Not dealing with global warming will also lead to "the kind of economic impact such drastic action would entail would likely run into millions of deaths, many of them far away in poorer nations"
Since you've ignored most of what I said there, let me reduce the surface area of the discussion and ask 1 thing:
Let's assume the UK does everything the climate 'activists' request of them, and this results in an economic depression and unprecedented unemployment and poverty - do you think this increases or decreases the likelihood of other countries following suit?
The sooner countries start to embrace it, the more they'll be able to economically benefit from the required changes that we're all facing.
Yes, you said:
>> The correct approach is a practical middle ground where we try to do what we can
Then provided no examples of what we can do, in your opinion.
This isn’t a problem that can be solved by right leaning politics, this is the right’s blind spot. You’ll need some creative lefty types to sort this out and then you’ll need some efficient righty types to come in a clean up what they’ve designed.
The solution to this is not in the past, it is not doing something we already do in a better way (politics of the right), it is of a new paradigm (politics of the left).
You are also glossing over the consequences of an extreme response to climate change - an honest discussion talks about the cost as well as the benefits of any action taken.
The "all or nothing" approach is likely to get you nothing because in democratic countries when you take actions that result in severe economic consequences, people will just vote in a govt that reverses it. It also sends a signal to all other countries who were considering such action not to do it.
It's not an easy problem this, and I don't pretend to have all the answers, but to me doing SOMETHING that is likely to be acceptable to democratic countries is better than doing nothing and souring the whole thing for ordinary people.
Surely the “something” has to be impossible to achieve given your assertions (which i agree with) that there will be severe economic consequences.
The idea of some magical possibility where we all get to keep doing what we’re doing but climate change does away is impossible. There will be economic losers (and winners)
If you're the type of person who believes they're saving humanity, you naturally don't fret over details like what do people want, or some rational cost/benefit analysis. You know better. The axioms are set and indisputable.
Barnacled, you're quite articulate and reasoned in this thread, but I doubt you're changing anybody's mind.
And FYI, the same type of personality also likes to compile "lists of ideological opponents". It's an old book played a hundred times before, so it's good to be aware of that.
I really regret the emergence of figures like Greta Thunberg, while heralded as a great advocate for action against climate change I feel she has actually been more harmful than good - she advocates an extreme alarmist position, often referencing highly debated timelines ('follow the science' doesn't take into account scientific dissent) which of course if/when they don't happen get ignored much like a doomsday cult.
It has resulted in this "if you're not perpetually panicking you're an anti-scientific climate denialist" mentality which I find really stymies actual practical discussion on the subject.
It's not helped by actual climate denialists pointing this out and thus tarring those like myself who absolutely believe in man-made climate change but who are pragmatists who realise the world is not quite so simplistic as good/evil and governments are not all-powerful gods who can magically change everything all at once.
I also think unfortunately there is a fair bit of anti-capitalism (the system that has lifted billions from poverty) that has snuck in, in the UK 'extinction rebellion' a very much Greta-esque protest group have openly advertised their views on this. Of course no comparison is made to other economic systems and their ecological track records...
It shouldn't be about ideals - 'we must cut carbon emissions to 0 no matter what', but rather 'what option is best in comparison to the consequences of another'.
If the UK (unilaterally) sets an example and does everything the climate activists request of them, but this results in economic depression and unprecedented unemployment and poverty, then no.
Not only will no single country in the rest of the world use their example, plenty will seek to take advantage of an environment in which the UK is rendered deeply uncompetitive, as countries tend to.
And if the constant allegations of climate movements’ funding and influence being manipulated by foreign powers beforehand were strong, they will evolve straight into legitimacy following an event like this.