Why would 30% be against this? What could you possibly argue to say environmental damage is okay?
Version 1:
- The world is going to end real soon
- they expect to be raptured away to Heaven
- God put stuff on the earth for us to use up before the rapture
Version 2:
- Somebody else is going to suffer because of the environmental damage
- Hurting other people shows how masculine and powerful I am
- I profit from the damage
- Damage = good
Maybe legislation that makes human life more important than profit?
It ALL hinges on making elections fair in the first place. Closed primaries and first past the post rules make banana republic democracies seem fair in comparison. Until those issues get solved, I only see the “adults in the room” deciding to boil the oceans for profit while codifying it into law more each year.
It’s hard not to be cynical.
You need two more things to make that work. First of all media needs to be taken away from the rich. Media is easily able to influence elections. The other part is election advertising. As long as you need millions to run an election, you need to work for the rich to get elected.
Absolutely! I never realized how powerful the media is until I read Chomsky in college.
We’re long past the time for legislation, because those making the money make the rules. It’s time to get to abolishing capitalism and building instead a society where there isn’t a small group of people who get to dictate the rules so they can always exclude themselves from them.
Well shit now that the survey says it the oil industry is sure to collapse. In seriousness though I’m glad the general population is getting on board with this it does mean change is on the horizon. Having popular support will mean less pushback on direct action
