Not really. Greenhouses basically work by keeping the same air in place and greatly reducing convection cooling. I think that's why the term' greenhouse effect' has lost favour. I think you can get special glass that does work like CO2, but it tends to go into high spec glazing for picky humans, and plants cannot afford it.

The narrative you quoted says we've been affecting the climate for 2000 years. — Tate

What are you on about. The paper is talking about natural cooling due to orbiting distance to the Sun. I pointed your confusion out and yet you still don’t get it.

The general pattern of high-latitude cooling in both hemispheres opposed by warming at low lat- itudes is consistent with local mean annual insolation forcing associated with decreasing orbital obliquity since 9000 years ago (Fig. 2C). The especially pro- nounced cooling of the Northern Hemisphere ex- tratropics, however, suggests an important role for summer insolation in this region, perhaps through snow-ice albedo and vegetation feedbacks.

https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/5184523/mod_folder/content/0/A-reconstruction-of-regional-and-global-temperature-for-the-past-11300-yearsScience.pdf?forcedownload=1

What are you on about. — apokrisis

I see that. Yes. That the climate has been headed toward an insolation minimum in the Northern Hemisphere is old news. This is the startling part:

But this natural cooling has gone unregistered due to unprecedented warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the paper explains.

See here.

What point do you want to make?

Sure human agriculture and firing of the landscape could have had an effect. So could the still earlier hominid culling of the planet’s megafauna up to 40,000 years ago - although whether this added to net cooling or net heating depends on whether the hit on methane - the loss of megafauna farts - or the loss of snow albedo from increase tree growth made a bigger difference - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1502540113

But who cares about ancient history. We know the climate is a balancing act of many factors. The issue here is that it doesn’t matter if nature has some underlying trend going on - unless it is abrupt and imminent. And it doesn’t matter if humans were “guilty” of impacting the world in small ways before the Industrial Age and fossil fuels.

So what exactly is your point? Why are you another one arguing this kind of “whataboutism” designed to suggest that somehow these other things somehow make a difference to the need to react urgently to the current human-caused global heating crisis.

So what exactly is your point? — apokrisis

That's it's a virtue to remain flexible. If we've been influencing the climate long enough that we concealed a 2000 year old cooling trend, then cutting down on fossil fuel CO2 emissions, while very important, won't be enough to address the problem. We'll need to start scrubbing at some point if we want to control our affect on the climate. We need a new energy source. It may be that burning fossil fuels to get us to a new energy source and scrubbing technology is more intelligent than just limiting CO2 emissions.

Why are you another one arguing this kind of “whataboutism” — apokrisis

I'm not a what-about-er. What's clear to me is that we need new perspectives to deal with the issue. Obviously what we're doing now isn't working.

If only life were so simple. To start with, the human heating will happen in decades and the natural cooling in millennia. So if you don’t mind first being cooked and then waiting….

But then the cooking is going to be so extreme that it pushes the Earth into some new setting anyway. Do stuff like melt the poles and you might have to wait hundreds of millions of years for ice to start to creep back. — apokrisis

Don't be so dismissive but, yeah, unmanageable complexity is the norm, simplicity is just us daydreamin'.

I am not a climate denier. I am just saying that the climate change is not entirely due to human activity. — god must be atheist

Yes, which is the latest slogan of climate denial. "The climate is always changing." "It's happening, but not due to human activity." You fall into the latter slogan, with a slight tweak -- you want to use the word "entirely" instead. Every scientist will concede that warming doesn't occur ENTIRELY because of human activity -- that would be absurd. If that's your only contribution to this discussion, it's a truism. But you go further than that, making ridiculous claims about CO2 and natural "forces," all of which have been dealt with by climatologists for decades.

One doesn't have to deny that climate change is happening to be considered a climate denier. There are all types.

There are too many holes in your arguments. It gives me a headache to think I would need to correct you in each one of them. Am I getting paid for that? No. — god must be atheist

Yet you can write two more posts, spouting nonsense. Got it.

You have no argument, and probably didn't read most of what I wrote. If you had, you'd see it wasn't "my" argument -- it's the argument and evidence put forth by NASA, NOAA, climate websites, university departments, etc.

So in other words, this is just a childish way to get away from the fact that you either don't read or don't have an argument.

