I don't think so. Again, that's focused very much on semantics. If you dive in and really ask questions, outcomes are seen as the same, even if inputs are seen as different. Pollution is a problem, in their views, even if it isn't causing global warming.
The individuals (who I would note are actually very much in the minority) who steadfastly believe global warming isn't real, still identify that changes in species and/or weather patterns are happening.
It's not a stretch from there to mitigation. While they may not believe global warming exists, they do still understand that we need to make changes to our consumption, travel, and lifestyle patterns in order to ensure their children and grandchildren can have a planet worth living on.
I keep stressing global warming, because, in my experience, these individuals do not talk about climate change. They talk about global warming and how it's not a thing, even thought they identify that the weather is wetter and hotter sooner, then drier for longer periods of the year.
Thank you for the thoughtful explanation. Do you have any explanation for why these folks pretty reliably choose representation that pledges to relax environmental protections? Is it possible that they are concerned about the environment, but not concerned enough to matter at any practical level (e.g. given their expressed actions)?
Money, and a lack of understanding of the tragedy of the commons. That's the pure and simple of it.
I need to be able to exploit [resource a] to be able to feed my family. For example, take fertilizing a field or crop. So it runs off into the water. Well, that has never been a problem on my farm. I don't have algae blooms and my pond is fine. They don't seem to understand that they are just one small part of the larger picture of all of the nitrogen and phosphorous flowing into streams, rivers, lakes, etc. Source: The Obama era watershed protections that everyone was up in arms about.
They are very willing to express their concerns in their own backyard. Whether that is fostering native species, eliminating invasive species, or even adjusting farming/other practices to ensure the sustainability of their own soil. It just falls apart when it translates into policy across the board.
I feel like it's a lack of common definitions and something basic, but I don't really get it, to be honest.
I think this somewhat misses that pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are different issues with distinct (sometimes opposed) mitigations.
Pollution, like runoff and smog can be _much_ more locally tangible, both in the "i can see that we're putting something into the air/water that wasn't there before" sense and the "I can see the damage this is causing relatively directly". Greenhouse gas emissions is much more ephemeral, since things like carbon dioxide are natural parts of the atmosphere and are released to some extent by natural processes, and they only have a tangible effect on a global scale and over long time-spans.
I don't think it misses that point at all, unless I misunderstood you. I think it actually absolutely exemplifies what you wrote.
They identify that something is happening, but do not know what to attribute it to. Concrete steps that can be taken are in your immediate proximity. You can see the immediate effects of pollution, therefore you can try to fix that. You may not be able to see the immediate effects of greenhouse gasses or climate change, therefore it is not a problem.
It's the same as pollution not really being a problem until it impacts you, in particular. The same (I would argue confusing) attitude, I think.
The individuals (who I would note are actually very much in the minority) who steadfastly believe global warming isn't real, still identify that changes in species and/or weather patterns are happening.
It's not a stretch from there to mitigation. While they may not believe global warming exists, they do still understand that we need to make changes to our consumption, travel, and lifestyle patterns in order to ensure their children and grandchildren can have a planet worth living on.
I keep stressing global warming, because, in my experience, these individuals do not talk about climate change. They talk about global warming and how it's not a thing, even thought they identify that the weather is wetter and hotter sooner, then drier for longer periods of the year.