I think the main reason why rightleaning people are in the universal denial of global warming and other environmental problems is the fear for "economy" a.k.a their income. However, we long time live in the economy of wants not in the economy of needs. Greater expenditures on environment protection, sustainability, etc. cannot possibly damage economy of "wants" if "wants" are somewhat adjusted. Most of the population of the Western countries are engaged in something secondary, unessential or even dangerous from a standpoint of the basic human needs and common sense. Gigantic marketing industry then brainwash the rest of population that they've got to have those products&services to feel happy and fulfilled. I.e. to support some environmental program, economy as we know it should not immediately evaporate, the "wants" should be just slightly adjusted. Is the want for a fat burger, a horny voiceless bitch, a new diet pill, self-help guru, you name it is so absolutely unbeatable by the want of an extra tree grove or a local farm, fresh tasty fruit, clean river full of fish... ? If there is a chance, I don't see why greater environmental expenditures shall collapse economies.

I think the main reason why rightleaning people are in the universal denial of global warming and other environmental problems is the fear for "economy" a.k.a their income.
So, the main reason that leftleaning people are in universal belief of global warming, etc., is to deny income to those more adept at "economy".

What a surprise.

So, the main reason that leftleaning people are in universal belief of global warming, etc., is to deny income to those more adept at "economy".

What a surprise.

So, (some?) rightleaning people DO believe that the only possible way of thinking is THEIRs, all abberations are due to the lack of billions in one's pocket? That's nice - humans as economic robots, here is your income, here are your thoughts&believes. Exact match. Strangely, most of the revolutionaries (and influential "treehuggers too, btw) have been born not exactly to poor&downtrodden parents. Al Gore is somewhat more adept at "economy" than you, I guess (I could be wrong, don't get it personal. I know how it's important to you).

But let's talk in your, a man proud of his bank account, language. There is a set of rules X. There is set of people Y who got to the top using those rules. Naturally, their dearest desire is to fix their winning position forever, which they do quite successfully (ever heard of former billionaire living in slums?) However, if the rules are slightly adjusted (and race begins from zero level, obviously), the set of winners is gonna be somewhat different, let's name it Z. So, I really don't understand why individuallistic rugged man like you would object to the selfish desires of set of people Z to use whatever it take to maximize the thing that matters in their lives using whatever means are necessary, even destruction of set or rules X, which were so good to you. There is no logic, because set of people Z showing all signs of the ruggedly capitalist, individualistic spirit in the quest for maximization of whatever they hold the dearest. While it's you who are showing signs of the commy rot, you want to freeze the state of things using appeal to the "naturality"&universality of things and order (which is beneficial for you).

BTW, I wouldn't call myself lefty, peasant anarchist (in the sense local self organization), maybe.