This extremely salient fact of US public life doesn't get discussed much because it tacks against the instincts of journalists & pundits. It's "partisan." It's not clever or counter-intuitive. It's not an excuse to explain why #actually the left is wrong or dumb.
The right's views on the question can not be laundered by centrist pundits into a Serious Position Worthy of Debate. It just resists all the standard clever pundit tricks.
And so it sits there, obvious, vitally important, and largely uncelebrated.
Anyway. It is simply a fact of US politics -- federal, state, local, whatever -- that serious action on climate change happens only when Democrats have enough control of gov't to bypass Republican obstruction. To wit: vox.com/energy-and-env…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Polls & surveys found that most Americans were amenable to civil rights back in the early 60s, but thought that *other* Americans *weren't*. Sociologists call this "pluralistic ignorance" -- ignorance about other people's views. Now pluralistic ignorance is back ...
... around climate change. A new study found that most people are willing to act to address climate change, but believe that *other* people *aren't* willing. "Respondents vastly underestimate the prevalence of climate-friendly behaviors and norms." papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Now here's the good news: "Correcting these misperceptions in an experiment causally raises individual willingness to act against climate change as well as individual support for climate policies."
When people find out other people are on board, it strengthens their resolve!
One of the main reasons renewable energy is going to triumph in the end is, IMO, not well understood by the general populace, so here's a quick 🧵on it.
Over time, the price of fossil fuels is determined by two forces pulling in opposite directions. On one hand ...
... there's the physical resource itself (oil, gas, or coal), which, all things being equal, will drive costs up. Why? Simple: it is finite and we harvest the easy stuff first. As time passes, we have to dig or drill deeper & exploit lower quality deposits.
This is why "peak oil" has been such a persistent concern over the years -- it's based on the (true) notion that oil is getting harder to reach & refine. But it keeps not happening. Why? Because of the other force: the advancement of the technology used to exploit the resource.
I do feel sorry for RW men raised in RW households because at some point they conclude that becoming an interesting, thoughtful, kind person that people *want* to be with is impossible, so they start thinking about how to force themselves on people.
But of course, even if you can force a woman to stay with you, even if you can force social media sites to promote you, even if you can buy up media & force yourself into homes, you can't force people to *like* you & ultimately that's what humans want/need -- to love & be loved.
The authors of White Rural Rage respond to critics: "scholars of rural politics bend over backward to avoid saying anything that might reflect poorly on rural whites—even when it means downplaying their own research."
I could thread on this subject forever but I just want to make one point: whenever this subject comes up, people who criticize the attitudes & behaviors of rural whites are accused of "looking down" on them. I think this gets it backward in important ways.
What does it mean NOT to look down on someone? Well, to me that means: taking the person seriously, treating them like a peer, an autonomous agent capable of making decisions & being responsible for them.
That's what it means to treat someone respectfully, as an adult.
As usual, Rufo's play is obvious here (he always tells). With an AI that can review giant quantities of text quickly, you will inevitably find the kind of picayune citation issues that brought down Gay. It will find stuff of at least that level *anywhere* you point it. But ...
... of course Rufo is only pointing it at black women. Here's how things will/must go: this AI will be pointed at more & more scholars, and then book authors, & then popular writers, & soon we will discover that "plagiarism," by the strict current definition, is ubiquitous.
Then, eventually, we will find our way to new standards -- we will distinguish malicious plagiarism, the uncredited stealing of others' ideas, from the kind of sloppy or irresponsible plagiarism of which Gay (& I'm guessing virtually every other high-output scholar) was guilty.
Some fascinating public-opinion research on EVs from Potential Energy. It's worth scrolling through the whole thing but here are a couple of things that jumped out at me. 🧵 potentialenergycoalition.org/wp-content/upl…
First & perhaps least surprising: EVs have been polarized. That cat is out of the bag.
This is the most interesting chart -- messages about EVs & who buys them, by party. This really shows the challenge. Most people, from both parties, believe that EVs cost too much & don't go far enough. And what's perhaps worse ...