Scientific American has an article where two group debated combating climate change.
On the table for debate: Major reductions in carbon emissions are not worth the money.
The audience, a packed house composed primarily of residents of the Upper West Side of Manhattan but also everyone from an Environmental Protection Agency staffer to a busload of students from Penn State, initially didn't favor the motion, with 49 percent opposed, 35 percent undecided and only 16 percent supporting it.
After the debate.
The sentiments of the crowd changed after the debate, with 48 percent still for paying to cut carbon while 42 percent now convinced it wasn't worth the price. (Ten percent said they were still undecided.) After the debate, participants decried the format as no way to get at ideas and Huber had an inkling why his side succeeded: strategic voting. In other words, many of those already convinced that cutting carbon is a boondoggle pretended to be undecided. That's a strategy that may find its ultimate expression in the Congress in the near future.
One voice of logic said.
At present, companies, donors and the like prefer to be politically correct than effective, he argued. "Do what's rational, not what's fashionable."
Keep this in mind if you are effective, you’ll have a higher probability of saving costs.
But, for some going Green is a popularity contest. Those are the ideal customer for the greenwashers.