"The government is not the solution to our problem! The government is the problem!" (Reagan) has been the (imo dis-noble) anti-governing belief striving (angrily) to undo the United States government for at least half a century now.
How I wish people could believe in America, in liberty and the project of civilization and democracy. It just feels like that has slipped so much, that people want (have been incited into wanting) something narrow and different.
> How I wish people could believe in America, in liberty and the project of civilization and democracy. It just feels like that has slipped so much, that people want (have been incited into wanting) something narrow and different.
I really don't understand how hopelessness, hate, fear, and selfishness are more attractive, but I worry that as attacks on America, liberty, and democracy continue and the worse things get it'll only increase the amount of hopelessness, hate, fear, and selfishness around us. I'm not sure what it would take to break people out of that cycle. Those things are hard enough to fight when times are good and people feel secure.
This one rhetorical trick is why I'm flummoxed at the ubiquitous parroting of the fossil fuel's industry's invention of the terminology 'climate change'. The anthropogenic causes are proven. It's not climate change it's climate disruption. Stop saying climate change.
Does it really matter whether or not the head of the EPA believes in climate change or not?
There is no indication that we will, no matter the administration, as a society/civilization/species will do a single thing to avert the worst case climate scenarios.
And, at this point, to do so would cause, at least in the short term, just as much harm as the impact of climate change, no matter how severe, will in our lifetimes.
The previous administration had plenty of "green" rhetoric, but nothing about the situation we're in improved and there is zero evidence it will. I personally don't see a lot of difference between "pretending things are good" and "ignoring that things are bad".
Besides, there's very little chance that climate change will do tremendous damage to our civilization, as the build up to those impacts will likely be preceded by increasingly aggressively and destructive global conflict. We're already seeing this happen before our eyes. The humans that climate change will drive to extinction will be the small number of "survivors" of whatever happens on the way there.
A bunch of us in the rest of the world are making great strides in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions without it tanking our economies. Australia is, per-capita, one of the worst offenders and we're on track to reach net zero by 2050.
I think your position is based on very cynical premises. There is no reason to assume with high confidence that humans will obliterate each other in that next 50 years (especially if we do something about one of the major stressors causing conflict)
There is also no reason to believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions over 15-20 years will cause "more" damage than the worst impacts of climate change? Can you cite sources on this claim?
It is still possible to mitigate the worst effects of anthropogenic climate change.
> There is no indication that we will, no matter the administration, as a society/civilization/species will do a single thing to avert the worst case climate scenarios.
This is untrue. For instance, earlier this year Poland generated less than half its energy from coal for the first time. [1]
> There is no indication that we will, no matter the administration, as a society/civilization/species will do a single thing to avert the worst case climate scenarios.
I don't think that's fair. Other countries have made considerable progress at getting to their climate goals, although there's an argument that those goals weren't set high enough or near enough. As much as China is still an environmental trainwreck they've made impressive progress on air pollution.
Because the US is such a huge polluter, I think a US administration that was seriously interested in dealing with climate change and willing to say no to billionaires would make a meaningful difference. We've seen investment in "green" do well for other countries, and even here to a lesser extent.
I suspect that climate change will do tremendous damage to our civilization, and that any global conflict which takes place as that damage progresses will only exacerbate things. The damage caused by climate change will certainly bring about new conflicts as well. Billions of climate refugees will be forced from their homes and need to go somewhere, and even the places they try to flee to will be hit with natural disasters and feel increasing pressure as once heavily populated areas will become less habitable due to heat, desertification, fire, flooding, storms, a lack of drinking water, etc.
I think that however dark the times ahead are, our actions right now will matter, and that's especially true if we just admit defeat and accept powerful people making the situation much worse by plundering and hording as much as they possibly can.
Always loved these two criticisms of Don't Look Up: 1) "people wouldn't be that dumb" 2) "it's too in your face". Well, the reality is clearly in our face about how dumb this all has been...
Trump told them they could have whatever they wanted for $1bn. I don't think he got the full billion, but whatever they did spend was worth it (unless you have lungs and live on Earth).
Our government has been more or less openly for sale for a long time now, but he has really taken it to an extreme that I never thought I'd live to see in America.
You'd think that removing the weak deniability and unconvincing hand-waving covering for the outright bribery in the system would only result in increased outrage and demand for changes, but his supporters just don't care. They went from pretending to care about draining the swamp to supporting levels of open corruption you'd normally only see in third world countries.
..The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin…
On the release, the only bold text on the page is, “said EPA Administrator Zeldin”. I take it this was the only form of rebellion available to those stuck following the marching orders.
Must be so frustrating to have joined an organization dedicated to monitoring the environment, only to watch some jerks tear it down from the inside.
https://archive.ph/2025.09.12-193215/https://www.nytimes.com...
Every agency appointee in this administration seems to be selected based on their dedication to undermining its mandate.
