I would say, everyone should listen to the environmental scientists.
i.e. people still need energy, and the renewable options have only very recently been viable for an individual to use, and only in some places, and often at great cost.
The objection to global warming isn't that it isn't real, it's that without fossil fuels most of us will die sooner than the worst case climate change effects ever will and so we have no choice.
Personally I have not heard this per se. Everyone I know who is opposed to climate science / energy policy changes is a wealthy person living in material excess, largely for social signaling purposes (e.g. buying more and larger houses and cars than they need for any practical purpose), and their denials are fed by right-wing propaganda and self-serving delusion.
Obviously we talk to different people but I've actually never heard anyone use this as a justification for our behavior. It's either non-acceptance of environment-scientific facts or acceptance.
> The objection to global warming isn't that it isn't real, it's that without fossil fuels most of us will die sooner than the worst case climate change effects ever will and so we have no choice.
The political debates I'm following, North America and Europe make me believe that actual climate change denial is very much a real thing. More so the more rural and/or the more dependent on the oil and gas industry you get.
There was a poll done recently that asked people about whether they though climate change was a problem, and also how much they would be willing to spend to help solve it:
"A strong majority of respondents said they were somewhat or very concerned about the issue of climate change. However, one of the most interesting follow-up questions was this: “How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?”
The vast majority of voters were only willing to make very minimal financial sacrifices.
About 35 percent said they wouldn’t be willing to spend anything, with another 15 percent saying they’d only sacrifice $1-$10. Another 6 percent were willing to give up $11-$20, while 5 percent said they’d sacrifice $21-$30. In all, a whopping 75 percent of respondents were not willing to pay more than $50 a month."
-- https://fee.org/articles/new-poll-americans-aren-t-willing-t...
That doesn't sound at all like "non-acceptance of environment-scientific facts or acceptance". That sounds like people think it is real but have other priorities for their money, which is what the parent poster was saying (a bit histrionically).
Click on the "climate change" tag at the top of that story and have a glance at what stories they think are worth telling about climate change.
You can find other polls that find the same results:
People agree that climate change is an issue. Most of them are willing to pay taxes to do something about it. They're just not willing to pay very much.
You'll get a budget of maybe $10 a month per taxpayer if you want majority approval.
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?
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.
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.
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.
This is why I am sceptical that it is anything other than a fictional bogeyman to obfuscate rich climate change believers unwillingness to sacrifice luxuries, and poor climate change believers inability to live above absolute crushing poverty [without fossil fuels].
Wait, I misread that. You think no one is denying climate change, and that the alleged existence of climate change deniers is the hoax?
That's pretty advanced stuff.
No, that's usually the objection. There's a reason "climate denier" is a phrase.
I don't think anyone would mind a purely technical discussion of how to provide power, mitigate impact to the poor, etc. Instead you get claims the scientists are part of some global conspiracy.
I am fascinated by the people who claim, “well those scientists are just saying that for the money”. They plainly have no idea what the financial life of a research scientist is like.
Or how the basic problem is so simple physics, you'd have to bribe either a significant percentage of the population or actual laws physics to succeed in this conspiracy.