How is this possible?

[Free Pangea]

I got the "keep the greenbelt green" issue where companies are asking to build over a green part of the nation. Allowing the to do so hurt the environment (which is expected) but also hurt the economy (and it should do the opposite as it did for another nation of mine). Maybe it happned b/c the environment wasn't doing that great to begin with?
I got the power station issue just now. I will go with the green activist (wind turbines, solar) and see if this helps.

EDIT: I just realized the economic dip was actually caused by the decisions before this one when I reduced private property laws. I still think that my decision on the business over environment issue should have boosted the economy significantly.

[Bears Armed]

As your nation grows, with age, the effects of issues tend to become propotionately less.

[Yuktova]

As your nation grows, with age, the effects of issues tend to become propotionately less.

Are you sure about that? I would guess that you are, but just to make sure. . .

[Aescentia]

As your nation grows, with age, the effects of issues tend to become propotionately less.

I can confirm this.

[Hassett]

As your nation grows, with age, the effects of issues tend to become propotionately less.

I can confirm this.

To a certain extent though, answering a radical issue can still have a great affect on an older nation.

[Aescentia]

I can confirm this.

To a certain extent though, answering a radical issue can still have a great affect on an older nation.

Not by that much, though. For a nation that's but a year old, like this one, issues are fairly effective, with the most radical ones giving a -say- six to seven percentage point gain or loss to whatever category.

In an older nation of mine, which is long since dead from inactivity, the same sorts of issues would give a maybe three-to-four percentage point gain or loss.