On the other hand, you have plenty of psychobabble to spew:

You are emotional and hence irrational. You call me a climate denier. You say that because you equate my dissent to being a denier. You are full of misplaced rage and anger and confusion. You are a fanatic of the worst kind. A person who can't see beyond his nose and realize what is being said truly, you just feel the rage and anger and confusion consume you, so you need to find a scape goat to take it out on... and it's someone who says something that you misinterpret and bring up irrelevant arguments against, because in your anger your judgment got impaired, and you immediately latch labels on him, and want to see his blood flow. — god must be atheist

:snicker: I am this, I am that...thanks for your diagnosis.

"Dissent." lol. A person on the Internet who's completely ignorant about climate science and conjures up bogus theories about CO2 does not constitute scientific dissent. Sorry.

At one point you swore to not reply to me and to ignore my input on these pages. Why could you not stick to your promise? You even break your own word. I am not a climate denier and you are inconsistent with what you promise. — god must be atheist

I never once "swore" not to reply to you -- you made that up, or misread what I wrote -- the same way you misunderstood the video posted from a TV show. Seems to be a theme with you. Try reading a little more carefully.

Some new evidence in this argument, taken from established scientific measurements of heat retention by gases: — god must be atheist

:roll:

Again...how about learning something about climate science before posting stupidities in public? You're embarrassing yourself.

I'll help you:

https://earthathome.org/quick-faqs/why-is-carbon-dioxide-called-a-greenhouse-gas/

https://climate.nasa.gov

Therefore the CO2 increase in air is NOT conducive to global warming. — god must be atheist

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, the more warming we see. It's really that simple.

Are you really trying to argue that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas now?

If you don't understand the physics here, please ask and don't make irrelevant claims. — god must be atheist

I'm actually embarrassed for you. It's as if I'm watching a kid walk into a physics or chemistry department and informing everyone about how wrong Heisenberg was...and then confidently concluding with, "Any questions?"

Good lord.

The physics says, however, that it's not due to CO2 increase in the atmosphere. — god must be atheist

No, the physics says quite the opposite -- you're just ignorant.

You can actually test it yourself, by the way. Experiment at home with CO2 versus ambient air and see which one heats up faster.

When sunlight reaches Earth, the surface absorbs some of the light’s energy and reradiates it as infrared waves, which we feel as heat. (Hold your hand over a dark rock on a warm sunny day and you can feel this phenomenon for yourself.) These infrared waves travel up into the atmosphere and will escape back into space if unimpeded.

Oxygen and nitrogen don’t interfere with infrared waves in the atmosphere. That’s because molecules are picky about the range of wavelengths that they interact with, Smerdon explained. For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers. Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
specific heat of carbon dioxide at 300K is 0.846 units.

https://whatsinsight.org/specific-heat-of-air/
specific heat of air at 300K is 1.005 units. — god must be atheist

Please don't pretend to know what you're talking about; you don't. These sites themselves state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- that's all you need to understand.

Being a greenhouse gas has nothing to do with specific heat capacity. CO2 is a greenhouse gas because of the property to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen do not have this property to the same degree -- i.e., they are much more transparent to IR.

(CO2 doesn't get any warmer in the process, by the way. So GW has nothing whatsoever to do with specific heat capacity.)

Sunlight absorbed at the surface of the Earth warms the surface, which radiates that heat back towards space. Oxygen and nitrogen are relatively much more transparent to infrared than carbon dioxide and methane. As concentrations of the latter increase, more of the infrared is reflected back to the surface instead of escaping to space.

Think about those extremely thin and light "space blankets" -- they have very little heat capacity, but keep you very warm through reflection of your body heat.

Greenhouse gases are gases that allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb infrared radiation (heat) emitted by the Earth back toward space. They do this because the molecules are only excited by radiation at very specific wavelengths (a consequence of quantum mechanics). In greenhouse gases, those wavelengths are mainly found in the infrared portion of the spectrum, rather than the visible or ultraviolet.

This behavior was demonstrated in laboratory measurements by physicist John Tyndall in 1859. Since then, it has been confirmed countless times by instruments that measure light spectra. It can even be demonstrated with nothing more than an infrared camera and a candle.

Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases its heat-trapping effect, warming the atmosphere. Humans are doing this today primarily by burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. But in the past, there have been other drivers of warming like the slow-changing cycles in Earth’s orbit that controlled the timing of the ice ages. That initial warming influence was amplified by releases of CO2 into the atmosphere1. Whatever the source, an addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will have the same effect: increasing temperatures by trapping more infrared radiation.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/simple-measurements-demonstrate-that-co2-is-a-greenhouse-gas-tim-ball/

No arguments. — god must be atheist

You know, maybe you wouldn't be ridiculed so much if you showed the slightest bit of humility on this issue -- an issue that has been studied for decades by climate scientists (people who have dedicated their lives to this specific issue). Given the wealth of information available on the topic, your ignorance is really inexcusable -- but that's not my problem with you -- my problem with you is your arrogance.

Do you ever ask yourself: "What is more likely: (1) that I have refuted/undermined the science of climate change because of something I found that everyone has overlooked, or (2) that maybe, because I'm not an expert, I am simply confused?"

Either you don't ask yourself this, or you do but you conclude that (1) is more likely -- in which case, you're not only ignorant, but suffer from delusions of grandeur. I cannot imagine an ego of such magnitude. How old are you? If you're 16 or 17, I can look the other way. Otherwise, good lord...

@Tzeentch @Tate
Take it to feedback please.

I'm following Smil and what seems plausible given the immense size and complexity of the fossil fueled energy infrastructure. I'm always open to counterarguments, of course, and in fact I would love to be wrong. — Janus

I'm only familiar with Smil in that I've seen some YouTube videos; I haven't read his books.

He's interesting, though, and I'd like to hear more about what he thinks some realistic solutions are. If you're more familiar, can you elaborate on a few? Otherwise it seems like he's saying it's hopeless. While that may be the case -- and there's no sense being a fool about things if it is -- there must be some things we can do to at least mitigate the absolute worst case scenarios.

It may be that burning fossil fuels to get us to a new energy source and scrubbing technology is more intelligent than just limiting CO2 emissions. — Tate

First, this has nothing to do with the fact humans have always had some impact on the planet. What a population of 300 million humans could do 2000 years ago is rather irrelevant compared to 8 billion now.

Second, we have no choice but to burn fossil fuels while making a transition. So that is another bad faith debating point here.

No one’s plan involves “just limiting carbon”. The issue is just to start limiting carbon and just to start making a transition.

Why would you be pushing things that aren’t in contention except to make it all seem a little more complicated and uncertain then it actually is?

Smil mostly offers analyses that purport to show how things are and what is achievable. I think he would say there's no point telling people we should decarbonize quickly when it is not possible. Any strategy worth promoting should be viable,and if Smil is right, then touting the idea that the problem is merely political and that good solutions are mostly being disrupted by a recalcitrant fossil fuel industry is counterproductive. Our whole civilization is a gigantic. complex, interconnected and interdependent fossil fuel industry.

I agree with Smil that people should be told the truth, which is that we all have to use much less energy if we want to ameliorate (probably the best we can hope for) global warming while we try to make the inevitably slow transition to more sustainable energy sources. So Smil doesn't say it is hopeless and we should just continue business as usual, but he says that our strategies must be realistic or we will be walking blind into a worse catastrophe than we would have if we faced the hard reality. Of course the problem is political, not for the usual reasons it is said to be so, but because governments, and especially democratically elected governments, don't want to, for all the obvious reasons, confront their peoples with such hard truths.

I agree with Smil that people should be told the truth, which is that we all have to use much less energy if we want to ameliorate (probably the best we can hope for) global warming while we try to make the inevitably slow transition to more sustainable energy sources. — Janus

Smil is right but the problem is that then folk start accepting that there won’t be any orderly transition so the game becomes about survivalist scenarios, both at personal and state levels.

The calculus quickly gets ugly.

Smil is right but the problem is that then folk start accepting that there won’t be any orderly transition so the game becomes about survivalist scenarios, both at personal and state levels.

The calculus quickly gets ugly. — apokrisis

I think you would be right assuming that most people cannot accept the personal sacrifices that would be necessary, in terms of reduction of energy and general consumption.

So it seems we will muddle on in light of the (ig)noble lies that sooth the anxieties of the masses, and line the pockets of the predators.

This is actually not true. A majority of people are fine with making sacrifices if they apply to everyone and you can't just buy your way out (rich buying co2 credits, for instance). See: https://www.stefanie-stantcheva.com/research/

rich buying co2 credits — Benkei

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

A lot of good stuff said here since I was here about a week ago(working man).
- uncertainties about the human part of the warming
- people’s will to make sacrifices for the sake of reducing warming. On a personal and governmental level.
- various links to for and against.

