[FrustratedMonky]

Can't argue with that.

Guess I was going down the road that an environmentally-sane economy would need 'logic', it would be more 'logical', that it would be more correct versus the current system that seems 'illogical'. Thus we could use logic to argue for change.

This argument is showing that all sides could use 'logic' to reach their own desired conclusion, so logic is not really the method of change.

The whole problem of "You can't use logic to dissuade someone who didn't use logic to reach their viewpoint in the first place".

This argument has demonstrated that 'logic' can be more flexible when used by humans. Having a better environment for he future isn't necessarily better just by using 'logic'. Thus we can't use logic to argue for better policy. Thus, as you said, we need to fall back on different methods to 'threaten policymakers to change policy'.