Okay, consent can be "manufactured" in some sense if you "spin it properly"; however my point in the parent post was that as of now, it seems that it has not been done (yet?). The arguments were made, and "spun properly" but they have convinced (excuse me for crude stereotypes grouping people, but here averages matter, not individuals) middle-or-upper-class urban liberals, but have not convinced large quantities of lower income people. However, their consent is required as well, they have their rights, opinions, votes and possibility to (re)act, and the current message is not really reaching them, so it's not being "spun properly" as far as I see, because it's not succeeding. People will do as they're told if either they're convinced or if the "ask" is not too high. There's a "green consensus" that supports the environment with small scale action that does not affect your budget that much. There is not (yet?) a consensus that a major part of the country's resources should be devoted to reducing climate change risk or impact.
Covid is a relevant example, and IMHO it quite clearly showed the limits of how much people were willing to follow guidelines even in the presence of immediate threat with clear obvious results happening right now. If you would be asking something comparable to Covid restrictions so that in 30 years perhaps the impact would be lower... (the delay in time, the uncertainty of impact...) IMHO Covid experience shows that people simply won't accept that.