*the reason politicians started using this rhetoric is because rabid lefties already adopted it long ago and generated grassroots pressure for dems to declare a climate crisis*

so you have the causation the wrong way around

>gave a weapon to discredit the entire thing to opposition

*the opposition's position has become MORE amenable to the science over time, not less*

10 years ago people used to deny global warming itself

now the most pushback you get is "but it might not be man-made!"

which means there's no empirical evidence that the left's approach is failing

> sorry bud, but the United States did this with the Soviet Union for 45 years, and it worked amazingly
In the atmosphere of informational isolation and for more tame goals than uniting the entire world.

> these idiots woul<...>wrong way around
Sure. I am not saying something is wrong with her existence, even 3 million american looneys deserve political representation. I am saying that the democratic party, thanks to AOC, does not sound very rational either.
In reality one side wants to squeeze fossils' as much as they can before it becomes actually dangerous and other superpowers can't abuse them either, while the other one demands unity right now. Good luck to the latter.

> the opposition's position has bec<...>he left's approach is failing
What is important is not the most pushback you can find. The important part is how much ground you can give before collapsing. Now, thanks to AOC, we can completely drop the conversation, point the finger at her and shout "look at this liar!" even when she says half-truths. Hysteria feels weird. It's alienating.

>before it becomes actually dangerous

*its already dangerous*

> Now, thanks to AOC, we can completely drop the conversation, point the finger at her and shout "look at this liar!"

but this doesnt show up in opinion polls/surveys. most people are realising the serious issue that climate change is, and even the skeptics are changing their arguments. the only people pointing at AOC and shouting are retarded conservative commentators who dont actually represent the true beliefs of the populace. you have to recognise hardly anyone pays attention to these guys. america has 330 million people, and people like shapiro and crowder have around 1-2 million subs *not necessarily even from the US*, not to mention both them and fox news would find another fringe scapegoat if AOC didnt exist. We're talking about a small echo chamber compared to the actual voting base of america, who would be completely misled *regardless of AOC's existence*.

>In the atmosphere of informational isolation and for more tame goals than uniting the entire world.

we're not talking about uniting the entire world, we're talking about convincing *the american populace* of the seriousness of the issue. uniting the entire world is necessary, but thats not the purpose of rhetorical strategy in america itself.

> its already dangerous
Well, it's still profitable to bun fuels, so...

> retarded conservative commentators
> dont actually represent the true beliefs of the populace
Well, this is what they say about AOC. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯

> we're not talking about uniting the entire world, we're talking about convincing the american populace of the seriousness of the issue. uniting the entire world is necessary, but thats not the purpose of rhetorical strategy in america itself.

I am not sure you can separate one from the other. Imagine, you convince american people that it's the real deal and they have to stop. You can't do it without being thorn apart by other superpowers. So what's the point?

the point is that its a first step

america cannot institute real change without the voting base becoming aware of the actual danger involved with inaction

also its important for leverage in international conferences

back in the 2015 paris conference, india's big issue leading into it, and still is, was "american citizens are burning 34x more carbon than we do, so why should we be forced to restrict our usage?"

"especially when we're underdeveloped"

>You can't do it without being thorn apart by other superpowers.

you can actually

think about it

the future of energy is obviously in green tech

and if your companies hold the patents and produce/export that tech to the world

*you will have significant economic power*

This is like capitalism going into communism vs going commie right now. Fossils are the economic vehicle to go nuclear. WIthout fossils you don't have a proper transition and your economy is fucked.

You just can't afford this transition without fossils. So what do you do? Burn em all!

Now imagine that you burn all your fossils and the planet is so hot that China can't burn theirs, so they are in position that they have to make this uncomfortable leap, but you don't.

wait what

you literally want to accelerate the burning of fossil fuels?

because you think it leads to more power?

I am saying that it's attractive to all superpowers.

but its not?

china have already started making massive investments into renewables

if florida going underwater is attractive for america, then the world is *literally* fucked

Maybe this is what they will go for to screw over Russia's export of fossils. That's a complicated thing.

power comes with economic hegemony, and the key to economic hegemony in the coming decades is green tech exports

they dont have to burn the world to screw russia

russia BENEFITS from climate change

it would be handing the world to russia *on a platter* to burn up the world

Well, Russia would benefit from getting more livable territory, which is in excess even now. How would it benefit otherwise?

Russia lives on export of fossils. It has nothing else.

russia gets to use the arctic

for shipping

mining/oil

but also they get more farmland

theyll get loads of immigrants to fill up their capacities too