I've had IRL conversations with almost fanatical climate change activists, and I believe they look at it this way: even if they're completely 100% wrong, nothing is lost by improving how we treat the environment.
That might be their feel good belief, but its not based on reality. If you raise the price of Energy, the people at the bottom will suffer the most. There is real risk of relatively affluent Europeans going cold and hungry this winter, due to misguided beliefs that solar will provide their energy needs, in cold and overcast places like Germany.
The cost of energy even affects how much fertilizer cost to produce. And that is even more impactful of the risk of people going hungry all over the world.
Nobody is arguing for just increasing the price of energy. The whole point is to transition to other, greener energy sources, and while that's more expensive, soften the blow through subsidies and the like.
> There is real risk of relatively affluent Europeans going cold and hungry this winter, due to misguided beliefs that solar will provide their energy needs, in cold and overcast places like Germany.
Nope. Due to the misguided belief that Russia and its gas can be trusted as a transitional energy source until there's no more need for fossil fuels. Nobody expected that German solar would power the whole of Europe, the goal was always diverse energy generation methods (hydro, solar, wind onshore and offshore, tidal, nuclear). It was stupid to rely on gas for the transition, IMHO, and it was even stupider to rely on Russian gas. If it was Russian, Algerian, Azeri, Qatari gas in equal quantities, it wouldn't have been a problem that Putin is an insane warmonger (bar the emissions associated).
> The cost of energy even affects how much fertilizer cost to produce
Yes, which is where subsidies would apply until there are alternatives like green hydrogen.
> Due to the misguided belief that Russia and its gas can be trusted as a transitional energy source
I find it ironic that the right-leaning people that are pro oil & gas are often also isolationist and nativist in their orientation. Oil and gas are the least sovereign sources of energy and make you dependent on both the local government and foreign nations.
That is a very dangerous prespective. Every policy has unexpected effects that cannot be foreseen and nobody can be sure that something is totally positive and safe.
It’s pretty good idea not to dump huge quantities of anything into rivers, sea, atmosphere. Is your position that people who want to curb emissions should stop to think about unintended consequences? Maybe we should have done that
earlier when building this system with no accountability for externalities.
Climate fanaticals want more, much more than "not to dump huge quantities of anything into rivers, sea, atmosphere".
> That action must be powerful and wide-ranging. After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all.
The cost of energy even affects how much fertilizer cost to produce. And that is even more impactful of the risk of people going hungry all over the world.