A new survey of public opinion research reveals the overwhelming majority around the world support more ambitious efforts, and want to overcome geopolitical differences, to fight climate change.
So 80% want stronger climate action? But not enough to vote for green parties, and even not enough to not vote for anti-climate action parties?
Using the US as example and assuming the Dem/Rep split is about 50/50: if all Dem voters want “stronger climate action”, then that means 30% of Rep voters are voting for anti-climate policy while claiming to want stronger climate action.
Sounds to me like those 80% don’t really know how bad the issue is or how much needs to be done. Which means they are lying to themselves or to others, and this number is actually meaningless. That’s the point the user above you is making, and it seems you agree.
You can’t assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election, plus the fact that neither party promises adequate action on climate change, that people don’t care. In a first-past-the-post system people often feel forced to vote for a party that is not their favorite and doesn’t prioritize as they would like.
You can’t assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election
The survey says 80%… that is enough to get any party to win. Hell, if you dare to dream high enough, that number is high enough to completely set the current government to the side, deny their legitimacy, and make a new governmental system - like one which is not a “first-past-the-post system”.
The argument of “only two parties that can win” is nonsensical in this context, no offense.
Either way, the US is not the only country in the world, and it’s not the only example the other user gave. Even if we ignore the US, how do you justify this in other countries that don’t have a first-past-the-post system? Like I said in another comment:
Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up.
People don’t like that, and it affects how they vote.
That assumes that the 80% of people agree on everything else too.
Say it’s 30% conservatives, 50% socialists and 20% whatever else - you expect them to join forces and vote for a 3rd party because they agree on one aspect?
Do Democrats all agree 100% with each other? Do Republicans? They still manage to get together to vote for those parties. How many single issue voters are out there?
But I’m expected to believe 80% want significant climate action or have any clue what that would really entail, but can’t get together and vote for a green party? Perhaps if by “stronger climate action” they mean more electrical cars and recycling bins, or maybe these 80% even include people who want more green coal, but I’m sure we both know that doesn’t mean really mean anything.
This is an obvious lie though.no matter the words.
I’ve nwvwr met anyone who does.
Some evidence to supoort my assertion.
80% of Australians voted for climate deniers at the last national elections.
NZ voted for a National Givernwmt. Who had a policy fi reopening oil and gas exploration ffs
Netherlands votered for Gert Wilder’s FFS.
UKnlooks set to Vote Labour another climate denying political parry…Hell, climate isn’t even discussed.
US will Vote Biden or Trump, both climate deniers. Biden has approved morenoil and gas exploration then Trump did ffs
So no they do not .I’d suggest the number is closer to 10-15% based on voting polls.
Were ANY of those elections solely about climate?
So 80% want stronger climate action? But not enough to vote for green parties, and even not enough to not vote for anti-climate action parties?
Using the US as example and assuming the Dem/Rep split is about 50/50: if all Dem voters want “stronger climate action”, then that means 30% of Rep voters are voting for anti-climate policy while claiming to want stronger climate action.
Sounds to me like those 80% don’t really know how bad the issue is or how much needs to be done. Which means they are lying to themselves or to others, and this number is actually meaningless. That’s the point the user above you is making, and it seems you agree.
You can’t assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election, plus the fact that neither party promises adequate action on climate change, that people don’t care. In a first-past-the-post system people often feel forced to vote for a party that is not their favorite and doesn’t prioritize as they would like.
The survey says 80%… that is enough to get any party to win. Hell, if you dare to dream high enough, that number is high enough to completely set the current government to the side, deny their legitimacy, and make a new governmental system - like one which is not a “first-past-the-post system”.
The argument of “only two parties that can win” is nonsensical in this context, no offense.
Either way, the US is not the only country in the world, and it’s not the only example the other user gave. Even if we ignore the US, how do you justify this in other countries that don’t have a first-past-the-post system? Like I said in another comment:
People don’t like that, and it affects how they vote.
That assumes that the 80% of people agree on everything else too.
Say it’s 30% conservatives, 50% socialists and 20% whatever else - you expect them to join forces and vote for a 3rd party because they agree on one aspect?
Yes.
Do Democrats all agree 100% with each other? Do Republicans? They still manage to get together to vote for those parties. How many single issue voters are out there?
But I’m expected to believe 80% want significant climate action or have any clue what that would really entail, but can’t get together and vote for a green party? Perhaps if by “stronger climate action” they mean more electrical cars and recycling bins, or maybe these 80% even include people who want more green coal, but I’m sure we both know that doesn’t mean really mean anything.