“The environmental movement has failed to capture the public’s imagination or to engage and inspire them to demand a green agenda from their governments.”
“The environmental movement has failed to capture the public’s imagination or to engage and inspire them to demand a green agenda from their governments.”
I expect it’s because the American public’s “imagination” is rather more acutely focused on the reality of the hideous mess our “Liberal” fascist government has made of the U.S. economy particularly, and of social comity in our republic generally.
People who cannot make their mortgage payments, cannot afford health insurance, and are forced to decide which of their utility bills they can manage to pay this month are not going to accord much welcome to efforts which “will make energy costs necessarily skyrocket.”
All that ammunition flying off the shelves all over the country?
The ‘viros ought to mark this phenomenon as quite ominous.
“Shoot, shovel, and shut up.”
The “green” agenda always seems to require more central planning by the government, emphasis on “social and ‘environmental’ justice” and almost any other policy that happens to be on the progressive wish list. Why would anyone other than the clueless (i.e. progressive) 30% support the “green agenda”?
“failed to capture the public’s imagination”? Come on. We were certainly riveted with claims that CO2 causes prostitution, cannibalism and hordes of roaches.
Maybe capturing the public’s imagination was the problem.
Just so.
Let’s see. A “green” agenda means everything I use costs more but performs less. A “green” agenda constricts my freedom of movement and the thermostat in my home and the length of my shower and the temperature of my bathtub. A “green” agenda harms the environment by imposing “feel-good” measures which use more resources than they conserve. A “green” agenda curtails liberty and opportunity, especially opportunity for the poorest people on earth.
Why, exactly, would I demand this of my government?