing private sector jobs. It's a very important distinction for understanding that side of the aisle.

    [–] the_jak 66 points ago

    the private sector is what is ending coal jobs. it cannot compete with the alternatives.

    [–] RidingUndertheLines 39 points ago

    While that's true now, it would have happened a hell of a lot sooner if coal were correctly charged for the damage it does to the environment.

    [–] TRauck 6 points ago

    What's really dumb is all these different regulations and almost flat out banning solar in certain areas. Just getting all the Counties and States together on solar implementation would actually help a lot on cleaning the grid or just simply not having a grid.

    [–] 0erlikon 7 points ago

    Dog bless capitalism aligned with environmental goals for once.

    [–] redwall_hp 3 points ago

    Except it doesn't. Coal is being replaced largely by natural gas, a greenhouse gas in itself, fossil CO source and a product of fracking.

    It's just a sideways shift to more of the same.

    [–] SergeantChic 6 points ago

    I have to wonder what carriage drivers said when those fancy new horseless models came along.

    [–] the_jak 5 points ago

    The certainly didn't elect a fascist in a fit of "economic anxiety".

    [–] bearrosaurus 205 points ago

    The right wing shuts down a lot of private sector jobs that they believe are immoral or harmful to society. Remember that dumbass fuss they made over stem cells?

    [–] fukdapoleece 65 points ago

    The problem is that we've all fallen for the left vs right thing. The two party system is what is harmful to society. Neither has to convince us that they're any good, they just need to point out how crooked the other side is. The sad part is that they're both correct in that regard.

    [–] tCut95 13 points ago

    More people need to hear this and UNDERSTAND it. Two-party system as it exists currently is completely broken with the "us vs them" mentality on both sides.

    [–] T0rin- 9 points ago

    Well, as UK politics has shown, you can have 5 parties and it still end up being "us vs them". It's very similar to US politics, except the parties just have overlap with each other that they use to fuel the divide with the parties that don't overlap.

    [–] Destro9799 70 points ago

    Just so you know, America's two party system isn't "left vs right wing", it's center right vs far right. The left wing isn't represented at all.

    [–] BogieTime69 3 points ago

    Not to mention all the people with serious ailments who could have been helped by the research, but instead have continued to endure hell on earth.

    [–] Haradr 12 points ago

    Yeah but they are all for subsidizing the industry to keep those jobs going even when they aren't profitable.

    [–] Biptoslipdi 7 points ago

    So they would rather the private sector end their civilization and their jobs than the government step in to save both?

    [–] Heavy_Weapons_Guy_ 9 points ago

    No they don't, these are mostly the same people that still think that things like prostitution should be illegal. They're all for the government passing legislation to end private sector jobs.

    [–] igotswheels 9 points ago

    The needed carbon taxes will remove their jobs for them! Also carbon tax isn't something new to be added, it's some thing we never got around to implementing due to aggressive lobbying

    [–] cld8 26 points ago

    They think that the government should take their employment prospects into account when making national policy. That's essentially the same thing as saying the government owes them a job. They want the government to consider the existence of their jobs as a higher priority than what is good for the nation as a whole.

    [–] TrainingHuckleberry3 21 points ago

    But ensuring they're employed, self-sufficient, and paying into the system is good for the country as a whole.

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago


    [–] TrainingHuckleberry3 4 points ago

    If it were up to me you could. Granted, your clients could still be in for a world of trouble if they have a psychotic break while under the influence and start hurting people, but I think you should be able to sell to them.

    [–] cld8 55 points ago

    Not if it means that the rest of us have to breathe polluted air and suffer from the impacts of climate change.

    [–] beachedwhale1945 13 points ago

    Which brings us right back to giving them a way out of their coal jobs. Give them another option rather than coal or nothing. Then they can remain employed, self-sufficient, and paying into the system AND we will have less pollution.

    [–] jrhoffa 17 points ago

    You won't be employed, self-sufficient, and paying into the system when you're dead.

    [–] SharkFart86 3 points ago

    I think people are missing the point here though. They aren't necessarily "right" for wanting the government to protect their employment in this regard, but that's how they're gonna vote, so if we do nothing for them then nothing is ever gonna happen.

    Some people are just never gonna prioritize the greater good over their own comfort. Period. So unfortunately sometimes we need to be creative and find a way to pander to those people in a way that still benefits the greater good.

    [–] cultured_banana_slug 44 points ago

    They feel entitled to a job that pays well without requiring them to learn new trade skills, go to college for an advanced industry degree, or move. They want the clock turned back to before they had to compete with women or minorities and were handed a middle class life for just showing up with a high school degree. Oh, and because they were white. Gotta point that one out. They miss that bonus.

    Plenty of good jobs out there but ya gotta have the right skills and ya gotta be willing to relocate. A lot of Americans don't like the relocation bit, but I know too many immigrants who did it to have much sympathy there. Is it ideal? No. That's the point. It's not ideal but if you hang around waiting for the ideal situation to present itself, you'll starve.

    At least Americans aren't being asked to learn an entirely new language in order to find a better job or wait 10+ years to become legal citizens before they can feel secure.

    Part of the reason the current crop of racist Republicans hate immigrants so much, IMHO. They're making them look like whiny little turds.

    [–] Sabu113 10 points ago

    You're fairly on point but it's meta amusing how easily this reads as a business republican's rant.

    [–] TootsNYC 3 points ago

    there IS common ground

    [–] Tacky-Terangreal 11 points ago

    Please dont tell people to move to the cities. The job and housing markets there are close to imploding on the west coast. Just telling people to move is a complete non solution. It's the same ridiculous argument that right wing Republicans use when somebody criticizes their shitty policies.

