{"id":219,"date":"2012-08-20T10:01:10","date_gmt":"2012-08-20T15:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=219"},"modified":"2013-07-07T14:10:40","modified_gmt":"2013-07-07T19:10:40","slug":"how-wise-is-political-wisdom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=219","title":{"rendered":"How wise is political wisdom?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a post a few weeks ago<\/a>, I discussed why environmentalism is not a topic in the election, and why the public doesn\u2019t seem interested. I wrote: \u201c\u2026 the public lack of support is, in part, a Catch-22. Politicians don\u2019t put it on their agendas because they are told people aren\u2019t interested. Then people think it\u2019s not important because no one is talking about it. This is what\u2019s known as a positive feedback loop. Too bad its effect isn\u2019t so positive.\u201d (Is it bad form to be quoting myself already?)<\/p>\n

Well, it turns out there is somewhat more positive news out there. A new study<\/a> from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication investigated what the effect would be on a candidacy if the candidate were to come out in support of climate initiatives. Surprisingly, their finding is voters do<\/em> want to hear views on global warming and that such a stand would benefit candidates more than it would hurt them. Even more surprising, Republican candidates would not lose votes overall. The study found:<\/p>\n