I would debate you, by pointing out a lot of "green" policies disproportionately affect the working class, including AfD voters.

> frustrated and resistant to evidence that their meat consumption contributes to climate change

Start with banning private jets and asking the very wealthy to curtail their carbon footprint. Then asking everyday people to change their habits might be less than hollow words. Once the very privileged start leading by example, then others might follow. But of course, they won't do.

Germany's energy policy, eschewing nuclear, has not brought in a stable renewable energy system. It has destabilised Germany's political standing and made Germany overreliant on Russian gas.

I consider myself an environmentalist, which is why I don't spend time asking people to wear hair shirts.

1. *Impact of Human Activities:* A preponderance of scientific evidence supports the conclusion that human activities are causing climate change. A meta-study by Cook et al. in 2013 revealed a 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists that humans are causing global warming. This is supported by organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and NASA. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and deforestation increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to global warming and resultant climate change.

2. *Impact on Working Class:* While it's true that some green policies could disproportionately affect the working class, it's also crucial to recognize that inaction on climate change will ultimately have severe socio-economic impacts, including on the working class. Rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, disruptions to food and water supply, and an increase in climate-induced migration and conflict will have widespread impacts. Thus, a fair transition to a low-carbon economy is needed, ensuring that the costs and benefits are shared equitably. Government policies could help in achieving this by offering subsidies for renewable energies, facilitating job transition, and implementing progressive taxation.

3. *Carbon Footprint of the Wealthy:* You're absolutely correct that wealthier individuals have larger carbon footprints and should lead by example. A study in 2020 reported that the richest 1% of the population produce double the combined carbon emissions of the poorest 50%. Advocating for the reduction of carbon footprints at every socio-economic level, starting from the top, is integral to combatting climate change.

4. *Nuclear vs. Renewables:* While it's true that Germany's shift from nuclear power has led to some reliance on natural gas, this should not be viewed as a failure of renewable energy. Rather, it highlights the complexities of energy transitions, which are often fraught with political, economic, and technical challenges. Renewables, in general, have seen significant advancements, with solar and wind power becoming increasingly cost-competitive. They have also shown great potential in reducing emissions if deployed properly and coupled with adequate storage solutions.

5. *Individual vs. Systemic Change:* It's not about wearing "hair shirts," but rather promoting sustainable choices wherever feasible. Nevertheless, systemic changes are indeed needed to address the scale of the problem. Governments, corporations, and institutions have significant roles to play in facilitating this change. This doesn't exempt individuals from responsibility, but rather emphasizes that both individual actions and systemic changes are essential in mitigating climate change.

Addressing climate change requires a multifaceted approach that incorporates social justice, economic stability, and environmental sustainability. It's a complex issue, but the evidence is clear: human-induced climate change is real, and action needs to be taken now to prevent its most catastrophic impacts.

Because when you fail to hear what they are saying, issues get left unaddressed, and the ranks of the discontented continue to rise.

I know that HN has a policy against generated text, and I learned about the policy by violating it unknowingly. A comment of mine voted to about 80 was then rapidly downvoted after @dang explained the policy to me.

On the one hand, I often prefer a good summary by an LLM to reading a lot of comments, and I like to share what I learn. On the other hand, banning generated text helps prevent a takeover by bots, and keeps the mission of HN focused on humans. After reflection, I found myself in favor of the policy. I can take what I learn from an LLM and write what I've learned in my own voice.

Remember that they caused the stopping of nuclear power plant.

Climate change is not a pressing issue, with the rise of renewable we will clean up our act way before it cause serious issues.

With regard to conservative voice (as a former liberal) I can tell you it’s the left voice that doesn’t understand the conservatives and the value they bring.

Changing things imply destruction, and the desire to change everything fast has consequences, thus a return to traditions has a lot of merits. I encourage you to look past your prejudice against them and see what is missing in your vision.

Where are you getting that image from? We're on a path to 2.0 Kelvin warming which will make large parts of the earth uninhabitable and displace billions of people. How is that not a pressing issue?

In Germany they didn't. The plan to exit from nuclear power was enacted by a conservative coalition of CDU/FDP in 2011.