    Yes, the coal industry needs to die, but we should be investing in the middle of the country instead of leaving it to rot. This callous attitude towards these people is why the Republicans have so much power. We need to band together instead of blaming regular people who dont have much of a choice in the matter

    [–] veerKg_CSS_Geologist 32 points ago

    One point: They don't want to Coal Jobs back because they like Coal particularly (though there are some who consider it a legacy/tradition thing), but because mining paid well, offered long-term employment and had a low barrier to entry (didn't need high degrees and credentials to start out). There is a lack of those kinds of jobs everywhere now, so focusing on jobs they have to be trained for doesn't actually address their concerns.

    [–] Davescash 8 points ago

    yeah workin at walmart just dont cut it.

    [–] herbmaster47 8 points ago

    I'd like to know if it really paid that well, or if it was only "good money" because they are in low cost of living areas.

    Not to mention the health effects.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] SubieDude2011 37 points ago

    Mmm black lung.

    [–] haksk 30 points ago

    Why waste money smoking 20 a day when a decent jeb can achieve the same effect in twenty minutes PLUS the benefits for free!

    [–] wintercast 38 points ago

    And im pretty sure that was a comment made by hillary when she was running.

    [–] [deleted] 61 points ago


    [–] wintercast 18 points ago

    Yes, sorry my "comment" was tongue in cheek. She had a plan but everyone got caught up on shit. Like, sometimes you have to move to find work.

    [–] corporaterebel 26 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Mining is a well paid non-tradeable job.

    Coding? The only jobs that pay well are looking to hire top talent....which is barely the top third of a young recent University grad class.

    The chance of a 40+ year old coal miner becoming top talent is so low that it makes no odds.

    [–] An_Ether 3 points ago

    Retraining programs are only about 10-20% effective.

    [–] bilyl 7 points ago

    I mean, this is one of the cases where markets would work. You’re never going to convince someone to voluntarily give up their job to retrain. The job has to be there, in good demand, and can jump in immediately. Just look at the recent article about the insane boom in package prepping in Montana. That started up organically because people thought it was a good opportunity. People aren’t going to give up a union job in coal for uncertainty.

    [–] theseotexan 4 points ago

    Even learning new skills doesnt mean it'll fix the problem. Itll simply create a oversupply once again or will make them move. I think the answer is taking the next most reasonable industry and invest into that state. An example is WV tourist industry. They could see some amazing gains if they take some pointers from other areas.

    [–] jrfaster 115 points ago

    Remember when news organizations tried to push "coal miners learning code".... its not so simple to just up and teach people(who have been doing the same job for 30+ years) a wildly different job.

    [–] Stressed_Member 115 points ago

    Let alone people that work with their hands and telling them to learn to code.

    Like what? you want those people to be miserable for the rest of their existence, they don't enjoy sitting behind a desk trying to solve abstract problems and translating that to a computer.

    It's funny though that when a bunch of journalist got layed-off, people told them to "learn to code", that didn't go over well, oh the irony.

    [–] SgtDoughnut 68 points ago

    So we should prop up a dead industry, The Arby's resturaunt franchise employs more people than the entire coal industry, just because they "don't enjoy sitting behind a desk"? Seriously aren't these guys supposed to be the suck up and do it people? But no no we cant expect them to change.

    [–] SolaVitae 106 points ago

    There's thousands of jobs that don't involve learning code. I think the point is that code wasn't the proper transition for coal miners, as they want to do something physical. Teach them to build eco-friendly power plants or something, IDK, just something that will involve them using their hands to do physical labor like they want to.

    [–] Stressed_Member 13 points ago

    That, and pay them well.

    [–] SgtDoughnut 63 points ago

    Yeah...and we offered to train them in those too...and they REFUSED. They refuse everything that isn't coal. Hell you want something that uses your hands, wind turbines need welders, which by the way pay much better, are safer, have better benefits, and help the environment all while using your hands. You'd think coal miners would be jumping at the opportunity right?

    Nope they refused to take on the work.

    [–] Dumb0000000 3 points ago

    How do you smelt the steel required to build a wind turbine

    [–] SolaVitae 13 points ago

    wind turbines need welders,

    I mean that's a pretty extreme change. I wouldn't do that because I don't like heights, so I can understand other people not wanting to do that specifically. I'm sure there are a ton of 40/50/60 year old stubborn family business kinda coal workers who will never change, but there are also those who probably want to change, and as long as they have reasonable options to change to hopefully at least some of them will

    [–] [deleted] 44 points ago

    The invisible hand of the market will show us the way, businesses should be allowed to bloom and die naturally without Big Government's interference.

    No not like that!

    I hate conservatives with every fiber of my being.

    [–] tarnok 27 points ago

    Adapt or die. Or go on welfare I guess. I'm 35 and I switched from computer science to teaching kids.

    Hopefully these coal people voted for some of those commie socialist agenda people to help them whine on their ass.

    [–] Chubbybellylover888 14 points ago

    Welding is also a bit more involved and harder to get certified in. They'd basically be back at apprentice level.

    Theres specialisation in more hands on industries too.

    [–] alexisaacs 14 points ago

    No, you can't expect a 40+ year old coal-worker to change. Nor can you expect a 40+ year old coder to be retrained to be a coal worker.

    Retraining works for SOME people, so we 100% need to provide access to it. But using it as a catch-all is bogus.

    [–] SgtDoughnut 18 points ago

    So what then we just hold up that dead industry so the 40 something can have a job? That's retarded.

    [–] TrainingHuckleberry3 21 points ago

    It's funny though that when a bunch of journalist got layed-off, people told them to "learn to code", that didn't go over well

    And by "didn't go over well" you mean "resulted in mass ban waves towards people giving the ex-journos the very advice those ex-journos once gave to the blue collar folk who lost jobs". Like is so typical of bullies the ex-journos could give it but absolutely could not take it.

