[cheerlessbog]

> in the US at least, because belief in climate change is a political opinion.

Which is a strange state of affairs. In the European countries I am familiar with, all the mainstream parties agree with core mainstream science. Their voters largely do as well. They may have more or less credible plans to address the problem but they don't have their own private scientific conclusions.

Why is the US (and maybe Australia?) different? Is it because voters are ignorant or short termist, and politicians follow? Or politicians are corrupted and mislead their voters? Or just a higher level of scientific ignorance all around? Or a heavy dependence on fossil fuel prosperity in key districts?

Can someone suggest the answer? Clearly Europeans are not more intrinsically virtuous or sensible.

[jellicle]

Well, do they? The science is telling us that global pollution is an existential threat to humanity and that immediate drastic action must be taken. Which parties are behaving as if they believe that? Maybe Green parties are, but they aren't in power. Which parties in power are BEHAVING (not talking) as if they believe the science?

This:

Talk: "We believe in climate change"

Action: "Going to increase fuel mileage standards by 1%, that'll do it"

doesn't cut it.

[mrob]

Even Green parties don't really believe it, because they're opposed to the only workable plan that isn't "let's all live like third world peasants": massive scale-up of nuclear fission energy.

[cheerlessbog]

Fair, but it's still interesting to understand why they feel compelled to publicly hew to scientific fact, but leaders in the US do not.

[graeme]

Maybe a 10-20% difference in public opinion compared to canada, add 15% more for us.

Enough to mouth belief, not enough to demand action. It’s a smaller difference than it seems.

[klyrs]

> Why is the US (and maybe Australia?) different?

I can't speak to Australia, but in the US I see two significant factors. The first is the news and the second is the evangelical christian movement. IMO, both are rooted in perverse interpretations of the first amendment.

My understanding is that Reagan struck down laws regarding truth in journalism, which really set the stage. Fox News is particularly egregious in climate denial (as well as fearmongering about Muslim folks, immigrants, etc.), and for many, that's just the start of a slippery slope. Smaller, especially local radio, talk-shows around the country are even more egregious. They use fear-based arguments to significant effect, and because politicians use these arguments, they're "political opinions."

The evangelical movement (which gets a lot of play on Fox and other platforms) has positioned itself as anti-science: anti-climate, anti-vax, anti-evolution, anti-lgbt. So these opinions are elevated beyond "political opinions," they're sitting on the lofty perch of "religious beliefs" and challenging them is an assault on religious liberty.

[avtar]

> Why is the US (and maybe Australia?) different?

I would add Canada to that list as well. The current federal government has been trying to enforce a national carbon tax which has so far been met with siginificant resistance.

> Is it because voters are ignorant or short termist, and politicians follow? Or politicians are corrupted and mislead their voters? Or just a higher level of scientific ignorance all around? Or a heavy dependence on fossil fuel prosperity in key districts?

All of the above? :) And probably also corporate lobbying.

[cheerlessbog]

But why is this seemingly different in western Europe?

Another theory : if you live closer together you have a more visceral understanding of how you depend on the good behavior of others.

[klyrs]

American immigrant to Canada: they consume Fox News here too. The station can't broadcast here, but the internet is everywhere. Canadians don't believe me when I say "Canadian politics seem to follow American politics by 5-10 years" but... I've had to update that to "1-10" years because Trump's impact on Canadian culture and politics was almost immediate.