"The government is not the solution to our problem! The government is the problem!" (Reagan) has been the (imo dis-noble) anti-governing belief striving (angrily) to undo the United States government for at least half a century now.
How I wish people could believe in America, in liberty and the project of civilization and democracy. It just feels like that has slipped so much, that people want (have been incited into wanting) something narrow and different.
> How I wish people could believe in America, in liberty and the project of civilization and democracy. It just feels like that has slipped so much, that people want (have been incited into wanting) something narrow and different.
I really don't understand how hopelessness, hate, fear, and selfishness are more attractive, but I worry that as attacks on America, liberty, and democracy continue and the worse things get it'll only increase the amount of hopelessness, hate, fear, and selfishness around us. I'm not sure what it would take to break people out of that cycle. Those things are hard enough to fight when times are good and people feel secure.
"The climate has always been changing." - Lee Zeldin, EPA Administrator
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/03/politics/video/administrator-...
This one rhetorical trick is why I'm flummoxed at the ubiquitous parroting of the fossil fuel's industry's invention of the terminology 'climate change'. The anthropogenic causes are proven. It's not climate change it's climate disruption. Stop saying climate change.
Does it really matter whether or not the head of the EPA believes in climate change or not?
There is no indication that we will, no matter the administration, as a society/civilization/species will do a single thing to avert the worst case climate scenarios.
And, at this point, to do so would cause, at least in the short term, just as much harm as the impact of climate change, no matter how severe, will in our lifetimes.
The previous administration had plenty of "green" rhetoric, but nothing about the situation we're in improved and there is zero evidence it will. I personally don't see a lot of difference between "pretending things are good" and "ignoring that things are bad".
Besides, there's very little chance that climate change will do tremendous damage to our civilization, as the build up to those impacts will likely be preceded by increasingly aggressively and destructive global conflict. We're already seeing this happen before our eyes. The humans that climate change will drive to extinction will be the small number of "survivors" of whatever happens on the way there.
A bunch of us in the rest of the world are making great strides in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions without it tanking our economies. Australia is, per-capita, one of the worst offenders and we're on track to reach net zero by 2050.
I think your position is based on very cynical premises. There is no reason to assume with high confidence that humans will obliterate each other in that next 50 years (especially if we do something about one of the major stressors causing conflict)
There is also no reason to believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions over 15-20 years will cause "more" damage than the worst impacts of climate change? Can you cite sources on this claim?
It is still possible to mitigate the worst effects of anthropogenic climate change.
> There is no indication that we will, no matter the administration, as a society/civilization/species will do a single thing to avert the worst case climate scenarios.
This is untrue. For instance, earlier this year Poland generated less than half its energy from coal for the first time. [1]
[1]: https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/05/13/polands-monthly-coal-...
> There is no indication that we will, no matter the administration, as a society/civilization/species will do a single thing to avert the worst case climate scenarios.
I don't think that's fair. Other countries have made considerable progress at getting to their climate goals, although there's an argument that those goals weren't set high enough or near enough. As much as China is still an environmental trainwreck they've made impressive progress on air pollution.
Because the US is such a huge polluter, I think a US administration that was seriously interested in dealing with climate change and willing to say no to billionaires would make a meaningful difference. We've seen investment in "green" do well for other countries, and even here to a lesser extent.
I suspect that climate change will do tremendous damage to our civilization, and that any global conflict which takes place as that damage progresses will only exacerbate things. The damage caused by climate change will certainly bring about new conflicts as well. Billions of climate refugees will be forced from their homes and need to go somewhere, and even the places they try to flee to will be hit with natural disasters and feel increasing pressure as once heavily populated areas will become less habitable due to heat, desertification, fire, flooding, storms, a lack of drinking water, etc.
I think that however dark the times ahead are, our actions right now will matter, and that's especially true if we just admit defeat and accept powerful people making the situation much worse by plundering and hording as much as they possibly can.
MAGA and Trump are everyone who wouldn’t acknowledge the asteroid in don’t look up. Scary how satire and Hollywood are becoming more and more reality.
Always loved these two criticisms of Don't Look Up: 1) "people wouldn't be that dumb" 2) "it's too in your face". Well, the reality is clearly in our face about how dumb this all has been...
Trump told them they could have whatever they wanted for $1bn. I don't think he got the full billion, but whatever they did spend was worth it (unless you have lungs and live on Earth).
https://archive.ph/oHw1E
Our government has been more or less openly for sale for a long time now, but he has really taken it to an extreme that I never thought I'd live to see in America.
You'd think that removing the weak deniability and unconvincing hand-waving covering for the outright bribery in the system would only result in increased outrage and demand for changes, but his supporters just don't care. They went from pretending to care about draining the swamp to supporting levels of open corruption you'd normally only see in third world countries.
EPA release: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-releases-proposal-end-b...
Must be so frustrating to have joined an organization dedicated to monitoring the environment, only to watch some jerks tear it down from the inside.
That'll go away quickly I bet.