Of course it’s satire. I’m kind of shocked how many people don’t recognize it as satire.

Most of the public opinion on this isn’t former through personal conversations with climate activists. It’s formed through mass consumption of the media, and the information environment currently maintained by the corporate media environment will never allow for that much context.

I agree. But this mass consumption trickles down. Alex Jones or whoever spews climate bullshit, and your conservative relatives internalize it, and then repeat it to other family members and spread it further.

If you’re a climate activist, maybe you have a big enough platform to challenge media directly - the left has been absolute shit at mainstream social media and if they don’t mount a successful challenge to alt right dominance of the Internet we’re fucked.

But even as just an ordinary person who cares about climate, you’re going to hear people in your family or community repeat the propaganda. And that’s your chance to push back.

This is true for all conservative propaganda, not just climate.

But specifically regarding hypocrisy, I think the most effective response is to, in fact, engage in individual actions that live your climate values. Reduce your carbon footprint. Eat more plants. Take public transit instead of driving.

These are examples of possible actions, not specific mandates. If you can’t take public transit for whatever reason, don’t. But do something. And be prepared to talk about it.

You should do that so that if you are accused of hypocrisy you can push back and say “no, I live my moral values, and here’s how.” And climate activists should do the same, and publicize it, so when they are attacked by bad faith conservatives with false accusations of hypocrisy they can push back. And you can speak up in their defense when people around you attack them.

Even if they understand it, they certainly don’t care about it enough to vote based on it.

One of the ugliest victories of modern conservatism is rooted in the fact that this is wrong.

Because Americans do care about hypocrisy and morality.

And conservative media has convinced half of America that all politicians are corrupt, and liberal politicians are more corrupt than conservative politicians, so that the left has no moral basis to accuse the right of corruption.

American conservatives ignore the left when the left accuses the right of corruption, because they’ve been convinced the left is thoroughly corrupt and it’s hypocritical of them to call out corruption in others.

So when Trump is accused, rightfully, of nepotism and bribery and an overwhelming amount of obvious public corruption, American conservatives ignore it. Because American conservatives believe Trump is only doing, openly, what every politician has done secretly. I mean, how the fuck can Chuck Schumer accuse Trump of, say, insider training, for swinging the stock market with ridiculous tariff announcements and retractions, when Chuck has been insider trading on secret Senate information for decades?

And because American conservatives see left-wing politicians as corrupt and hypocritical and dishonest, they happily ignore every accusation they make her against Trump.

That’s why Bernie and AOC are so popular right now, because they have reputations for living their values, so when they go out and flip their shit about economic injustice, people listen.

Harris, during her campaign, tried to publicize a coalition of “good billionaires” support her to challenge Trump’s bad billionaires. Which, I’ll admit, is Harris living her values. But her values are shit and she lost for it.

Anyway, yeah. It’s because the American people care about hypocrisy that conservatives feel free to ignore criticism of Trump’s corruption. They think the liberal politicians accusing Trump are just as corrupt, if not more.

And the only solution to this is restoring honor to the American political system - getting a left-wing politician, or a coalition of politicians, that are widely seen as trustworthy and incorruptible, to lead the American left, instead of the usual DNC corruption and fuckery. And after the shitshow that was 2024 I’m not sure where someone like that will come from.

Problem is that no matter what you do or excuses you give, critical trolls can always point to something you can do better.

Absolutely. People who don’t argue in good faith won’t argue in good faith. Responding to such people in public is not about convincing them - it’s about swaying the audience listening to your conversation.

The people we want to convince are the people who want to argue in good faith, who care about understanding reality and doing the right thing, and who aren’t climate experts themselves so have to choose what experts to trust.

Those people are actually swayed by those bad faith accusations of hypocrisy - and can be swayed back by proof that you (or whatever climate professional is under attack) is not a hypocrite and is making a good faith effort to do the right thing.

I think this article identifies a genuine problem but comes up with the exact wrong solution.

The problem is accusations of perceived hypocrisy. Climate opponents claim that climate professionals aren’t living their values. They dictate rules for living to others that they don’t follow themselves. This makes climate professionals look dishonest and untrustworthy, and is used not just to discredit individual advocates but call all of environmental science and policy into question.

