[ZeroGravitas]

I reject your framing entirely. Not dealing with climate change is the more expensive option.

This is the same absurd tactic that is used against some kind of sane medical system. "It'll cost 10 Billion" say the headlines. We can't afford that say the pundits. The report says, continuing on with the status quo will cost 12 Billion, but somehow we can afford that?

[rufus_foreman]

It's not my framing, it's the opinion of the electorate. You don't need to convince me, you need to convince them.

My framing would be that if you look at the consensus opinion of scientists on the effects of climate change, it's going to cost a few percentage points of GDP by 2100 over what we would otherwise have. Which is nothing to get hysterical about, but it would be worth doing something about it to lessen the risks of worst case scenarios. That something would be a carbon tax with the proceeds used to scrub CO2 and to do similar actions to mitigate the effects of climate change.

But a carbon tax has a 0.0% chance of being enacted. It has no political support, and if it costs the public more than a few dollars a month, they vote no.

[ZeroGravitas]

Do you know what a "push poll" is?

Carbon taxes or policies that are basically equivalent have already been used in a variety of political systems across the world in various contexts and have worked well and are popular. Usually, it becomes quickly obvious that simply not emitting the CO2 in the first place is the cheapest option.

[rufus_foreman]

I do know what a push poll is, I'm not sure how that's relevant here.

The OP is claiming it's hardcore either accept climate change or not: "It's either non-acceptance of environment-scientific facts or acceptance".

I don't think that's true. If a pristine environment is something you could get for free who wouldn't want that? Serious question.