[doctorpangloss]

I don't know. It is just as likely that if Tom Steyer couldn't donate to candidates who support his idiosyncratic ecological causes, those causes would be even less relevant politically than they are now. The Green New Deal evaporated for many reasons, certainly one of which was the rising of interest rates, which caused spending everywhere, like campaign donations, to fall.

Everywhere we look, greater spending - in all sectors, including political lobbying - is almost certainly associated with support for environmental causes, because it is basically a rich man's cause. And anyway, I don't know if it even predicts the victory of the most corrupt political interests, when Trump raised just above half the amount Clinton did, and Obama raised almost twice McCain.

Like I get what you are saying, but following your logic, the problem is democracy, because in the objective reality we live in, sacrifices for the sake of the environment are unpopular.