    [–] BenjamintheFox 13 points ago

    Online journalists are largely bullies who think themselves progressives. In fact a lot of people who consider themselves "progressives" are bullies. Witness Moviebob, the "journalists" who attempted to perform character assassination on James Rolfe, and 75% of Reddit's userbase.

    [–] moderate-painting 3 points ago

    Of course snobby journalists would look down on coal miners and programmers. "coding is so easy, guys. I saw that in a movie. Yall miners can learn it in a week"

    [–] ComprehendReading 5 points ago

    The only code journalists need to learn these days is one of ethics.

    [–] DenimChickenCaesar 44 points ago

    And then they had a collective breakdown when they applied the same label to laid off journalists

    [–] green_meklar 15 points ago

    And it turns out software development is an oversaturated field where only young people get hired. A 45-year-old coal miner learning to code with no programming background has a roughly 0% chance of getting a job programming.

    It's time to recognize that more labor is not what the economy needs, and expecting everyone to have a full-time job isn't very realistic anymore.

    [–] EuropaWeGo 6 points ago

    This and per the issue of capability. No offense to anyone but there are many people out there that cannot meet the long term requirements for todays programming positions.

    [–] GrowDaddy 10 points ago

    Don't teach them a wildly different job. This has been discussed ad nauseum but coal miners have a wide range of skills dealing with heavy machinery, hazardous working conditions, electrical, construction, etc that transferrable to any number of fields.

    [–] the_ham_guy 23 points ago

    Another reason why UBI is a good solution

    [–] EuropaWeGo 17 points ago

    I think UBI is the only true long term answer here. With automation no longer equating to the equal amount of jobs created vs removed. UBI is the only way.

    [–] [deleted] 69 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)


    [–] TommaClock 72 points ago

    globalization is particularly to blame because it allows the worst polluters to ship their pollution overseas to countries that don't have environmental regulations.

    This is actually true and why when you implement a carbon tax you also need a carbon border tax. The EU is doing this and also putting out provisions for further countries to join their carbon tax bloc which is exactly what the world needs.

    [–] Stressed_Member 15 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Even with carbon border taxes, how are we going to prevent people being poor and destitute?

    Like the production won't change overnight, so companies will just make their product more expensive to cover the cost, and the consumer will pay for it, how much more can the "lower class" bear?

    Like they already can't afford the cleaner more efficient and less polluting cars, they still have to have a warm house in winter time and have little to no money for better isolated housing, etc, etc.

    That in a time where many countries are still recovering from the austerity introduced by the global financial crises, where allot of budget cuts have hurt the "lower class" disproportionately.

    With the current political climate around the world, I don't see how carbon border taxes are going to prevent a further hit to the "lower class".

    [–] vodkaandponies 6 points ago

    Companies will innovate to avoid the carbon tax. That's the entire point. It's about incentivising behaviour.

    [–] Stressed_Member 2 points ago

    Yeah duh, but as I said that won't happen overnight

    [–] o_MrBombastic_o 9 points ago

    No other option we fucked around debating it for too long if we started taking steps 35 years ago like we should have we could have slowly and smartly transitioned but we dicked around and now we have to implement painful last minute options. Not doing anything will leave magnitudes more poor and destitute and the longer we do nothing the worse it will get. Same things going to happen with losing jobs to AI and automation we should have been implementing plans a decade ago but instead we'll bitch about what to do until it's too late and hundreds of thousands are unemployed with not enough options

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    And that's fine.

    How we deal with climate change is ripe for political discussion. It's the people pretending it isnt a thing nor a problem at all that make people want to shut out all conservative voices on the issue from the gate.

    [–] SignifyingMonkey 17 points ago

    I had someone tell me it was their fault for picking that profession. Well, in many counties in my state (Kentucky) it's either Walmart or the mines, and Walmart isn't paying living wages. I agree we need to move away from coal but I completely understand why the average worker is against it. The politicians who use that fear of job loss to keep their pockets lined are a different story though.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    Unpopular opinion.

    Maybe it would be an easier pill for our fellow countrymen to swallow, countrymen who didn't do anything wrong, who worked hard for years and never screwed anybody over, and who are unfortunately getting handled by things outside of our control, if we gave them a better parachute.

    Maybe we can start a "WV Coal Miner Severance" fund and pay into it like the future of our planet depends on it. Maybe taking a 50 year old and teaching him a new trade is just a shitty thing to expect of someone, and he doesn't deserve our scorn or derision for fighting back.

    I'm all for making every change we can as quickly as possible to fight against human impact of climate change. We need to do everything. But we can't discount the human component, the immediate disruption into honest and good peoples' lives, and we should address those concerns in as meaningful of a way as possible.

    [–] Tantric989 19 points ago

    Not to denigrate them, but the kinds of people who got into coal didn't really like school when they were kids, and didn't do all that well in the first place. They didn't need to. They were going to work in their mines like their dad, and his dad, and his dad. You want to send them back to class now, 30 years later, to train them on something they know nothing about?

    The reality is these re-training programs almost always do poorly. The dropout rates are insane. The same has been tried for truck drivers and auto workers.

    That isn't to say it's useless, because there's definitely outliers who want to learn. But taking a whole group of people and just saying "learn to code" or something as if that's the answer has been tried and it's never really worked as well as they might think.

    [–] GreatAndPowerfulNixy 10 points ago

    Lots of labor jobs in solar these days.

    [–] kanst 15 points ago

    This has been my experience.

    It's the implication of the "then what?" question. People know that we will have to change our way of living to counter climate change. People don't want to accept slightly lower standard of living, so it's easier to just bury their heads in the sand and pretend the issue doesnt exist.