The solution the article suggests is to stop accusing climate scientists of hypocrisy because we all have to live in a broken system. Which is absolutely true. We do.

However. The people who accuse climate advocates of hypocrisy aren’t going to listen to that.

Here’s the way I see it. In the conversation, we have climate supporters, who believe in the science and want good climate policy; climate opponents, who want to block good climate policy; and undecided people, who don’t know about the science and/or don’t have strong opinions on policy.

Accusations of hypocrisy against climate professionals come overwhelmingly from climate opponents. The purpose of these accusations is to sway undecided people, who don’t know much about the science and who give more weight to the perceived trustworthiness of climate professionals, and their fellow climate opponents, to discourage them from listening to climate professionals and possibly changing their minds.

And then people who hear these accusations repeat them to their friends and neighbors and family. And if people have friends or neighbors or family who they personally know aren’t living their purported climate values, those accusations start sounding even more credible.

Look. The average American is not an expert on climate science. The average American doesn’t understand, in detail, the data and the sources behind the data. In order for the average American to believe in climate science, they need to trust climate scientists to be honest and provide truthful data.

The average American does understand hypocrisy and morality. And when climate professionals are credibly accused of behaving in ways inconsistent with their stated values, that harms Americans’ trust in the climate science.

Telling climate opponents not to accuse climate professionals of hypocrisy is pointless. They do it because it works. They will keep doing it because it works. Because their goal is to block climate policy and they’ll use whatever tools they have to do that.

Which is why, I think, it’s important for climate supporters - especially climate advocates - to live their values as far as they can, and to be able to talk about how they live their values. And when they’re not able to live their values - for instance, climate advocates needing to fly around the country for political rallies to build collective action - they should be able to explain why they’re not living their values and how they’re trying to make up for it in other areas.

So that when some friend or family member repeats a “gotcha” like “but you flew to Dublin for an environmental conference, lol” you can respond with “Yes, and I offset that consumption with x, y, and z, and I signed a petition to make next year’s conference virtual, and” etc, etc, etc. Show that the environment matters to you morally and that you are trying to do the right thing. Not only does it deflect the accusation of hypocrisy but it makes you appear more credible on the science.

It may not seem like it in the current political climate, but honesty still matters. Consistency still matters. Honor still matters.

And whether you’re Taylor Swift, burning enough jet fuel to heat a small country, or Joe Public the EPA paperwork drone, leaving your car running in the driveway for twenty minutes to warm it up before work, your personal consumption does matter. And the example you set to people who know you matters even more.

I think AI regulation is a great example of what I was talking about in my comment (and thanks to OP for the shout-out).

Banning or regulating AI takes collective action.

But (fantasies of green authoritarian dictatorships aside) we can’t enact collective action without public support.

People who use AI regularly, who rely on it for their jobs or hobbies or side hustles, or who just enjoy the “convenience” of asking ChatGPT or Google a question and getting a clear simple (often wrong) answer, who are afraid of AI regulation because it could take away tools they use, will be more likely to side with Big Tech out of self interest.

People who don’t use AI won’t suffer any harm from AI regulation. They don’t have to choose between their personal benefit and other values, like the environment, or user privacy, or how easy it is to exploit AI for harmful ends. And because they won’t be afraid AI regulation will harm them personally, they’ll be more likely to support regulation and less likely to buy into industry propaganda.

So the more we encourage people to make the individual choice not to use AI, the more likely collective action regulating AI becomes.

And of course telling people the reasons they shouldn’t use AI personally also helps motivate them to vote for AI regulation - and if the reasons are compelling enough, people will share them and spread them and build the anti-AI movement even larger.

I think that’s one of the reasons Big Tech is so aggressively shoving AI into every product. The more people use AI as part of their everyday activities, the more they rely on it, the less likely they’ll be to support regulation.

To paraphrase, I think, Mark Twain, it’s hard for someone to act intelligently when they get paid for acting like an idiot.

And yet again a simple, easy, common sense climate adaptation is blocked by a tiny group of people who make money doing things the old way and can afford lobbyists to keep it that way.

Fuck capitalism.

