Post #3625649

2026-07-06 10:45 UTC

A French study finds that voters reward climate goals and punish denial across party lines — but ambitious, concrete policies bring no average electoral gain and can backfire: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2026.2674875 Having followed Danish climate politics for some years this sounds right. In CONCITO we have also seen it play out in surveys, like: 'Should politicians do more to curb climate change?' [Yes!] 'Do you support a tax on red meat' [No!] And so I had to make the below. #dkpol #dkgreen

Replies (2)

@leeloo@c.im 2026-07-06 12:10

@sorenhave@mastodon.nu I have a suspicion that the result would be different if they said "cows" instead of using a term like "red meat" that nobody knows what it means without looking it up, and which has a different meaning (some would say "undercooked") in the context of food. I would have said no a few years ago, until I found out that red meat basically means cows. Where I'm from, we mostly eat pigs, and I find cow meat boring and not worth the price, so a tax on cows wouldn't affect me at all. (But this happens all the time, asking people about technical or legal terms instead of using plain language, to get misleading answers because people didn't understand the question).

Open ##3630441
@eigengott@mstdn.social 2026-07-09 07:27

@sorenhave@mastodon.nu Related: https://mstdn.social/@eigengott/113622392504034619

Open ##3954572