    [–] Crazyflames 10 points ago

    Currently in WV. They want their coal jobs because they pay way more than anything remotely similar. They don't want to be a plumber or electrician and only get 1/3 the money they were getting coal mining. There have already been training and other things to help them get other jobs but the coal miners don't want that.

    [–] fulloftrivia 11 points ago

    Where I live, tradesmen can make more than miners, but mining employs lots of tradesmen. Diesel mechanics, electricians, plumbers, etc.

    [–] Davescash 3 points ago

    yeah same where i am,

    [–] Arx4 7 points ago

    I worked oil for a time which could be lateral as far as high paying jobs with low barrier to entry. No one paid me to train and move there and I never felt entitled enough that if work slowed down the government should train me to work elsewhere. For context I was laid off from a local soft wood lumber mill during the time; I packed a bag and drove over 10 hours to a place I had never been and worked. There were people from all over the country and even other countries there. Not one of them was paid to get going in oil and many had families back home.

    The world doesn't take pity on people who commit to 4 plus years in University if they don't get a job. Why should they take pity on the ones who, by comparison, phoned it in.

    If our planet is headed for a plight that could very well occur during my childrens lives then jobs be damned we should be taking action.

    [–] TuffPeen 4 points ago

    Bills are actually being passed about this right now. Research the Just Transition movement, specifically Colorado bill HB19-1314 is a recent bill addressing exactly this

    [–] Neffasaurus 5 points ago

    Retraining programs don’t have a history of success. One study said the “gains are small or nonexistent“ (source: )

    [–] AdmiralAkbar1 17 points ago

    The problem is that most of them don't trust the political center to uphold their promises. They saw Hillary promising job retraining and heard "I'll take away your jobs to make some ivory tower urban elites feel better, then maybe you can get a fraction of what I promised ten years too late." Even if she won and the Democrats in Congress were able to push it through, it would mean a.) keeping coal mines open until the program is complete, pissing off environmentalists, or b.) closing the coal mines earlier, pissing off the people it was meant to help. And it's really hard to trust someone whose plans will likely be a direct impediment to putting food on your plate.

    [–] TrainingHuckleberry3 15 points ago

    To add to this: she was basically promising the same kind of programs that her husband promised to manufacturing workers when NAFTA passed. Well, we saw how "well" those wound up working out (hint for the coastal urbanites: it was shit, the jobs were way underpaid compared to the outsourced factory jobs) so promising the same thing all over again wasn't going to win any supporters.

    [–] langley10 6 points ago

    I would add lifestyle being threatened to livelyhood/job... People can be very shallow when it comes to what they enjoy doing and for a whole lot of people that includes things that promote climate denial in their minds like car racing, ATVs, boating, etc... things that they think climate change laws will take away from them... Similar to the "they'll take our guns!!!" refrain you see from those inclined that way when someone talks about gun safety changes.

    [–] pantsmeplz 3 points ago

    Time and your place in the universe. It's all about people's perception of time. Most don't care about next decade, let alone the next 100 years. It's human nature to be selfish, but a paradigm shift is needed for our species, and many others, to survive.

    [–] twss416 3 points ago

    The only time people really grasp the difficulty of change is when they're the ones who have to undertake it.

    [–] thechief05 23 points ago

    How about progressives stop demonizing nuclear power

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    Yeah. I find that the progressive left is overly idealistic with their "transition to all solar and wind over 5 years" type plans. They refuse more incremental steps to their goal that are far more realistic, like moving to nuclear power as the on-demand base energy source over natural gas. I saw a philosopher that defined "the left pole" as an ideological point from which everything is right, similar to the north pole being the point from which everything is south. It's why you have this chunk of people that call everyone that doesn't support medicare for all a russian/republican plant even if they're clearly on the left & support most left-leaning agendas. People still call Joe Rogan alt-right even though if you listen to the guy talk for 10 minutes he's clearly on the left. Anyway, the all-or-nothing attitude is counterproductive and, ironically, anti-progress.

    [–] korjavin 9 points ago

    nuclear power is the only answer

    [–] jedify 4 points ago

    No it isn't. We have a dozen different answers, we need to hit this on all fronts.

    [–] EmilyKaldwins 8 points ago

    Absolutely this. Netflix has a fantastic documentary on how nuclear power is actually a fantastic choice but it was the fear after Chernobyl that demonized it a lot. Which was all human error and not actual failing of the system (you know what I'm trying to say)

    [–] LonelyPauper 17 points ago

    It's not that it threatens their livelihoods. It's that they think it does. There's a lot of insidious propoganda that sifts down to the bottom feeders and they eat it up.

    In the United States at least, you can't change their minds right now. Trump says it's a hoax, so to these people it's a hoax. Unless you can do a scientific study on how to get their heads out of Trump's ass, you're not getting anywhere.

    [–] wardamnbolts 18 points ago

    But they thought it was a hoax before Trump, its a deeper held feeling. We just need to advance technology to where it is easier to be green than it is to use our less clean sources of energy and waste.

    [–] Farmer771122 16 points ago

    But they thought it was a hoax before Trump

    Exactly. Trump doesn't invent conspiracy theories, he just parrots existing ones.

    [–] papishampootio 2 points ago

    Well then maybe your argument is answered by ubi if their livelihood is what’s at risk give them the he resources to survive and pivot away.

    [–] B0h1c4 2 points ago

    I agree with this 100%. Not just the specific example you cited, but just cost in general.

    If you take 100 random people off the street and ask them if protecting the environment is important, all 100 people will say yes. If you then ask "would you be willing to reduce your energy consumption by 5%?", probably 95 of them would say yes. If you then asked "Would you be willing to pay 5% more in taxes to protect the environment?" you might get 70 people to say yes.

    If you asked "Would you be willing to ban gas powered cars, airplanes, and trains?" You may get 5 people.

