I disagree, just the science was attempted for quite some time but science has been derided in American culture lately, people don't accept facts and so a more emotional approach is required to break through to the public.
Just because something hasn’t worked doesn’t mean that it is a good idea for science to get into politics. Once science is seen as just a wing of one political side then it is doomed.
There is no evidence that more emotion will help get the political support required to do anything. Using emotion just enable your opponent to more easily block out your message.
I do agree that we need to change approaches. We aren’t going to win by fighting the fossil fuel owners head on (they are too rich and powerful), but by buying them out. Let’s stop with efforts that effectively steal their assets (i.e. forcing them to keep the carbon in the ground) and start by buying the carbon off them at market rates and then leaving it in the ground.
Australia's much the same. Our novelty Prime Minister even brought a chunk of coal into Parliament to demonstrate convincingly how nice and safe and clean it is.
No coincidence that both nations are big fossil fuel producers.
There is no evidence that more emotion will help get the political support required to do anything. Using emotion just enable your opponent to more easily block out your message.
I do agree that we need to change approaches. We aren’t going to win by fighting the fossil fuel owners head on (they are too rich and powerful), but by buying them out. Let’s stop with efforts that effectively steal their assets (i.e. forcing them to keep the carbon in the ground) and start by buying the carbon off them at market rates and then leaving it in the ground.