I feel tnere are too many hidden agendas in all these types of discussions.
The really toxic part is if some people want other people to make sacrifices that they do not see as sound. That really blocks all parts to common understandings.
I do not know, but suspect, that different habitats for upbringing can make people more or less apt to make changes.
And further, the climate discussions are not only questions of sacrificing or not. There are things like technology in the mix too. Eg Nuclear Power.
To philosohize is supposedly a very low emission producing activity. People should sit down and think instead of travelling all over the place… i find people rooting for the climate also loving travelling. Thats not so cool.

I think he would say there's no point telling people we should decarbonize quickly when it is not possible. — Janus

We should decarbonize as quickly as possible. There — fixed it. Most of his points seem to be like this. Nitpicking. He points out that 1.5 is arbitrary, that 2030 is artificial, that decarbonizing will be very hard, etc. Yeah, no kidding.

I’m curious as to why you’re drawn to his voice in particular?

Personally I think he gives cover to a lot of delay tactics, and echos a lot of stuff that can be read on the WSJ editorial page. That’s dangerous too. As much so as setting unrealistic goals.

Any strategy worth promoting should be viable,and if Smil is right, then touting the idea that the problem is merely political and that good solutions are mostly being disrupted by a recalcitrant fossil fuel industry is counterproductive. — Janus

You’ve said this several times now. Who’s saying the problem is “merely political”? Our leaders in government, who make crucial decisions about the future, are important — but that’s hardly the only problem.

Good solutions are indeed being disrupted by the fossil fuel industry, when it comes to legislation and government action. I don’t see any way to deny this. When it comes to individual consumer choices, innovation, cost, infrastructure, etc., those have their own obstacles. Sometimes it’s just NIMBYism, for example— hardly Big Oil’s fault.

A lot of this just reeks of strawmanning I’m afraid.

I agree with Smil that people should be told the truth, which is that we all have to use much less energy if we want to ameliorate (probably the best we can hope for) global warming while we try to make the inevitably slow transition to more sustainable energy sources. — Janus

That’s one truth, yes. We should cut down on our energy use. But who’s “we”? Individual consumers? Yeah, that’s been a nice industry technique for 30 years: buy better lightbulbs, recycle, compost, turn off lights, etc. Passes on responsibility to individuals and ignores or minimizes those in power — the choices of industry and government.

If by “we” you mean our government — yeah, they have the ability to build public transportation, electrify thousands of USPS trucks and school buses, stop leasing federal land, regulating business, etc. Choices average individuals don’t make. I’d say that’s far more important — and what most people want, incidentally.

This idea that the onus is really on the masses is weak. We all play a role, but law, private enterprise, and economic policy play a much bigger role. The case of public transit versus individual cars is a good example— most people want efficient public transit systems. Yet they’re encouraged — by choices made by real people — to purchase cars instead. And there’s no secret why that is.

So while Smil is interesting and generally correct, I don’t think there’s much that’s new there. Yes the problem is very hard, yes individual choices play a role, and yes we should have realistic goals and look at how reliant we are on fossil fuels with clear lenses. I don’t see being unrealistic as much of a problem, however — most people are probably more pessimistic than anything.

Let’s get moving and talk about the solutions rather than chastising people for being too ambitious— or taking them to “get real.” That smells of egoism — “I, the true objective scientist, have a grasp on reality and will tell it to you straight.” I don’t think that attitude is particularly useful— it could do far more harm than good.

I'm talking about giving up the SUVs and driving tiny cars, or taking public transport, or using bicycles, giving up the international and domestic air travel and reducing general consumption to a minimum. Of course all these thing would in turn be very bad for the economies, leading to further drops in general prosperity. Whether the majority of people would be willing to do all these things I don't know, since I can't ask the majority of people on account of there are way too many of them, and I'm not sure I could trust what people say in answer to a hypothetical question anyway, but I sure as hell don't believe the politicians will be asking them to make such sacrifices.

We should decarbonize as quickly as possible. — Xtrix

Sure, you just need to make sure your projected timeframes are achievable, otherwise your strategy will not be adequate to the task.

Most of his points seem to be like this. Nitpicking. — Xtrix

I don't think so. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it's not a point that would be easy to argue either way. Smil's knowledge seems encyclopedic, and I have no reason to think he's "bought" so I'd trust his expert judgement over yours.

