[thetrumanshow]

>> And it’s hard to read Republican’s sudden enthusiasm for tree planting as anything other than a cynical effort to dampen growing calls for the sorts of regulations and taxes required to bring about those changes.

Rather than going scorched earth on common-ground, why not see it as a stepping-stone, an opportunity to draw the other side toward your way of seeing things... and maybe even suggest more small, achievable steps for the other side to move in your direction rather than pulling out a cudgel?

[smacktoward]

Perhaps because the “other side” has spent thirty years fighting tooth and nail to stop even the most modest attempts to address the problem?

When people spend that long telling you what they want, it’s generally safe to believe them.

[thetrumanshow]

Probably so, but when someone steps in the direction you want them to go, its not effective to whack them for it. If you want them to continue down your path you say "Well done! But, can you take just one more small step?"

The hope is that these steps accumulate into something meaningful. A virtuous upward spiral.

[awb]

If you want to build cooperation then praising any progress, no matter how small it might seem, is usually a good idea.

Sure there might be more disagreement down the road but any bipartisan action on climate change is better than none.

[bnjms]

We want people to feel good about positive actions taken so when we have to pressure them again they have a reason to care and turn about. Any positive movement means they're slipping, realize they're slipping and have to do something to appease critics. But doing too little makes them a hypocrite and opens them to additional criticism. Which this article is an example of.

If I'm damned either way I'm going to go to hell doing as I please.

[ars]

So what you are saying, is that criticizing them for any progress is more effective?

[planetzero]

If you mean the environmentalists and nuclear power, I agree. Nuclear power really is the only serious answer to climate change.

It's hard to know if climate change would even be an issue if protesters of the 70s, 80s, and 90s wouldn't have made any investment into nuclear power so difficult.

[gnome_chomsky]

Stepping stones would have worked 40 years ago. We are at the precipice now and must take radical action if we are to mitigate the damage that is baked into the current climate model given the carbon ppm levels we're at now.

[dr_dshiv]

Bah, humbug. You still have to be nice and compromise, you can't just expect everyone to go along.

Frankly, the science isn't settled, it's such terrible rhetoric. As though science settles things that can't actually be measured until they happen.

(Ah! Did you see that? Your radicalism made me defensive and elicited my extreme response! I'm not a denier, I just find uncompromising rhetoric deeply dysfunctional)

[im3w1l]

Common ground would be building nuclear power plants. Big, beautiful and numerous.

Planting trees is feel-good-do-nothing.