[Mirioron]

If you want something to ever actually be done, then there absolutely is a point for moderation. If you just go along with whatever people label as "saving the climate" then you're going to be taken for a ride. People don't like being taken for a ride, thus they resist what makes their life more difficult.

[lotsofpulp]

> People don't like being taken for a ride, thus they resist what makes their life more difficult.

I doubt it. People don’t want to reduce consumption. People want their detached houses and front and back yards, they want their international vacations, domestic vacations, they want to drive around without thinking how much it will cost them. People want to see their children live easier lives than them, not harder. Conveniently ignoring their great great grandchildren’s lives, but there’s comfort in plausible deniability of not knowing the future.

[mistermann]

>> People don't like being taken for a ride, thus they resist what makes their life more difficult.

> I doubt it.

Are you willing to consider it as a possibility though?

No doubt the remainder of what you say is true, to an unknown degree (ignore this at your own peril), but if you had god-like omniscience to simultaneously see into the minds (including the subconscious) of all people on the planet, the true reality of their beliefs and what sort of compromises they would be willing to make under certain conditions - might the material aspects play less of a role in the impasse than you and others think?

Draw upon the knowledge (personal, and observations of third parties) you have about human relationships, particularly conflict. Have you noticed that sometimes people don't behave completely rationally, sometimes going so far as to even lie to themselves about why they do the things they do? Are there sometimes situations where a minor disagreement finds a way to grow into a full on battle where the original objective disagreement has faded into the background, the fight itself takes on a life of its own, and people revert to their irrational, tribal, caveman roots, seeking no particular goal other than revenge?

Might there be some aspect that creeps into the political realm? If it did, what might it look like? Might it look something like irrational, dishonest & disingenuous, hate-filled discussions in social media, as opposed to good faith fact-based discussions where both parties are seeking to achieve a state of mutually beneficial compromise? Do we see any evidence of these two conversation types taking place in social media today?

Jonathan Haidt is the only academic I know of that seems to have noticed this aspect of the situation (as related to political polarization, not climate change) and set his mind to studying it. Does anyone know of others?