When it comes to opinions on climate change, the developed West is divided roughly into four camps, primarily as a function of political leanings. In one camp are those the media has labeled “hard right” or “climate deniers”—people who suspect climate change is a hoax used as cover to implement a global socialist agenda. On the other extreme sit those often labeled “hard left” or “climate alarmists”—people who believe the world is coming to an end, fossil fuels are to blame, and time is rapidly running out.

Between this polarity sits the vast majority of citizens, sorted into what we would call the “soft right” and “soft left.” Members of the soft right generally value environmental protections but put little stock into the idea that the planet is in existential danger. They also tend to be optimistic about humanity’s ability to respond to any climate challenge in light of historical adaptations and the exponential pace of today’s technology development. Those on the soft left assign more seriousness to the climate crisis, vote for candidates who promote environmental causes, and are ready to make lifestyle changes—to drive an electric vehicle, perhaps install solar panels on their roofs, and dutifully sort their trash to separate recyclables—in an eagerness to do their part.

We have long suspected that the soft left is only willing to go so far in this regard, reasonably drawing a line to shield their standard of living. This group is now aware of the Big Lie™ sold by climate alarmists — that we can radically reduce our use of fossil fuels without meaningfully impacting our lifestyles. It was fine enough to play footsie with such assumptions when energy was plentiful and interest rates hovered around zero, but as the energy crisis unfolded and inflationary pressures took hold, the initial consequences of decoupling from fossil fuels left many quietly wondering what exactly it is they signed up for.

https://tinyurl.com/yck3tpnx