Agreed.

This is a literal “no ethical consumption under capitalism” moment.

I have to buy food, I have to buy clothes, I have to buy all sorts of stuff, or I die naked and starving - and the only power I have is, in some limited cases, I can decide who I give my money to.

And in this moment, both the feds and red state governments are eager to persecute companies with, let’s say, politically incorrect viewpoints. Companies that continue to promote those politically incorrect viewpoints, despite the threatened consequences, are preferable to companies that bend the knee and kiss the ring.

Even if it’s just corporate virtue signaling. Even if the only value behind it is profitmaxxing. At a time when LGBT+ people are being silenced and driven back into the closet and are afraid or unsafe to be themselves in public, people benefit from seeing that fucking signal.

I see your argument being brought up all the time - it was especially common a year or two back when the 15 minute city had a moment among conservative conspiracy theorists. “But what about people who like to live in suburbs?” “How dare you force people into filthy crowded crime ridden projects?” “Do you want to live like a poor?”

And my response is, people who don’t want to live in those dense walkable urban communities don’t have to live there.

Even in an idealized sustainable civilization where neighborhoods like the one in the video become the model, there will be other types of communities.

Here’s the thing. Life is a series of tradeoffs.

People want the big home, lots of space, and no neighbors, and also want all the benefits of dense urban centers - jobs, stores, services, community, etc.

And that’s what gave us suburbs, and urban sprawl, and car culture, and unsustainable mass consumption to fuel all those individual daily commutes from the urban center to the suburbs.

Because what we traded for the current American civic model, which lets wealthy people have both big houses and lots of land and all the benefits of densely populated urban centers, was using enormous amounts of land, and energy, and resources of all kinds, to build and maintain unreasonably large sprawling megacities, and the transportation infrastructure for daily commutes, and the fossil fuel infrastructure to fuel all those commutes, and so on and so forth.

But that’s not sustainable. It’d take the resources of four additional Earths for everybody to live like a suburban American. And the more climate change (and the attendant economic upheaval) impacts our resource acquisition and supply chains and so on, the harder it’s going to be to funnel those resources to the cities. The suburban/urban sprawl model is on its way out.

So how does one live in a city and get all the benefits of living in a city while consuming a sustainable amount of resources?

The tradeoff for a sustainable urban community is losing the suburban “bedroom communities” with the big houses and the daily commute and the unsustainable consumption. If you want the benefits of city life you have to actually live in the city.

If you want to live with a ton of space and live sustainably, on the other hand, there are rural communal models that allow that.

But the American car-centric urban sprawl lifestyle has an expiration date. If we don’t give it up willingly, geopolitical realities will put an end to it sooner or later. And accepting we can’t maintain the privileged lifestyle we’re used to is something we’re all going to have to do sooner or later.

I think that both collective action (politics) and individual action are necessary. Both feed on each other in a positive spiral. Neither one is less important than the other. And arguments that dismiss either harm the cause as a whole.

For one, because every choice you make to support a cause or goal makes you more likely to continue supporting it. Action builds commitment. The more you think about the environment, the more actions you take because of the environment, the more dedicated you become and the more actions you take in future. Trying to live a environmentally sustainable lifestyle gives a lot of people the motivation to engage in collective action in support of that lifestyle.

For another, because when people live in an environmentally sustainable way, and are less likely to be personally harmed by environmental legislation, it makes it easier for them to vote for it. It’s a lot easier to vote for a gasoline tax if you don’t drive. Or for regulations on factory farms if you don’t eat meat. If you already replaced all your old light bulbs with LEDs, a government mandate on energy efficient light bulbs won’t affect you, and you can vote for it without worrying about how much it’ll cost you personally. In California, an attempt to phase out gas stoves was opposed by people who had gas stoves and liked them - if those people had been convinced to take individual action, and replace their old gas stoves with induction, they would have had no reason to oppose the phaseout.

Moreover, there’s the issue of credibility. When you live your values, and your friends and family and neighbors see you living your values, your words in support of those values gain greater weight. Politics is the art of persuasion. If you want to convince other people to support collective action, your individual actions matter, because they show you believe what you say.

