Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
43. The 1970s were forty years ago.
Sun Mar 23, 2014, 02:21 PM
Mar 2014

Climate change was barely a blip on the public radar at that time. The environmental movements of the 1970s had an impact on public perception and awareness of environmental issues and led to legislative actions that addressed some important problems. That was forty years ago. Times have changed.

The kinds of fundamental, societal, changes necessary to affect climate change completely dwarf anything that was accomplished in the 1970s or any other time in our history. The legislation passed in the 1970s was child's play. Businesses made minor adjustments. New federal bureaucracies settled down to business. Life went on.

Go ahead. Bash Hillary Clinton for having the temerity to publicly suggest that climate change is a significant threat and that she hopes there will be a mass movement that demands political change.

The nerve of that woman! The deception! Shameless! Inexcusable!

It's exactly the same as the Iraq War (no it isn't.) Politicians KNOW what's necessary (no they don't) and they don't need be reminded (yes they do).

What percentage of the general population believes that climate change is not real or a hoax? Twenty percent? Thirty percent? How many think it might be a problem but not one that requires anything difficult or disruptive? Fifty percent?

How many believe it's the most profound global threat ever faced in human history, one that threatens the very existence of human civilization and the living systems on which human civilization depends, one that requires radical transformative action and fundamental changes to how modern people and societies live on the earth? Ten percent?

Who believes that the GOP -- and the millions of constituents they represent -- are ready to sit down and face the difficult choices together? Anyone?

Hillary Clinton is 100% correct. Millions of citizens in this country are either ambivalent, on the fence, or outright hostile to the threat of climate change. Politicians in Washington are generally a reflection of this fact.

Without a massive change in the American public nothing will change. The only real change is from the bottom up, not from the top down.





Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Here comes Liberal Hillary! MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #1
Not a fan? I like her taking bold steps on issues. It is what will cream the GOP. applegrove Mar 2014 #2
She'll talk a good game while campaigning dflprincess Mar 2014 #3
Really? pangaia Mar 2014 #51
A Walton family friend and TPP architect is going to save the environment? Earth_First Mar 2014 #4
Exactly, if she gets nominated, I stay home. Katashi_itto Mar 2014 #5
If you do not want to vote for her at least vote for Congress. We needs a full deck. jwirr Mar 2014 #10
There are other options. Le Taz Hot Mar 2014 #12
What a great view of politics!!! Beacool Mar 2014 #44
My are you patriotic! Auntie Bush Mar 2014 #50
Stay home regardless. JoePhilly Mar 2014 #57
That what scares me nt newfie11 Mar 2014 #6
Not bloody likely indeed. We may all have to hold our noses and vote in Nay Mar 2014 #7
+1 XemaSab Mar 2014 #24
I feel exactly that way! lunatica Mar 2014 #38
+ !,000,000,000,000,000 pangaia Mar 2014 #53
+1 octoberlib Mar 2014 #63
I WANT to believe this but Clinton does not inspire me with confidence on anything. randome Mar 2014 #8
The biggest change we could make today to address the creation of greenhouse gasses Jesus Malverde Mar 2014 #9
Tiny? Not according to UN_CarbonMechs vetted "ClimaLoop Infographic: CO2 emissions by country." proverbialwisdom Mar 2014 #47
Maybe you haven't seen the pollution in china. Jesus Malverde Mar 2014 #48
Just a bunch of jargon to me but the source is the official verified Twitter acct 'UN_CarbonMechs' proverbialwisdom Mar 2014 #58
More. proverbialwisdom Mar 2014 #62
Okay she put a title on her paper. Now fill in the essay. What are you going to do about climate jwirr Mar 2014 #11
Oh, but don't you get it? Leaders expect the peons to get out into the Nay Mar 2014 #27
And then they do not listen to us anyhow. No end to this game. jwirr Mar 2014 #34
Yes, that's the endgame. No matter how many people come out to protest Nay Mar 2014 #37
That's an interesting thought. Thanks for that. Throd Mar 2014 #59
That's nice - "mass" in this sense meaning "Not me", Mrs. Clinton? hatrack Mar 2014 #13
That's exactly what I got out of it Aerows Mar 2014 #16
And of course, we all remember how 350.org's mass actions stopped Keystone XL . . . hatrack Mar 2014 #17
Here's my theory, and it's been a while since I floated it XemaSab Mar 2014 #26
Yup, jut like republicans and abortion tularetom Mar 2014 #39
What a reveal! How daring of her to speak of that! Whisp Mar 2014 #14
Let's just say I have my doubts about her sincerity IDemo Mar 2014 #15
I'd like a 'mass movement' away from anything Clinton. L0oniX Mar 2014 #18
count me in.. pangaia Mar 2014 #54
I expect a lot of talk about the environment in 2016. LuvNewcastle Mar 2014 #19
A lot of talk, and not much more, would be my take hatrack Mar 2014 #22
I wish I could believe it nt G_j Mar 2014 #20
Why ProSense Mar 2014 #21
A speech, another speech and a website hatrack Mar 2014 #23
Well, ProSense Mar 2014 #28
It's not that his actions so far are bad on climate per se . . . hatrack Mar 2014 #32
What's interesting ProSense Mar 2014 #29
Yeah. Okay. Vashta Nerada Mar 2014 #25
and you are already railing against her and she's not even the nominee yet... VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #31
OUCH! That'll leave a mark! VanillaRhapsody Mar 2014 #30
Like Obama? mmonk Mar 2014 #33
Has she publically condemned Keystone XL yet? NickB79 Mar 2014 #35
I just wanted to chime in and thank you for calling her Clinton instead of Hillary. Iggo Mar 2014 #36
She's floating her talking points and issues to see what sticks and what doesn't lunatica Mar 2014 #40
Hillary Clinton is ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT... cheapdate Mar 2014 #41
Your problem is that the mass ecological movement has already occurred. In the Nay Mar 2014 #42
The 1970s were forty years ago. cheapdate Mar 2014 #43
The responses around here are so predictable. Beacool Mar 2014 #45
This message was self-deleted by its author polichick Mar 2014 #52
Whoooh.. I just read this as "Clinton wants (to take a giant dump) on climate change." PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #46
She seems to be floating a bunch of balloons lately. polichick Mar 2014 #49
Glad to see her speaking out against fracking and the XL Pipeline...oh, wait. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #55
She "hopes there will be a mass movement that demands political change." Iggo Mar 2014 #56
It's exactly like that, and will have the same effect. nt Nay Mar 2014 #61
If Hillary is elected POTUS, I really hope she pushes hard on climate change steve2470 Mar 2014 #60
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"Clinton wants 'mass...»Reply #43