Underestimating support for climate action limits political decision making, study says

5 comments

1. If we had functioning democracies that 90% support would matter. But neoliberal capitalist societies are owned by the fossil fuel industry. They use the vast fossil fuel profits to buy the political parties and the media so they can control the narrative and legislative agenda.

   This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper.

2. To me, Climate is now the only issue. I’m absolutely part of the invisible majority.

3. What limits action on climate change is not political will but rather tons of money pouring into politicians pockets by the oil and gas industry and oil producers

4. Hmm. So who has their thumb on the scale?

5. Representative democracy allows the business elite to lobby politicians for a suitable **arbitrage** that becomes a **dilemma** for the voters. A dilemma is roughly even (two equally bad choices), thus the voting result can fall either way.

   Economy uses natural resources and mass immigration for fueling the economic growth pyramid scheme.
   The majorities of citizenry in almost all OECD countries are against mass immigration from 3rd countries.
   **The majorities of citizenry are also for stopping AGW with a carbon tax + citizen dividends + WTO border adjustment tariffs in almost all OECD countries**. Nordhaus’s and James Hansen’s carbon tax & dividend. Most economists and most climate scientists support that combination.
   But **none of the parties of OECD countries support such a combination**. None. Thus voters have no meaningful choice that would make a difference. And no referendums to enforce the majority will.

   The crosstabulation of scientific and public majority will positions against that of the parties suggests an arbitrage (a dilemma for voters) at higher than 6-sigma statistical significance (with chi-square test or similar) to systematically avert democracy at an industrial scale. Such a situation could not have emerged in democracies. And that is especially evident in avoiding referendums on such (or on any) issues.

   A local social contract can only be as stable as its constituency – ie. multi-generational local natives as a strong majority. That is Game Theory 101.

   Rank correlation between [biocapacity deficit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint) and [share of immigrants in a country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population) is statistically significantly negative, which means that mass immigration as a Tragedies of the Commons destroys the local social contract and thereby destroys local natural environment.

Comments are closed.