And considering how effective a really small minority in the US manages to have almost all policy and tax decisions go their way I am not sure it is even that simple. If you don't have the people with the money and influence and control of Congress on your side maybe you need 75% of the public agreeing with you. Or more. And that just ain't happening.
Obviously, you are correct.
We need to make an effective case that global warming is "bad for business". This should become easier and easier to do because global warming is bad for business.
That's no easier a strategy as businesses all share the same playing field. The question for a business is the same as for an individual - what will benefit me, and not the competition? Some businesses will see opportunities, some will see a need to alter their strategy - few would rally behind a cry to oppose the whole thing, being that they are both tied firmly into the way the modern world works (and have a lot to lose) and that their energies must be expended selfishly as shareholder domination dictates (and again those who own them are the 1% who mistakenly think they can weather this storm by sacrificing those who are poorer to give them ground to stand upon as the tide rises).
The alternative to having a massive portion of the populace weakly supporting change and the right policies is to have a much smaller portion supporting it far more aggressively (and potentially violently). Revolutions are not typically fought by the majority, who mostly sit on the sidelines mildly favouring one side or another. However in the context of the US (and the world), I think climate change is a long way down a list of factors for triggering a literal revolution - and none of them very likely given the dominance of the current socioeconomic elites.
It doesn't help that if a small group were to start to act aggressively (and yes, potentially violently) they would be condemned from all sides including their own. There is no consensus even amongst those who do take the problem seriously as to how bad the problem is or what measures and urgency are required to attempt to address it.
We are therefore as a species still in the very early days of grappling with the issues and the gap between our ability to address them and the severity of the issues needing addressed is now not only growing but arguably accelerating and ever widening the gap. Mathematically that's a game over proposition, at least as I see it now.
In this context perhaps the prognosis for grand solutions of any significant scale is very poor and small scale solutions have the best prospects?
Besides as individuals and people with little power in the modern world, is it not a lot easier for us to act on a smaller scale? If we attempt to act on the big scale and make that our sole focus - we run the risk of never acting as we never perceive a means to do so. Yet if enough little actions were started there is a real prospect some of them could grow into much bigger ones?
The only caveat being that little actions must be realistic, switching to energy efficient light bulbs and recycling some rubbish/trash is insufficient (while laudable). To my mind that means meaningful actions must be predicated upon failure of the current system. While such actions might not avoid failure (nor mass mortality etc) at least the theoretical scope would remain to greatly improve our resilience as a species and to elevate the floor down to which we will crash in collapse?
A strategy that both provides an opportunity to build a future upon sustainable foundations and that implies the decks are cleared of the current system (which will necessarily fail).