>>13654135All of those words and you're still just not answering the question. Whenever someone says, "then there is no hope for you" when refusing to justify or explain their argument, it most often seems to mean they can't actually articulate what they're trying to say and are deflecting. Again: explain what environmentalists incentives for advocating for pro-environmental policies.
>Do you also not understand why corporations adopt LGBT iconography and donate millions to Black Lives Matter?They use the iconography they use and donate to the groups they donate to because focus groups and studies convince executives that doing so will be financially beneficial for the company. The costs of endorsing LGBT communities, of BLM, etc, are minimal, and their internal research convinces them the pros will outweigh the cons. Preventing climate change, conversely, is an immensely costly and unprofitable (at least in the short to medium term) venture. In the medium term, preventing climate change will be bad for the economy and, again in the medium term, people, including environmentalists, won't benefit from environmentalist policies. It's going to take a long time for the positive effects of those policies to be felt - the point being that corporations don't have the same incentives to promote environmentalism as they do LGBT issues.
>iron fertilizationDid and does not have the potential to sequester more than a small fraction of excess atmospheric CO2.
>>13654148>to push an agendaWhat agenda, and how do "powerful groups" (who are they?) benefit from that agenda?
