When people say they support something to pollsters its often difficult to capture their depth of support. Most people would say they like chocolate ice cream but asked if they would be willing to forfeit $100 for a chocolate ice cream cone would pass on the ice cream.

On paper most people would like something to be done about climate change. But their depth of support is equally shallow as is there support for chocolate ice cream. It sounds nice to protect the planet for future generations, to avoid the severe damage to infrastructure and our homes and businesses that increased severe weather is to impose on them.

People like climate change action if it’s free to them and has no impact on how they live their lives. Slap a few solar panels on your roof, scrub your plastic bottles before tossing them in the blue bin, drive your Prisus to Wally World. But not so much if it means much higher energy bills, less reliable electricity, more restrictions on driving, less low cost products at the store and fewer jobs.

I think many on the left are correct to diagnose climate change as a serious problem. But they are quite happy to live as life of fiction, pretending that the solutions are zero cost – or just a big bill they can dump on the rich.

 

One thing I really despise is climate change activists who have decided on what their ideal target for climate change would be, and that we must meet those ends, by using any means possible. You’ve certainly heard the logic, “we must limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius, to ensure a livable climate and therefore must do the following…”

That’s assuming there is only definition of a livable climate, and that there should be no debate on how clear or polluted we want our environment to be. It also is a form of ends justifying the means, rather then taking into careful consideration the means and how they relate to the ends. A higher climate target such as 2 or 3 or even 5 degrees Celsius global temperature mean might be entirely realistic when we consider the costs of  the most aggressive plans for climate change.

I think a better plan would be to take a look at current technology and what people desire from existing energy services like motoring, electricity, and heat, and see what improves can be made to the system in a realistic time period. We should take a hard look at the likely climate outcomes, and see if this motivates society to step up it’s game — but keep everything in context. Rather then choosing an unrealistic climate goal of 1.5 degrees for a livable climate, I think we should look at the unlivable climate we are moving towards, work to adapt society to the changing climate and take reasonable steps to promote conservation like increased fuel efficiency, more renewables.