Yes, if we maintained the current economic and political system. But that would be impossible if every person on earth felt deeply about their carbon footprint. They'd throw out of office any politician that didn't support immediate action on climate change. Governments would be forced to regulate the s*** out of polluters and go to net-zero ASAP.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...
However, our political and capital power to do anything about it has been systematically and purposefully limited.
When we discovered the dangers of CFCs, we didn’t depend on the public at large to stop using items that produced CFC byproducts. We didn’t point to personal CFC footprints and little CFC calculators that guilt trip you for existing. Why should we do the same with CO2?
They say they care. I'm sure they even believe they care. But at the ballot box, they act very differently.
Why does almost no Green Party win an outright majority in any European national election?
Why does half the US continue to vote for a political party that outright denies man-made climate change?
> our political and capital power to do anything about it has been systematically and purposefully limited.
By the current set of politicians. Who are ultimately voted in by voters. If climate change was really a top-priority issue for everyone, we'd have a different set of people in office.
If you think about it, voting isn't that much of a personal sacrifice. No one is asking people to ride bikes in freezing conditions, or go vegan. And yet, people can't even do that.
We could take action on CFCs by enacting laws. Because we had slightly more sensible politicians back then. If we want sensible politicians again, we have to vote for them.
We all pretty much want the same: survive (at least). The thing is, we can't seem to agree on the best way to do so. ICE vs electric cars. Nuclear vs wind vs solar panels. Apartment vs homesteading...
So when voting, we all vote for what we believe in. But we don't believe in the same thing. And then there's "thinking fashion".
All in all, we do a step in one direction, then in the opposite direction. And we get nowhere.
The story I have heard a few times is that the candidate with the biggest budget wins. Climate movements have smaller budgets than incumbents funded by decades-deep vested interest.
> Why does almost no Green Party win an outright majority in any European national election?
> By the current set of politicians. Who are ultimately voted in by voters.
> voting isn't that much of a personal sacrifice
> Why does half the US continue to vote for a political party that outright denies man-made climate change?
Average citizen preferences have no bearing[1] on the adoption of legislation. [1](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...)
> Because we had slightly more sensible politicians back then
I cannot understate how much I disagree with the idea that politics was somehow more sensible "back then". Politicians are not more stubborn or unreasonable today, because __people__ are not more stubborn or unreasonable today.
Because ecology is not the only thing people have in mind. That's a limit of direct democracy, as opposed to a system where people would vote for policies.
Also because some of these parties are trainwrecks.
One catch-all vote every few years is a very noisy metric for measuring people's agreement with one specific issue. Even more so when the choice is quite limited (e.g. two-horse races, between mostly similar horses, like many US votes between slightly-more-right-wing-authoritarian versus slightly-less-right-wing-authoritarian)).
