If the polling data in countries such as the #USA, #UK, etc, are correct, the majority of people aren't stupid because they want the governments to do more to help them mitigate #ClimateChange
I'm not going to write that the government of the country l live in, the #UK, is relatively stupid because, well, the ecological effects of their stupid policies will speak louder than my words.
To be fair, the UK #conservative party did say "blame the policies not the people".
Stupid #politics!
Yes but beyond wanting government to do more, are they willing to make sacrifices to see it happen?
Everyone wants stuff, but when they are presented with the costs the opinions can change quite a bit.
The big problem is that steps governments would take to mitigate climate change themselves involve consumption.
But using eBikes, busses, and trains is still on the plus side of the ledger, consuming those services. The cost side is all of the projects that would lose out on the resources being redirected to support those things.
Are people going to willingly give up another use for this kg of steel because it was needed to build that bus? Perhaps not.
Point is, there is no free lunch, and once people are shown the price tag they often decide not to buy.
Have you realised that #NeoLiberalism is the fundamental economic problem? The so-called "free market".
The rich elite (status quo) have not mitigated #ClimateChange
This is fundamentally an alignment problem (greed is bad). The rich elites' agendas & their over-consuming lifestyles are not aligned with sustainable development
When people's agencies are aligned with mitigating ecological degradation they want to replace private transport with public transport (efficient)
First you started with polling data about what the people want.
I point out that when you include costs the polling data might show different wants from people.
Now you're basically saying what the people want doesn't matter because they want the wrong things because of rich people?
Which is it? Do we care what the people want or not? Do the polls matter or not?
l did write "IF the polling data is accurate"
"want" is a subjective term. Public polling data is not #science
It's either ignorance or corruption if a person doesn't want to mitigate #ClimateChange
Your general narrative is based on what people want. But, the majority of people are not deciding what industries manufacture.
Who decided to disinform the public about climate change or the emissions from diesel vehicles (aka diesel gate)
The point is there are solutions
"Which is it?"
Generally, this is "because they want the wrong things because of rich people?" (advertising)
E.g., , If people truly want to mitigate #ClimateChange, plus IF they know how to mitigate climate change, they'd choose to eat a plant & fungi-based diet.
But, have you heard of greenwash?
And who decides if, for example, meat & dairy is taxed more than plants?
The industries or the general population?
How can people make the right choice when disinformation is the norm?
I'm just still left a bit puzzled as to why you began this thread talking about polling data when you're so quick to ignore peoples' opinions as wrong.
If the data and voters' personal preferences are so subject to being wrong, why bother with any of it?
It seems more straightforward to just say you're looking to impose certain policies no matter what the democratic process might have to say about that.
I get the impresssion that we are not going to find common ground on this topic. So.....
@volkris
Of course, there is a difference between the public saying that they want the government to help, & the public making better lifestyle choices such as eating a non-meat-based diet.
What type of costs & sacrifices are you referring to? Do you mean reducing over-consumerism?
For example, l wouldn't call using eBikes, electric buses & trains too much of a sacrifice.