Funnily enough the year before they had dismantled the original exit plan from the year 2000 that was enacted by a coalition of SPD and the Green Party. But Fukushima happened and the old conservative position of "nuclear power good" suddenly became very, very unpopular in Germany.

> Climate change is not a pressing issue, with the rise of renewable we will clean up our act way before it cause serious issues.

That's not the scientific consensus on the issue and could not be further from the truth. We're already experiencing serious consequences from a changing climate. When we don't change now this will escalate to catastrophic consequences.

> it’s the left voice that doesn’t understand the conservatives and the value they bring.

Oh the left likely understands those values pretty well. They just happen to consider the promise of "everything will remain as it was" not so valuable when there is a high price to pay for refusing to change and adapt to a changing world.

> Changing things imply destruction, and the desire to change everything fast has

We would not have to move fast if the mostly conservative governments running Germany in the past 30 years would have used their time to gradually enact sufficient change.

> consequences, thus a return to traditions has a lot of merits.

There really never was a traditional world view or a way to live where everything was okay for everyone. But I'm not surprised you'd say that. Looking backwards and not forward is the core value of conservatism.

For the priority for the world look at Bjorn Lombergs work. He used to be about super green policies but the more he digged the more he found that things didn’t add up. His work calculate what we should do, how it will cost, what effect it will have and when.

The point is to be effective in our policies. If we tax carbon (seems like a good idea) what effect does it have on the poorest of the planet? If we spend 1T$ on climate change how do we spend it, what impact will it have, when?

My view (by looking at Tony Seba work) and seeing the developpement of tech (Internet, AI, new plants varieties, etc) is that it 10-20 years will be in a much different world, and at this point with the current trajectory climate change will not be a concern anymore and we will wonder why didn’t we took care of the lives that were both easy and cheap to save. If anything population aging and collapse will be a far greater problem.

But it’s mostly a question of priority and effectiveness, I still think we should care about co2. If fact if we do we should be in China and India right now tryin to help them have more cheap and clean ernergy, they are those who are going to move the needle going forward. But I don’t think this is what we want to do. We want to put our plastic things in the recycling, ban plastic straws and plastic bag and feel good about ourselves.

I don’t know much about Germany, mostly french movement that failed to stop the nuclear and Greepeace that succeded greatly in the US and globaly to paint a dirty picture around nuclear.

I think in a sense those things are similar. Do they want to stop harm: yes. Are they misguided and doing more harm that good: probably at this point.

Yea I don't get this, what are chances of a tsunami hitting the German nuclear power plants? Put them higher or build a sea wall around them if they are so worried. Today they restarted coal power plants! Moronic!

- Funny. Quite obviously the issue was not the possibilities of tsunamis in Germany. It was the fact, that this particular power plant was not constructed in an area prone to massive tsunamis without sufficient tsunami protection. In Germany you would replace tsunami with different natural disasters. For example earth quakes. Yes, parts of Germany experience earth quakes. Usually they are very light, but every few centuries there's one able to level cities. The same style of organizational failure which left Fukushima unprotected against major tsunamis could have left German nuclear power plants without insufficient earth quake protection.

- The public witnessed that a nuclear power plant cut off from external power supply and without emergency power generation can run out of control just from the decay heat. Very few people knew before that incident that nuclear power plants don't have an off-switch and don't necessarily fail safely in exceptional situations.

- Also everybody got to see (once more) what failure of containment meant and that Japan got a big break because much of the radioactive plume was blown out to sea. Something like that happening in the middle of densely populated Europe would be very ugly and very expensive.

- Nuclear was already quite unpopular in Germany since Chernobyl and its nuclear fallout over Germany and Fukushima was just another big nail in its coffin.

There is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause serious issues. It's not an instantaneous process, but at this point it will happen.

As a recovering conservative (of 25 adult years) I can offer that any deafness is not only mutual, one side is currently bullhorning it as a virtue. As far as bolstering our energy supply, it isn't at all clear how revenge-based, hostility-flavored culture wars achieve this.

My observation is that one side has conjured up a boogey man from the worst possible perceptions of the other and now models all of it's own behavior on it. I can not see how this advances one worthwhile goal.