The article doesn't support your characterization of it.

Nuclear isn't rejected by the left because of tribalism, as you seem to imply. It is rejected for other reasons, completely unrelated to tribalism, as the article points out. And many on the right reject nuclear for the exact same reasons.

My comment doesn't support your characterization of it. :)

My original remark was about rising above tribalism for sake of the environment. I was specifically thinking about the line in the article:

> Climate is simply too important to be sacrificed to cultural prejudices.

I would say, that in America at least, flip-flopping is only viewed as an insult by conservatives though. People criticized Biden over his busing policies during the election, but nobody critized the fact that he changed his mind on the topic, people discussed how he "grew". I know there are extremist pockets on both sides of the aisle - but I don't think the majority of liberals would really prefer a gotcha "I told you so" moment over actually getting meaningful policies done.

I've always viewed it more as an unfortunate coincidence[1] that social conservatism was so closely tied to climate change denial. In theory those folks wanting to make sure their children can hunt and hike like they did growing up should be strongly set in favour of preserving an environment where that remains a possibility. Instead we have the media pushing this shallow form of conservatism where we specifically want to preserve the unsustainable post-war boom years where every river had a paper mill on it, every driveway had two cars (except they didn't and they weren't SUVs) and nobody realized what the consequences of that were.

How do you overcome conservative media when it's pushing such a strong agenda? Inviting them over for tea isn't going to cause a sea-change.

1. Sorta - I think some folks worked hard to make sure this happened.

Hard to feel guilty about energy usage when the politicians arriving for the summit all arrive by private jet.

Even the loudest politicians usually maintain 3 or 4 homes, often with heated swimming pools.

I'm a bit tired of the extreme hypocrisy. If someone like Jimmy Carter or Ralph Nader (they both live humble lives) were to be the leading voice, I'd feel better about things.

This isn’t hypocrisy. The message from the leaders isn’t “we all need to do our part to emit less carbon”—that kind of personal responsibility approach isn’t going to work. We need to stop subsidizing carbon so that people’s economic interests are aligned with the interests of our planet. We need to solve this systemically.

I really don't want to deflect to "which party is worse"--to do so would be to completely miss my point. Let's tackle the existential threat first and then we can resume politics-as-sport.

Politics isn't going to take a pause for climate change.

At our peril.

> in America at least, flip-flopping is only viewed as an insult by conservatives though. People criticized Biden over his busing policies during the election, but nobody critized the fact that he changed his mind on the topic, people discussed how he "grew"

Both parties are tolerant of drift. Donald Trump wasn't always a Republican.

What then? A real estate developer like described in:

[DaDa] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside_South,_Manhattan#Tel... ?

Trump is really weird for a number of reasons. He broke the mold in a significant way from the more traditional conservative politician so I'm not certain if he's that good of an example. I'm trying to avoid "no true scotsman"ing but Trump really was a pretty big contrast to most other republicans.