From Grist‘s Dave Roberts:
I just don’t think there’s any way to make the facts of climate change congenial to the contemporary U.S. conservative perspective. Once they accept the facts, the severity and urgency of the climate crisis, they are committed to either a) supporting vigorous government policy meant to diminish the power of some of their wealthiest constituents, or b) passively accepting widespread suffering.
Cognitively speaking, that’s an untenable position for them. That’s why they avoid it by rejecting the science. There’s no way to package the science in a way that avoids this dilemma. It is today’s hyper-conservatism, not climate communications, that is ultimately going to have to change.
Isn’t there any other option?
New technologies. The opportunity to make money in new ventures. They love that sort of thing.
Not really.
If we really wanted to avoid something like 2 degrees warming we’re going much further and deeper than a carbon tax. It’s a massive mobilization effort with government at the centre. Dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, for all of their faults, actually understand the implications of doing something about climate much more than progressive campaigners.
Gordon, in your excellent pieces on bike lanes in Vancouver, you touch on this. Kitsilano residents, long identifying as “green”, were white hot against this small disruption to their lives. That would only be the least inconvenient change were we to reshape our energy-economy to radically decarbonize. My point is that conservatives are much more reflective on the disruptive future and understand the stakes.