I firmly believe that climate change is the biggest challenge we are facing down the road and the position of Trump and his team scares me.

Sure, creating fossil fuels-related jobs is going to help some people in the short term and offer cheap energy sources while providing jobs, but it's disastrous in the long term. Then again, I'm young and should be able to find a job easily when I will have my degree. If I put myself in the position of the people who lost their jobs due to the global economy and who have a chance of having a future and provide for their family, thanks to new regulations which will provide new jobs, would I sacrifice myself for the long term benefits of the human species ? I doubt it.

I also believe that the rise in inequality are driving us in this terrible situation. When the basic needs of the people are met, they will think about the environment, but if they are in a constant struggle to make ends-meet, they will focus on what's impacting them now. In addition to an absolute gain in value of what life has to offer, we must not diverge too much in terms of relative value from one another, otherwise we are putting everything at risk. It's a strange and difficult balance to find, but I think it's necessary if we hope to live in a world which provides to everyone. In this regard, social networks and the fake aggregators of our best moments drive us apart rather than connect us.

In China, there is obviously a direct causation between climate change and health and the people are feeling a basic need to act on that. In the US, it's more like a systemic causation and it's more complex. And that's why it's not on the ballot for most people. George Lakoff spoke about this & understanding Trump : https://georgelakoff.com/2016/07/23/understanding-trump-2/

Direct vs. Systemic Causation

Direct causation is dealing with a problem via direct action. Systemic causation recognizes that many problems arise from the system they are in and must be dealt with via systemic causation. Systemic causation has four versions: A chain of direct causes. Interacting direct causes (or chains of direct causes). Feedback loops. And probabilistic causes. Systemic causation in global warming explains why global warming over the Pacific can produce huge snowstorms in Washington DC: masses of highly energized water molecules evaporate over the Pacific, blow to the Northeast and over the North Pole and come down in winter over the East coast and parts of the Midwest as masses of snow. Systemic causation has chains of direct causes, interacting causes, feedback loops, and probabilistic causes — often combined.

Direct causation is easy to understand, and appears to be represented in the grammars of all languages around the world. Systemic causation is more complex and is not represented in the grammar of any language. It just has to be learned.

Empirical research has shown that conservatives tend to reason with direct causation and that progressives have a much easier time reasoning with systemic causation. The reason is thought to be that, in the strict father model, the father expects the child or spouse to respond directly to an order and that refusal should be punished as swiftly and directly as possible.

Many of Trump’s policy proposals are framed in terms of direct causation.

Immigrants are flooding in from Mexico — build a wall to stop them. For all the immigrants who have entered illegally, just deport them — even if there are 11 million of them working throughout the economy and living throughout the country. The cure for gun violence is to have a gun ready to directly shoot the shooter. To stop jobs from going to Asia where labor costs are lower and cheaper goods flood the market here, the solution is direct: put a huge tariff on those goods so they are more expensive than goods made here. To save money on pharmaceuticals, have the largest consumer — the government — take bids for the lowest prices. If Isis is making money on Iraqi oil, send US troops to Iraq to take control of the oil. Threaten Isis leaders by assassinating their family members (even if this is a war crime). To get information from terrorist suspects, use water-boarding, or even worse torture methods. If a few terrorists might be coming with Muslim refugees, just stop allowing all Muslims into the country. All this makes sense to direct causation thinkers, but not those who see the immense difficulties and dire consequences of such actions due to the complexities of systemic causation.

What's worse in 2016, the state of the climate, or the climate of the State? I can't decide. They're both fucked, but at least one is a disaster that could end in four years.

The reality is we've been screwed since the Industrial Revolution. This is what our species does: Consume and destroy. We grow and multiply and fuck the consequences. There is no going backwards. Even after the skies are soot and the water is acid we'll be clawing at each other's throats for our easy dwindling unrenewable resources. It will be chaos and humanity may not survive and maybe that's the way it's gotta be to evolve.

Am I three fingers in and extremely pessimistic about our future. Yes. Should we try to change things for the better? God help us, yes. Do I think we will? I doubt it.

Here in CA, I definitely feel like there's a distinctly noticeable impact now that's apparent to any idiot that lives here. On the plus side, support for ecofriendliness is steadily on the upswing, and the technology to implement it is advancing formidably.

I am concerned that Trump will double-down on his climate denial. It could be the single most disastrous aspect of his presidency. I was also not aware that the US was such a huge producer of CO2 compared to other developed, and even more populous countries. I knew we were bad, but the biggest emitters chart really puts things into perspective.