Global warming is a perfect example. There are way too many people that point to a cold day and say: see?!
The message should be: there are huge changes going on right now, on a huge scale, beyond today's temperature.
The debate is also often linked to a proposed solution, which is a big mistake. Cap & Trade or a carbon tax are two of dozens of potential solutions. ThatSmugFucksPrius™ is not a solution, but way too often involved in the messaging.
Do you think there would be a big global warming debate if the proposed response was $200B a year in research? I don't. That is chump change with a bunch of positive externalities.
Sorry, but if the US decided to spend $200B per year on climate change research, which is decidedly not chump change, "debate" hardly describes the furor that would erupt.
It depends on how you wrap it. You don't even need to mention climate change. It's a "technology push for job creation"
What it isn't is an obvious friction imposed on the entire market. People don't like that.
We spent 10X this number of bank bailouts and such. That didn't piss normal people off because the messaging was that it was needed to fix the economy. Obama should do this as a followup to 2010 being a year to push job creation. The rest of the initiative could be to lower certain taxes and regulations, which is generally free. Then the messaging could be "Obama backs $200B job creation effort".
We spent 10X this number of bank bailouts and such. That didn't piss normal people off because the messaging was that it was needed to fix the economy.
I think you're out of touch. Virtually 100% of the Republicans I know were completely opposed to the bank bailouts, and a huge portion of the liberals I know were as well. Almost every poll I saw showed that the majority of Americans opposed bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry.
The message should be: there are huge changes going on right now, on a huge scale, beyond today's temperature.
The debate is also often linked to a proposed solution, which is a big mistake. Cap & Trade or a carbon tax are two of dozens of potential solutions. ThatSmugFucksPrius™ is not a solution, but way too often involved in the messaging.
Do you think there would be a big global warming debate if the proposed response was $200B a year in research? I don't. That is chump change with a bunch of positive externalities.