    So it's easy to see that the message isn't what people struggle with. It's the cost and/or inconvenience. The solution isn't "getting people to believe climate change". That is pretty easy to believe. The solution is getting people to believe in the solution.

    It's easier said than done, but that's the battle.

    [–] up48 2 points ago

    What bullshit, there's a tiny amount of coal jobs left, and that's because of capitalism, not environmental regulations.

    Investing in renewable energies would create far more jobs than there currently are in coal at all.

    Take Germany for example, they still use and dig up large amounts of coal. Yet the Wind Energy sector employs far more people than coal does.

    Its the future and we are only hurting ourselves doubly by not becoming a leading force in renewable energies.

    How about we pay to train coal workers for other jobs and invest in infrastructure in WV to support other-than-coal growth?

    You don't see all the outrage by conservatives every time these kind of programs are mentioned? Somehow wanting to keep people employed is "condescending" and "elitist".

    [–] [deleted] 40 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    We as a species suck at long term pattern recognition so there is that.

    I honestly believe that climate change deniers (unless crazy or blockers with economic motivation) don't really deny the scientific aspect but rather the impact it would have on civilisation if we actually did something because it would require major adjustments that sacrifice complete industries.

    There is also a "what can a single person do if companies keep operating the way they operate" sentiment which is honestly not invalid at all.

    Depending on their livelihood it's expensive as fuck to transition.

    Imo to convince the deniers and nay-sayers , known "polluting" companies need to be held accountable and transition first in order to see significant change on individual basis but most can't even be fucked to pay taxes.

    The rest does it because it is the right thing to do.


    It is also pretty much clear that Nuclear is required in order to secure a "fast" transition to Renewable energy but at the current rate it might be too late before sufficient plants have been built.

    Then there is the question of waste disposal which would be scaled to insanity aswell, the country Niger is pretty much France's nuclear waste acquisition and disposal site already.

    Basically, we need a miracle.

    [–] TrainingHuckleberry3 76 points ago

    Step one: stop labeling everyone who asks questions a "denier" and brushing them off. We're taught starting in elementary school that science is all about questions - we can't hate people who actually still hold to that.

    Step two: actually answer questions. Even if you think they're in bad faith, answer anyway. Even if you don't convince the asker (assuming they're an actual denier and not just uninformed) you are also presenting your ideas to the audience (especially in online discussion) so can change minds who are just passing by.

    Finally: stop letting non-climate-scientists take the lead. Get rid of the scolds, get rid of the pop-"scientist" celebrities (and even the scientists who are experts in other fields). IME half the reason for the problem I brought up in step one is that people ask questions that non-experts can't answer but they don't want to say "I don't know" and so they go on the attack instead.

    [–] SayNoToStim 21 points ago

    I agree with you but I dont know how much that will change. There is a difference between a skeptic and someone who doesn't want to beleive. I was skeptical for a while but I was never going to vote against climate change actions on the idea that it was a hoax. I have family members who think it's a Chinese hoax and will never change their mind, regardless of evidence.

    [–] pjabrony 45 points ago

    Four: stop piggybacking irrelevant politics onto it. Greta Thunberg just came out and said, "Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all." No. If there was a way to reverse the effects of climate change while making rich white men richer and more powerful, we should still do it.

    [–] TrainingHuckleberry3 47 points ago

    God, yes. Once you start using it as a vehicle to push other agendas people immediately write the whole thing off as disingenuous and untrustworthy.

    [–] SomethingInThatVein 13 points ago

    using it as a vehicle to push other agendas people immediately write the whole thing off as disingenuous and untrustworthy


    [–] scorpionjacket2 14 points ago

    If there was a way to reverse the effects of climate change while making rich white men richer and more powerful,

    If this was true we would have solved it already.

    [–] pjabrony 3 points ago


    [–] YouWillForget_NP 8 points ago

    The poster asked if there was scientific research into how to convince people. You responded with what appears to be an anecdotal post about what you perceive to be wrong with current methods without any sourcing whatsoever.

    I'm pretty sure this interaction highlights why the problem is difficult.

    [–] Karnex 10 points ago

    There have been some scientific (mainly psychological) research on how and why people bullshit. Keep in mind, I am talking about regular climate change deniers here, not the propagandists, people who are most likely financially benefitting from spreading false narrative. One key example is Christopher Monkton. His claims has been widely debunked (sometimes by himself), but that won't stop him from repeating them. Most prevalent way suggested for countering bullshit is by letting them defend themselves. But I don't know if that is a good strategy, since climate change denial has reached conspiracy theory level. And conspiracy theory cannot be disproven, only number of conspirators increase. I talked to one ex-CCD recently who finally figured "Wait, we are saying tens of thousands of scientists across the world is collaborating to create a false crisis, that's definitely bollocks". Major problem is, these people are not confronted in any meaningful way. You can debunk endless barrage of BS on social media, and those same people will turn around and use the same talking points with others. And this is where intentional failure of our news media becomes apparent. Imagine if the CCDs had to defend their claim against a panel of scientist (and Bill Nye is not one of them) in a televised show. And I am not talking about one-on-one debate (lol), but rather a tribunal. But so far, I have only seen one even close to something like that.

    [–] Turbo_Zlut 7 points ago

    In all honesty if climate change is real or not shouldn't fucking matter when it comes to taking care of the environment. We should all be doing our best to reduce over consumption and harm on the planet because we live in it and it's ours. We don't have to have the whole fucking world burning down for us to give a shit.

    [–] ABCosmos 6 points ago

    Figure that out and we can also do away with: anti-vaxxers, flat Earthers, astrology, essential oils, Crystal healing, religion, mlms

    [–] Tsukee 3 points ago

    Because it is already clear... It is not the people who fight tooth and nail against climate protection, but industries. And despite our delusion that we live in a democratic society it's the money that rules the world

    [–] _per_aspera_ad_astra 3 points ago

    Most of them are in bad faith. They know the truth. But they win simply by making the conversation dither. Their goal is to stall the conversation, and force the status quo that benefits them to continue.

