The US emits a lot of CO2 per capita. Double of China and more than double of the EU.
But even though there seems to be more climate scepticism in the US than in the EU, the US did reduce carbon emissions per capita by about 30% in the past 15 years, same as the EU:
It is probably more than 50%, but the question for a government is not what people âjust wantâ, but what people âwill demandâ and make it a reason to vote them out.
Case in point, guns in the USA. There are two measures that âenjoyâ wide bipartizan support:
a) Preventing people with mental illnesses from owning a gun (87% of the people want it)
b) Making private gun sales and sales at gun show subject to background checks (81% of the people want it)
Source:
But, as we all know, this is NOT happening, because people âwant itâ, but will not vote according to that particular need and other things they âwantâ take precedence in their mind.
So, now their politicians are out and about blaming doors and their are shooting TV commercials with guns and explosions so that people will vote FOR them.
So, the conclusion is that politicians do not care what the public wants âin generalâ, but what they want on the few issues they will actually vote for, as you will see in the ads (some of them are so cringy 
)
The strange thing: For me wanting to own a gun comes dangereosly close to being a form of mental illness! 
Well, there is an objective appeal to them even with the basic concept of aiming and creating a skill-based activity, so it is not like you have to be insane to want one or feel like it would be fun to be part of a shooting range club.
Personally I think that bow and arrow is where some great skill is needed to perform and guns are a bit like cheating. Iâ've tried both (with some very basic bows, almost toys, in one event and shooting training with the G3A3 of the army) and Iâd say that bows are much more skill-based and hard to master (and thus more fun), but thatâs just a matter of personal preference.
Iâd say that in order to âcureâ someone from wanting a rifle, they can simply take them to the army and have them clean all the rifles used after target practice.
âClean 100 rifles quest, to get a permitâ
That would take it out of most peopleâs system 
P.S.
Fun story, in one such practice the regiment to avoid wear and tear to the weapons picked ten weapons from the soldiers and the whole regiment shot the training rounds with just ten guns. Then the captain gave them back their weapons and told them to clean them by tomorrow morning. 
They were furious and spent hours scrubbing the parts down.
Should be said that the US has an extremely limited choice in what people can vote for. I think the issue lies elsewhere, namely with the legally allowed, but basically corrupt, practice of lobbying.
This is true, but on the subject we are talking about, the same happens in Europe as well, were we have a lot more options. Letâs say a candidateâs position ticks the following boxes:
but fails on Enviromental practices and just doesnât think that Renewable energy, for example, should be the prime focus, for the time being, for their district. Would a lot of voters say ânaaaah, not voting for that candidate! I want solar panels and windfarms!â.
There might be some, but let us not pretend that even in Europe, where we have the choices, somehow âenviromental practicesâ is very high in the list of important things on which out vote is really swayed.
It is getting higher, but still not a âdeal-breakerâ.
That is also a good point. 
To admit, in the last two elections Iâve voted specifically for parties that promised action on the environmental front, and specifically for that reason as well (although they happened to have more opinions that I agree with). These parties have grown considerably in size in the last 20 years as well, although never large enough to form a coalition so far. I do know of quite a lot of young people (millennials and gen Z) that vote specifically with the environment in mind.
It should be mentioned that the political opposite has grown considerably in size as well, but somehow still the central political parties are large enough combined to form a coalition.
That is very good to hear
In my district mentioning enviromental policies is anathema. It is said in lawsuits that 40% of the wind power in Greece is produced in the central-south part of my island and they want to install more and more and there are allegations that the northern part was torched last year to remove the forest and make way for more hills and mountaintops that can get wind parks. (the southern partâs mountains are rocky so the locals there saw the wind power as a good investment - the northern part had so many pine trees that we produced 65% of the pine-honey of the whole country. But thatâs gone now 
)
As you can imagine most discussions over here on the environment are like that âYes ministerâ discussion âI agree, in principle, butâŠâ and people say âyes, to renewable energy, but do not install it here, enough is enoughâ.
It is good to see that even people that are so enraged understand that ârenewable energy is something good and it is not a reasonable nor good idea to oppose itâ but it also remains true that the ânot in my back yardâ mentality is strong in this topic.
Personally I think that the central policy on this issue here is, as usual, as bright as a broken lamp-post. We have 250+ days of sunshine. The goal should have been solar panels in all those empty rocky hills and solar panels on the top of the buildings and houses so that people can be semi-independent from the grid.
But, alas, the policy is not independent from the greed 
In our last elections 37 parties participated and 17 managed to get seats in parliament. Of those elected parties, about 5 qualify as âgreenâ parties in my book, economically ranging from center to far left. And maybe 3 very conservative parties would tend to oppose them on green policies, economically ranging from center to far right:
By the way, I would estimate this is our dividing line between pro EU vs isolationalist/nationalist:
You may note that I tend to vote as far away from nationalist as possible.
Edit: Perhaps I was a bit biased with my initial diagram. I updated it.
I think that line is a bit unfair to draw, as it implies that the distance towards that line define how pro- or anti-EU a party is, which is not the case.
Edit: Itâs a different line, but I think the previous line was more accurate. Only FvD and PVV (and perhaps Ja21, I donât really know what they think about stuff) are willing to exit the EU. I wouldnât consider PvdD isolationalist nor nationalist at all.
You may be right. I updated my diagram a bit, but still, nationalist vs pro EU may be a bit of a false dichotomy. Some would embrace the EU in their notion of âus vs themâ, while others would reject the EU in their notion of âus vs themâ.
A survey says that the environment is an important subject for 93% of the French population, but 60% wouldnât pay more to reduce their carbon footprint.
The funniest thing I saw today:
Conservative Polish grandmas accidentally pushing the agender agenda.
You didnât have a very funny day or something. Because howâs that funny?
(itâs there in Poland section)
It doesnât seem funny to me.
Even throwing away this background, people can be legitimately against gender. Because itâs a term made up so people can pretend physical sex doesnât matter.
This reminds me of my first bossâs pet peeve about gender. His mantra was âgrammar has gender, people have sex!â
People who talk about gender donât necessarily think that physical sex doesnât matter (what does it mean to âmatterâ?), but that humans shouldnât be forcefully put in a group determined by their physical sex.
I think more correct is to say that it is a term made up so that people can express how they feel instead of how they are genetically made up (and thus actually make that distinction, which otherwise would be quite hard to nuance).
Itâs also not the case that people want to âpretend it doesnât matterâ, but rather have the position that it shouldnât matter. In other words, that the genetics with which you are born do not define how you should behave, or what is or isnât allowed.
Hereâs my current bookmarksâŠ
Myself, maybe not - Iâm uncertain on this; as it happens Iâm educating myself on the matter currently. One thing I can be certain of by reading other peoples stories is that there can be a lot of suffering associated with gender issues. Suffering is universal, we have that in common.