This idea that the onus is really on the masses is weak. — Xtrix

The idea is not weak in a democracy; the "masses" are the electorate, and the government will be voted out in a few years if it displeases the electorate.

Let’s get moving and talk about the solutions rather than chastising people for being too ambitious— or taking them to “get real.” That smells of egoism — “I, the true objective scientist, have a grasp on reality and will tell it to you straight.” I don’t think that attitude is particularly useful— it could do far more harm than good. — Xtrix

This just seems like tendentious rhetoric to me, not at all appropriate as a criticism of what Smil is saying. The "masses" don't listen to Smil anyway. Anyway don't bother yourself about my perspective...carry on...

Most of his points seem to be like this. Nitpicking.
— Xtrix

I don't think so. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it's not a point that would be easy to argue either way. Smil's knowledge seems encyclopedic, and I have no reason to think he's "bought" so I'd trust his expert judgement over yours. — Janus

I didn't say he wasn't knowledgable, or even that he was wrong -- and certainly not that he was bought. True, you're not saying that I said it -- but then why bring it up?

Anyway -- I don't doubt he's a good scientist and is a knowledgeable one -- he's interesting. I don't dismiss him. But I do think that his points -- at least some of the ones I menitoned -- are nitpicky, and run the risk of encouraging defeatism and the delay tactics of fossil fuel interests.

This idea that the onus is really on the masses is weak.
— Xtrix

The idea is not weak in a democracy; the "masses" are the electorate, and the governement will be voted out in a few years if it displeases the electorate. — Janus

Well there's a lot to be said about that, of course. But aren't you here making the case that government really is the most important factor? Because if the responsibility lies in the mass of people -- because they're the ones who elect the leaders -- rather than, say, their consumption habits, what else is this except blaming the electorate for the poor decisions of leaders?

This may be correct, of course, but it seems to me it assumes the power and importance of government and politics -- a point I thought you were arguing against earlier.

This just seems like tendentious rhetoric to me, not at all appropriate as a criticism of what Smil is saying. — Janus

Fair enough.

Well there's a lot to be said about that, of course. But aren't you here making the case that government really is the most important factor? Because if the responsibility lies in the mass of people -- because they're the ones who elect the leaders -- rather than, say, their consumption habits, what else is this except blaming the electorate for the poor decisions of leaders?

This may be correct, of course, but it seems to me it assumes the power and importance of government and politics -- a point I thought you were arguing against earlier. — Xtrix

Right, in a way I think government is the most important factor, since they make the policy decisions. But government, even one with the best will in the world, can be rendered impotent if what it proposes is unpalatable to the people. Here in Australia, the downfall of Kevin Rudd came about due to the perception that his proposed carbon tax would be seen as a "great big tax" (as the new opposition leader later framed it).

The liberal (conservative) party ousted their leader Malcolm Turnbull who had agreed to sign off on the tax. Rudd was replaced by Julia Gillard, who shortly had to campaign for new elections, and she did so promising not to introduce a carbon tax. But because of not having enough seats to form government she capitulated to the greens, and went back on that promise. Of course next election she was voted out as Tony Abbott, the man the liberals replaced Malcolm Turnbull with, promised to repeal the "great big tax".

You mention the peoples' "consumption habits": it is my opinion that any government that threatens to diminish or impact those in any significant way will not last long. I think people generally want governments to "fix this global warming issue" without impacting on their accustomed lifestyles,

What about the underdeveloped countries: how are they going to be "brought out of poverty" if decarbonization is inevitably going to cause a decline in general prosperity, and the more so, the more quickly it is brought about?

You mention the peoples' "consumption habits": it is my opinion that any government that threatens to diminish or impact those in any significant way will not last long. I think people generally want governments to "fix this global warming issue" without impacting on their accustomed lifestyles, — Janus

That’s definitely an issue— and it should be minimized if possible — but the government does all kinds of things that cause pain. Look at what the Fed is doing now. It may not be popular, but if it’s considered necessary (as this is), they should go ahead with it. The lockdowns were another example.

Either way the people are going to suffer. Best to explain it to them that this transition is necessary and inevitable, and that the alternative is far worse for themselves, their kids and grandkids. I don’t think people are as addicted to meat and cars as much as we think. If we give more options and stop brainwashing people through advertising and media propaganda, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.

What about the underdeveloped countries: how are they going to be "brought out of poverty" if decarbonization is inevitably going to cause a decline in general prosperity, and the more so, the more quickly it is brought about? — Janus

That’s a hard problem. I’ve seen some proposals— but first and foremost the US has to lead the way, along with other major emitters. They should also help developing countries develop sustainable practices.

