You are drawing sweeping conclusions from very limited evidence. None of this shows a large part of the population voting for radical climate action, a few more people voting a little bit more centre left doesn't mean much. It's particularly telling that you're trying to use the last EU election as evidence. Are you not aware that there was a right-ward shift in the European Parliament? The Greens in particular lost a lot. The EU continuing its course is far more indicative of technocratic governance over a democratic mandate.
You are deliberately obfuscating, to manufacture the appearance of support where there is too little. The issue is not that there is no climate action, the issue is that there is not enough of it. People, at least broadly, get the climate action that they vote for. Until climate swings elections in the way that the economy or migration does, the message to politicians will continue to be that people have other priorities.
No shit people are for fighting climate change in the abstract. But we're not living in an abstract world, we are living in an actual one. One, where needs and desires compete. And consistently, other desires take priority over fighting climate change. There obviously isn't as much support for actually combating climate change in the real world, with real consequences for real humans as you people assume.
This is terminal murica-brain. My condolences.
If they have such high public support why doesn't the public vote accordingly?
only 30% thought disruptive tactics were effective for issues with high awareness but low support
I just went to look for the catcalling article you mentioned (it's this one) and she is obviously not "complaining" about not getting catcalled. Instead, she's talking about how her ageing affects her sense of self-worth. Her getting catcalled less often is only the impetus of this reflection, not the actual source of her negative feelings.
This is completely insane and no economist agrees with your conspiracy theory.
Why would job cuts be temporary if demand stays low?
"Never thought I'd fight side by side with a Russian"
"What about side by side with a homophobe?"
As if this is what was needed to prove it. Trump once answered a question about the failings of western liberalism by talking about how liberal cities on the west coast were doing badly.
The argument isn't that they're "evil", it's that they could be used as tools by strategic rivals.
Nvidia is already profitable and has been for over a decade.
Is there literally any evidence that the US government managed to extract useful information from no-log vpn providers in the US?
But it has seen an impact, it resulted in the JCPOA
You asked for an example of a country changing its attitude, that is what happened in Iran to negotiate the nuclear deal. Now you are moving the goal posts and claiming that it wasn't sufficiently successful in the long run. That may well be, but it has nothing to do with the presence or absence of sanctions.
I also want to point out that sanctions often work far more subtly than what you imagine. If six months from now, Ukraine and Russia engage in successful peace talks, sanctions will certainly have played a role in shifting Russia's position closer to that of Ukraine, but on the surface it will be impossible to tell by how much.
Edit my comment to add the Iran example
The goal is to make the cost of waging war increasingly painful to pay. There is no other way to effectively do this than to target the entire country.
Off the top my head, the sanctions on Iran were pretty effective to get them to negotiate the nuclear deal. Until Trump tore that one up, that is.
There is no other way