Emeritus Prof Christopher MayNov 26, 2024

If global temperature levels are the easiest way of understanding the pace & seriousness of climate change, then its pretty clear we've not been dong a good job of trying to arrest global warning.

Already weather has become increasingly erratic & the effects of climate change are ever more obvious... looking at the incline on this graph can only lead you to conclude that we are not doing anything like enough!

The problem is our political leaders see it otherwise...

#climate #GlobalWarming

Show threadShamanNov 26, 2024
@ChrisMayLA6 let's face it, our political leaders, at least in democracies, are our leaders because we elected them.
The American voter elected a felon, who says that #ClimateChange is a hoax, but believes that legal immigrants from Haiti eat cats and dogs and are illegally in the US. This is what just was elected ... Don't tell me that it's politicians who don't take decisive action against the looming #ClimateBreakdown. It's the majority of voters who think cheaper groceries and white supremacy are worth electing a climate denying, demented, pathological liar and con man into the White House. That is who is not doing nearly enough #WeThePeople ...
Show threadCaesarNov 26, 2024
@RulesBuster @ChrisMayLA6 Well, roughly a third voted for him. And another third didn't care. But that does mean a third voted against him.
In the UK likewise, although Labour won a "landslide", they did so with a near record low number of votes.
So it's not true for everyone that their leaders are who they voted for. In fact it's a characteristic of many democracies that generally *most* people get the leader they didn't vote for.
Show threadShaman
@caesar @ChrisMayLA6 true that only minorities vote for leaders that then win elections. However, it still means that leaders are duly elected. It is also not clear, if the people who don't actively vote would actually change the outcome. Isn't it more likely that people not voting would follow the existing voting patterns?
Regardless, especially on the topic of the #ClimateCrisis there is no indication that a candidate, who is strong on environmental protection and willing to take decisive action against CO2 polluters will stand any chance winning an election.
So my point is that it is #UsThePeople, who are as a group overwhelmingly unwilling to change or aggressively fight the #ClimatCrisis.
Nov 27, 2024 at 4:46amWeb
Show threadEmeritus Prof Christopher MayNov 27, 2024

@RulesBuster @caesar

Given the democracy is for the most part voting against rather than for.... I think the final point, that we are 'are as a group overwhelmingly unwilling to change or aggressively fight the #ClimatCrisis' is true for the majority - the small minority prepared to fight are viewed either sympathetically, but not really positively supported or are vilified.

So in that sense while I'd like to differ with your initial point, I find it hard to do so convincingly.

Show threadMx VerdaNov 27, 2024

@ChrisMayLA6 @RulesBuster @caesar

They may be restricted from voting (gerrymandering / redlining, voter suppression),
voting may be inaccessible to them (caring responsibilities, too expensive to reach station, can’t afford time off work, can’t get time off work at all),
they may fully intend to but forget or be distracted (ADHD, caring responsibilities again, parenting, work, extreme weather), etc.

All these (or none) can still be relevant for the people who don’t vote.
I would find it unlikely that they would act in indistinguishable patterns since they are *already* behaving in a different way.

But I’m not a humanities / social scientist and I’m very tired. So I’m probably missing something.

[insert twXtter rant about everyone being stupid or something]

Show threadEmeritus Prof Christopher MayNov 27, 2024

@MxVerda @RulesBuster @caesar

yes, voter disengagement (for whatever reasons) is also going to be part of the issue