And finally, and to me most importantly - we should take individual action to live more sustainably and less wastefully because it’s the morally right thing to do.

Yes, write your congressperson. And also, drive less, fly less, insulate your home properly, and eat more plants. And tell the people around you what you’re doing, and why you’re doing it.

Collective action and individual action are not separate. Like a previous generation said, the personal is political.

I will admit my two-for-one claim is at the very lowest end of estimates - possibly slightly lower than the lowest end estimate - for corn ethanol efficiency. Though it’s a snappy line and easier to remember than “1.6 gallons per gallon” or whatever.

But as the Wikipedia notes at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance :

Depending on the ethanol study you read, net energy returns vary from .7-1.5 units of ethanol per unit of fossil fuel energy consumed.

Bluntly, there’s a lot of bad science around ethanol, for the obvious reason that both Big Ag and the US government are highly motivated to make corn subsidies look good and keep the money flowing.

But oil propaganda? Fucking lol. We need to phase out fossil fuels entirely. If anything, US ethanol production benefits oil companies - because ethanol is an additive to gasoline, Big Ag and Big Oil both benefit from keeping internal combustion engines on the road and slowing the transition to EVs.

So on the negative end: this 2005 study estimated corn ethanol consumed 29% more energy than it produced:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070809024158/http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRethanol.2005.pdf

And though that study is old, and the Wikipedia page on ethanol energy balance goes out of its way to claim it’s been discredited (gosh, I wonder who added that content), here’s an article about a 2022 study finding similarly that corn based ethanol produces at least 24% more greenhouse gases than gasoline when all the impacts - including the expansion of farmland into previously undeveloped land, funded by ethanol subsidies - are taken into account:

https://grist.org/agriculture/despite-what-you-may-think-ethanol-isnt-dead-yet/

And then there’s all the other negative externalities of expanding fucking cornfields.

Ethanol is the biggest environmental disaster in the United States. It takes two gallons of fossil fuels (counting fertilizer, transportation, and all other inputs) to make one gallon of ethanol - plus all the herbicides, pesticides, toxic fertilizer runoff, and all the other negative externalities of monocrop industrial agriculture - so a handful of Big Ag megacorps can get fat off subsidies at taxpayer expense.

51 million acres of farmland - an area the size of Nebraska - wasted turning fuel into less efficient fuel.

Of fucking course Trump and Biden found some way to make it worse.

Is Craigslist shit now? What happened to it?

Yes, and, if you’re grilling meat, do you do less harm grilling it on an electric grill or a fossil fuel grill?

Every change for the better - even a tiny marginal change like replacing a fossil fuel grill with an electric grill - is worth doing. Every time someone makes a decision based on the environment, they become more likely to make future decisions based on the environment. Especially if they get positive reinforcement for their decision instead of discouraging “this doesn’t matter” or “you should do something else instead” responses.

(Yes, it would be better for the environment, and for people’s health, and be the morally correct thing to do, to grill veggies instead of meat. But cultural dietary changes are a lot harder to make stick than swapping out a piece of equipment. And any change is better than none.)

But look on the bright side, I bet some politically connected contractors in Oakland made a whole lot of money off building it. That’s called investing in the local economy 😆

I’m not a huge fan of Porter. But between her and Kamala fucking Harris, whose big takeaway from the 2024 election seems to be “we didn’t run far enough to the right…”

I don’t know if I used the right term by saying “surcharge”. They built an extraordinarily expensive trolley line from BART to the airport about ten years back and are charging high fees to cover expenses.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Airport_Connector

The San Francisco Airport, on the other hand, has an actual surcharge - the main BART line goes direct to SFO but they charge like $5 extra. But SFO also has the same surcharge on taxis and rideshares :/

In case anyone is wondering, a one way trip from Oakland International Airport to the Civic Center station in San Francisco (the stop next to City Hall and the city’s largest open air fent market) is exactly $12.65.

The trip from Oakland to Civic Center is “just” $5.20, but like OP said, there’s a fuckass stupid airport surcharge for the last half mile or so.

I imagine dead trees were flammable, even back then. And oxygen levels were 15% higher. Can you imagine the forest fires?

Hey now, banana pancakes are awesome.