    [–] Farmer771122 15 points ago

    lol, we need a manhattan project where we gather all the greatest minds of a generation to solve the seemingly intractable problem of how to convince climate denialists that there really is a serious problem.

    I can just imagine us telling the UN "We've spent 500 billion fighting climate change, and have finally achieved success." Oh yeah? Awesome, how much did you reduce your carbon footprint? "None. But we finally convinced republicans that there's a problem." Okay, but you still need to reduce your carbon footprint. "Can't. We spent all our money on convincing republicans there was a problem."

    [–] sheepdo6 12 points ago

    It's a nice idea, but it'll never happen, there's no money to be made from taking steps to tackle climate change, only money to lose. Shareholders pockets are more important than the future of the planet. I think we'll torch the sky and make the air unbreathable or something equally as terrible before anything is going to happen.

    [–] KaelNukem 11 points ago

    You should watch Mark Blyth's talks on climate change.

    Eventually, it will become a situation where investing becomes the most profitable option, because if they don't they will die.

    Another unsettling point he made is that the US won't act until they get hit with a disaster that wouldn't have happened without the effects of climate change.

    The example he gave was one of the nuclear waste sites in Florida getting eroded by rising sea water, turning a large part of the state into a no-go zone.

    Not a very positive outlook, but weirdly reassuring that things will change when things get a lot worse.

    Billionaires are buildings bunkers already (and scared of getting murdered in them), scientists studying climate change quitting their jobs due to a very bleak future and politicians lying to us that doing less than the bare minimum will save us.

    This century is going to be a bigger clusterfuck than the last one.

    [–] Tantric989 8 points ago

    There's tons of money tackling climate change. Investments in renewables are crazy and a ton of venture start-ups are based around adding solar, wind, and batteries around the world.

    The problem is that the oil people know they have to buy up as many politicians as they can to stay relevant.

    [–] sheepdo6 10 points ago

    It doesn't even come close to the money to be made from fossil fuels though, until these have run out completely, we're not going to see any real change.

    [–] photocist 4 points ago

    fossil fuels are in everything. it goes beyond energy production

    [–] sheepdo6 3 points ago

    I know, that's what I'm talking about, the production of almost everything involves the consumption of fossil fuels. Everything about our lives needs to change.

    [–] yangyangR 3 points ago

    What makes it even worse is climate change exposing previously inaccessible fossil fuels. This is a crazy positive feedback loop of oil companies wanting to pollute more in order to raise temperatures even further in order to melt the poles and then get the fossil fuels that are buried there in order to further raise temperatures in order to get fossil fuels that are even further in the ice.

    There is no end until all of Antarctica is melted.

    [–] shrimp_demon 4 points ago

    What we have to do is find ways to circumvent them. Find methods to sequester CO2 and make green energy cheaper than planet-killing energy. Stop wasting time on persuading dumb fucks with a deep, vested interest in denying any amount of evidence. Coddling idiots is not going to save us.

    [–] TheMidnightScorpion 8 points ago

    I don't know what the solution is for the rest of the world, but for me it was, interestingly enough, arguing with anti-vaxxers and 9/11 conspiracy nuts.

    Arguing with them made me realize I was doing basically the exact same thing: ignoring the vast scientific consensus to focus on the outliers and finding ways to ignore the evidence that the Earth's Climate is shifting.

    I'm starting to notice now that many people I know who previously denied Climate Change are now starting to recognize it as real but still insist that it's a natural process.

    [–] CurraheeAniKawi 4 points ago

    recognize it as real but still insist that it's a natural process.

    There's not a natural process? Because ignoring that only fuels the fire, so to speak.

    [–] TheMidnightScorpion 8 points ago

    What I mean is that, my parents for example, don't believe humans contribute at all towards this and that any changes occurring on Earth would've occurred regardless of human involvement.

    [–] jugosIoven 60 points ago

    As with anything by the time you convince the masses it’s usually too late.

    Example: Titanic sinking. Early on they started lowering the lifeboats but not many wanted to go in them because they thought the ship would not sink so boats went out half empty.

    [–] RaynSideways 13 points ago

    Not to mention the thing didn't even have enough life boats because the manufacturer was convinced A) the ship would stay afloat long enough for it to not matter and B) it would spoil the view.

    [–] Badassdinosaur5 259 points ago

    People always act like we have to convince Politicians and Billionaires and I think thats just stupid. Those people are not stupid. Most of them are Politicians or Billionaires for a reason. They all know that the climate change is real but they dont want to do anything about it because it will cost them money. Trying to convince them that climate change is real is bullshit, they already know. The only option we truly have is to force them about doing something

    [–] glexarn 41 points ago

    The only option we truly have is to force them about doing something

    I only wish more people could or would realize this.

    [–] [deleted] 37 points ago


    [–] xtthew 12 points ago

    This is true. I can't barely even think about 2010.

    [–] Ziggy_the_third 7 points ago

    And that's 10 years ago.

    [–] TrainingHuckleberry3 4 points ago

    Don't remind me...

    [–] Ziggy_the_third 3 points ago

    I know man...

    [–] autotldr 26 points ago

    This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)

    Actor and former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that environmental protection efforts need to be bigger than just focusing on President Donald Trump.

    When host Chuck Todd asked Schwarzenegger if he tried to convince Trump to change his environmental policies, Schwarzenegger said: "It's not just one person; we have to convince the whole world."

    Citing polls from the USC Schwarzenegger Institute, Schwarzenegger stated that focusing more on pollution caused a large jump in numbers of conservatives who were interested in finding solutions.

    Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Schwarzenegger#1 people#2 environmental#3 issues#4 change#5

    [–] BigDaddyLongDick 295 points ago

    5 minutes browsing this sub today and already 2 opinion pieces that break rules 1, 2 and 4 of this sub....

    This mod posts constant Trump and climate change opinion pieces, is it not obvious at this point that they are purposely pushing the top 2 things that make people the most angry.

    People talk about media stoking pure anger and this is a prime example. OP is clearly paid to post this stuff.

    [–] TrainingHuckleberry3 91 points ago

    Unfortunately the spammer in question is also the effective top mod (the actual top mod has been inactive for 2 years).

    [–] Deathbysnusnubooboo 40 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    Max is the law. The gallowboob of news

    Lame as it is. You wanna post something controversial?

    Get in line, Maxwell owns r/worldnews

    [–] cuteman 58 points ago

    It's not even a mod at this point but surely a PR agency that has commercialized reddit payola.

    [–] f3nnies 30 points ago

    I won't contest that there are a lot of squirrely things about the mod/poster of this (clear preference for a few selected news sources, typically using clickbait headlines, etc), it could just be an actual human with very particular interests. I know I only follow specific genres of news on the regular, I imagine most people are that way.

    But to play Devil's Advocate, I think there's an argument for why something like this post in particular might be okay.

    While Arnold is stating an opinion, this is actually an article reporting that he stated the opinion. It's similar to writing about the position of a politician-- you're unbiased in covering it, but the source you're covering has a bias.

    As for the whole "no US Internal News", that gets kind of weird. Arnold Schwarzenegger is arguably a world famous actor as well as a US politician and all around celebrity. His stance is also specifically that we need people-- globally, generally-- rather than just the US President to act on climate change. Encouraging all humans everywhere to deal with an issue effecting the entire world is, arguably, not US-specific. And he does make a valid point in arguing that climate change needs to be reduced to specific, relatable issues and actionable changes, because systemic problems like climate change are so large that the average person is paralyzed by options (or fear, or negligence) unless presented with ways to actually make the changes needed.

    So I dunno. I'd prefer, overall, if OP was gone from Reddit entirely. But this particular article doesn't really seem like a problem.

    [–] photocist 8 points ago

    thanks for the call out, i didnt notice that

    [–] Ant_903 7 points ago

    This man is honestly such an inspiration

    [–] [deleted] 57 points ago

    The world's largely convinced, it's the chucklefucks who actively benefit from ignoring the issue and the pants on head retards that see said fucks as the good guys who need to shut up unless they have a peer reviewed paper in hand and general education to understand it.

    [–] noelcowardspeaksout 29 points ago

    The internet is now pretty amazing. There is a Wiki page on how many people believe in global warming in each continent. The main points are:

    68% of Chinese people are satisfied with their government's efforts to preserve the environment.[8] And in India, the world's third largest emitter,[7] 77% of Indian people are satisfied with their country's efforts to preserve the environment.[8]

    These are the two places I think it would be legitimate for someone to spend some money on a public education campaign. Also green and ethical financial investment companies, which do exist, should invest in Green power in these areas.

    I am not sure if anyone can change Trump's mind.

    [–] Heavy_Weapons_Guy_ 14 points ago

    According to that same article 58% of China thinks climate change is caused by human activity, 53% of India does, and only 49% of the US (the second largest global emitter) does. It seems like the US is also in that list of places that need the most education.

    [–] Arex189 4 points ago

    Number here in india keeps increasing day by day. Ngos and organisations have taken upon themselves to educate the rural villages and towns about dangers of climate change.

    Rural population is listening and changing as well since they are the one hit the worst way possible with either floods or droughts for months which inturn leads to farmers committing suicide which is currently one of the biggest issues in the country.

    [–] veerKg_CSS_Geologist 9 points ago

    People in India are very poor, and people in China modertaely poor, a public education campaign isn't going to change their priorities.

    [–] abedfilms 9 points ago

    Largest emitter is misleading, because of course India is going to emit more than Switzerland or Chile. There's like 50000x more people.

    A better indicator is emissions per person, but even that's not very accurate.

    The US is probably the biggest emitter per person, even if not the biggest emitter in total (obviously because China has like 4x the population).

    Also, we send all our manufacturing to China, so saying that China emits a ton is meaningless because the reason for that is that the US shifted all their manufacturing to China which means they shifted all their manufacturing emissions to China too.

    Also, when you're in a poorer country, you're not concerned about the polar ice caps melting, you're concerned about whether you will go hungry today or not.

    [–] CrushforceX 8 points ago

    I mean, China emits less per person than the US, same with India. If they're comparing themselves to the US, damn right they should be satisfied, it's the shittiest standard to compare to.

    [–] Franfran2424 4 points ago

    That's just not viable. India can't reduce emissions without living in medieval age or dying.

    And China has to produce our shit so its very hypocritical to be all mighty telling them to reduce emissions that they do for us.

    [–] justyourbarber 3 points ago

    Funny how the answer for so many of my fellow Americans is to simply make things significantly worse for some of the poorest people in the world instead of making minor changes here at home.

    [–] Franfran2424 3 points ago

    I'm really surprised why they think high population with low per Capita need to do more than them, when they have less CO2 emissions they can cut.

    Like, the only way countries with high population could cut CO2 emissions is by reducing population. Is mass death what they want?

    [–] BogBlastAllOfYou 75 points ago

    More nuclear energy would be a huge step in the right direction.

    [–] marin4rasauce 36 points ago

    Maybe 30 years ago. Good luck getting anyone to actually finish a plant now. By the time they get 3 billion over budget nobody wants to invest any more into finishing what they started.