I don't find anything to disagree with in what you've written here. The only point I'd make is that when we are considering long-term austerity measures you can always get an opposition party coming along and saying they will remove them after being re-elected, which can rather disrupt the required long-term continuity of effective strategies.

So this, for example:

Either way the people are going to suffer. Best to explain it to them that this transition is necessary and inevitable, and that the alternative is far worse for themselves, their kids and grandkids. I don’t think people are as addicted to meat and cars as much as we think. If we give more options and stop brainwashing people through advertising and media propaganda, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with. — Xtrix

which is pretty much what I have said governments should be telling people, but I believe won't for the reasons I've already given, would need to have bipartisan support.

Yes voluntary degrowth isn't going to happen, since politicians that would push that agenda wouldn't stay in power for very long. Case in point, Europe's current energy crisis. They'd rather turn to coal than accept they will have to do with less energy... And this from the continent that was arguably most willing to try and do something about the climate crisis.

Since voluntary degrowth is no option, we need to try to innovate and transition our way out of it. We especially need more Nuclear power plants, as fast as possible, to try and replace some of the energy we get from fossil fuels. It's the only carbon-free energy source that is reliable and energy-dense enough. Renewables can complement those, but can and should never have been the main replacement. They are simply not energy efficient enough, and you'll always have intermittency problems.

The alternative is involuntary degrowth, or collapse... and that would presumably be even worse since then one tends to turn to the more low-tech energy-sources, which also usually happen to be the most pollutant, like coal.

Anyway, in short, we need more nuclear power. It's safe, it's reliable, it's clean... only problem is, it has a bad rep. The alternatives are a hothouse earth, or a total collapse of industrial civilization.

I'm talking about giving up the SUVs and driving tiny cars, or taking public transport, or using bicycles, giving up the international and domestic air travel and reducing general consumption to a minimum. Of course all these thing would in turn be very bad for the economies, leading to further drops in general prosperity. Whether the majority of people would be willing to do all these things I don't know, since I can't ask the majority of people on account of there are way too many of them, and I'm not sure I could trust what people say in answer to a hypothetical question anyway, but I sure as hell don't believe the politicians will be asking them to make such sacrifices. — Janus

Did you look at the research I shared? Your reaction seems to indicate you haven't. A ban on combustion engines is an actual proposed climate policy in the survey of the top most research paper. So people are prepared to do this, provided rich people are under the same ban.

Not really. Greenhouses basically work by keeping the same air in place and greatly reducing convection cooling. I think that's why the term' greenhouse effect' has lost favour. I think you can get special glass that does work like CO2, but it tends to go into high spec glazing for picky humans, and plants cannot afford it. — unenlightened

I thought I saw something ... maybe not.

They hardly mention any sacrifices that would have to be made to implement the policies, as that doesn't seem to be the subject of the study.

A ban on the combustion engine is hardly a sacrifice if it is understood that they can be replaced by electric engines, a transition that would probably have to be be subsidized by the state anyway.

Also, agreeing with investment for a green transition if they get the money for the investments from the rich is no sacrifice at all:

"Figure A6 shows the answers to the question about which sources of funding respondents would consider appropriate for public investments in green infrastructures. Respondents tend to agree that appropriate funding sources are higher taxes on the wealthiest and a carbon tax. They are much less likely to agree with additional public debt, reductions in social spending, reductions in military spending, or increases in the sales taxes as appropriate sources of funding."

Loosely translated, they would agree to more green investments if it doesn't cost them anything.

Anyway, talk is cheap, across Europe governments are falling over eachothers feet now to reduce energy-prices for the public, which is the opposite of what a green policy should look like because it incentivizes energy-consumption which leads to more emissions.

So people are prepared to do this, provided rich people are under the same ban. — Benkei

Wouldn't the question about be poor people, not the rich people that can afford brand new electric cars?

The point of the research is that a lot of policies that seem economically effective, like tradeable carbon credits, are hated because people consider them unfair. People have no problems with making sacrifices as long as everybody does. I was mentioning the specific ban because it suggests Janus hasn't read any of the papers I linked, I wasn't arguing the effectivity of that specific policy.

And yes, CM, people respond better to subsidies than taxes, no surprise there but there's still a majority for making sacrifices also in the form of taxes.