4 ms·
Debates on major topics during a campaign aren't really known for their scientific quality and attention to nuance, so I'm not really sure we should be upset if
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Debates on major topics during a campaign aren't really known for their scientific quality and attention to nuance, so I'm not really sure we should be upset if anyone's passed up on the opportunity to debate acceptable fuel emissions during campaigns. Between healthcare, immigration, criminal justice reform, etc. there isn't exactly a shortage of topics to debate and pick a side on during a campaign. And unlike (perhaps) the market, it's not like mother nature gives points for democracy either.
- username90 6y agoProblem is that without debates this is likely to just get reverted and make people lose even more trust in their politicians.
- sjy 6y agoIn Australia, the debate was so popular that it continued after a carbon tax was successfully implemented, which resulted in the tax being repealed in 2014 and not much action on climate change since then. Maybe “debate” is not the right word for what happened, but engaging the public on climate policy seems to have had perverse effects in Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia
- username90 6y agoSounds like you would get better results if you created a policy people are happy with instead of just doing something that will get reversed and create more future opposition against green solutions.