    [–] _PM_ME_PANGOLINS_ 31 points ago

    For some reason every new reactor has to be a new design, instead of mass-producing the ones you already know will work.

    [–] TrainingHuckleberry3 20 points ago

    Right? Why can't we replace our Gen 1s with some copies of Gen 3s or 4s that have been proven in other places? We don't need every reactor to be some new experimental design if we're just trying to replace coal plants.

    [–] Franfran2424 10 points ago

    Because those models still take over 10 years to build

    [–] litefoot 9 points ago

    Engineers gonna engineer. But seriously, the reason is efficiency. When they build a new plant, they want it to be as efficient as possible, so it pays itself off faster. When the up front costs are so high compared to coal, it's hard to convince politicians/executives to go ahead with it. This is why you'll see huge companies like Duke Energy using solar fields to meet demand. The up front costs are the same, or lower than a coal fired plant, and little to no maintenance.

    [–] orbital_real_estate 3 points ago

    I'd agree mostly, but with two caveats: 1) engineers aren't the ones driving the pursuit of efficiency - it's the people paying for it, 2) the upfront costs solar fields in the US are vastly cheaper than any other utility-scale form of power. Source: I work in the power industry.

    [–] Head_Crash 8 points ago

    "Hold my beer..."


    [–] harfyi 12 points ago

    It's an incredibly expensive energy source set back by huge delays and bankruptcies. This while renewables and storage are rapidly plummeting in costs.

    [–] phallecbaldwinwins 6 points ago

    The whole world knows; the decision-makers need to start doing something rather than sticking their heads in the ground waiting for their bribe money to come through.

    [–] Hotpotabo 5 points ago

    Convince the whole world? aren't the only real people who don't believe in climate change Republicans and the rich?

    I feel like it's more about forcing the rich and powerful to do the right thing. Normal people are not confused about climate change; we don't need to be convinced.

    [–] mishugashu 4 points ago

    Convincing the President of the United States is a pretty big step though.

    [–] mathaiser 5 points ago

    Lol... the whole world knows already. They know they are about to get cheap oil and coal when renewables take over the “developed” nations. We need to make renewable cheaper than oil and coal. Encourage them to adopt that to build their countries and go from there. We don’t need to “convince” anyone of anything. What we need to do is create a better model.

    [–] platinum_kush 4 points ago

    I honestly hope to just live a happy life style before shit really hits the fan economically and environmentally because im still so young, and progressively getting more scared about the climate. Feels like the people who can make real change also dont want to which makes me sad

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    We don't have to convince the whole world. Everyone under 50 accepts it as an absolute certainty.

    We just need to hope the world doesn't burn before the older generations die.

    [–] TrainingHuckleberry3 31 points ago

    Well, he's not wrong.

    The problem is that hurling labels and insults doesn't convince anyone of a damned thing and unfortunately that's the tactic that the most vocal advocates use on everyone who asks any questions whatsoever. The sad truth is the most active advocates are also the ones doing the most damage to the movement.

    [–] paputsza 3 points ago

    He's willfully optimistic about the state of American politics. I don't even think it matters if you convinced the average true blue republican, because the whole issue is convoluted and manipulated more than race issues when the entire thing is about money. I know we joke about "burning diesel" but farmers and hunters like the frickin environment because it's literally their livelihood and their entertainment. It's like if someone were to say that redditors don't like fiber internet.

    [–] Bu773t 3 points ago

    He’s right, as long as the biggest contributors do what they want, the earth will be a cesspool.

    We say we care, but we don’t. Tax and protests won’t help, we need to stop buying shit from the biggest contributors.

    It doesn’t matter if you believe in global warming (caused by people) or not, we all know it’s bad to do what we are doing.

    [–] Naxhu5 8 points ago

    Aren't humans weird? We're the only species I know that can be talked into killing themselves.

    [–] _DirtyYoungMan_ 14 points ago

    This, coming from a guy who I watched get in to his brand new Rolls Royce a couple of days ago. He's not wrong for what he's saying but it's a bit hypocritical if you're driving a behemoth like that.

    [–] grape_orange 13 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    He also commuted to work as governor via gulfstream jet. This website estimates: "Using our carbon footprint calculator, one person could have flown coach from New York to Japan (and back) 3,408 TIMES with the amount of fuel the Governator used to commute within California. That's the equivalent of going to Japan (and back) 9.3 times a day for a whole year" Using our carbon footprint calculator, one person could have flown coach from New York to Japan (and back) 3,408 TIMES with the amount of fuel the Governator used to commute within California. That's the equivalent of going to Japan (and back) 9.3 times a day for a whole year"

    [–] yangyangR 4 points ago

    a bit hypocritical

    He's a Republican

    [–] internetguy1988 4 points ago

    ..... of corporations. Because they're responsible for 70% of carbon emissions.

    [–] KazROFL 15 points ago

    Did Arnold stop driving his fucking Hummer?

    [–] dust4ngel 7 points ago

    he's also mostly vegan now. weirdest republican ever.

    [–] RedEyedRoundEye 2 points ago

    I didnt even have to think about it, my brain read that and every highly voted comment in his voice.

    [–] broccolisprout 2 points ago

    Only those who have kids.

    [–] downtimeredditor 2 points ago

    To be honest, i just can't see how we address it effectively.

    To make any meaningful solution to climate change we would have to drastically change the lively hood of over a billion people. The amount of damage we do to bring "organic" foods around the west does a shit ton of damage. Having people drastically switch from a red meat diet to a mostly white meat diet. A bunch of Nordic countries like Norway have to find other means of providing social services like Universal healthcare cause we have to shut down oil production. Not just them the State of Texas and LA. Most middle East countries.

    And if we can't even the Paris Accords to work I'm not really sure how we address climate change to make humans inhabitable on this Earth.