[hef19898]

That's what taxes are there for. E.g. in Germany we managed to implement a system to increase the share of renewables. That it wasn't perfect to begin with and was then screwed up but successive governments is a different story. What matters is that it worked.

I have the impression that most people opposing clinate change are afraid that the will loose something by the necessary changes, their cars, their perceived life style,... That's where politics come into play. Politicians have to communicate the necessary changes and come up with ways to manage the change without screwing the average Joe over. They found ways to divert billions to corporations with the best lobbyists, so there should be enough funds to combaz climate change. And once the western world started we are already half way there. The Paris accords used to be a global treaty, so there can be a global approach.

[polotics]

Hallo Leute. Believe me I would really like nothing more than for you to be right when you write:it worked The share of renewables may have risen, but at huge costs, and most importantly the installed capacity of non renewable plants has not been reduced, mostly because of intermittency of renewables. The net result: all the plants, just with lower utilisation. For nuclear this is a tragedy because the marginal costs of production are minimal, lower utilisation just hits profitability, which may indirectly be raising risks. For coal, well just look up how much the Energiewende Germany still mines... More on this here: https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/societal-choices/...

[ssnistfajen]

Increasing taxes is exactly what people would oppose, and a party that promises to scrap/not implement the tax will take opportunity to capture votes. This shouldn't be hard to understand.