> Whatever policy you implement, end result must be that stuff costs more and people live with less: virtually no personal cars, no for-fun-flights (vacation), force people to wear same pants for years and repair them when they get damaged.

> That is hard pill to swallow for many, even for somewhat environmentally-aware beings.

You’re not wrong but I think adding some context would be helpful here.

That appears to be the situation now but it didn’t necessarily have to be this way. If effort in earnest was started earlier to develop the technologies necessary for transitioning off hydrocarbons, develop renewable energy generation, and so on the transition may not necessarily be so severe. And the policy which enabled this delay did cost consumers any way due to the active funding of a pro hydrocarbon influence campaign. Though I would guess the total cost of that policy is still much lower than actually trying to transition.

I think transitioning is a much easier pill to swallow if you realize that the decision will be made one way or another eventually and that it’s better to be proactive rather than reactive when trying to solve such an existential issue. That is, if one believes the science and cares about the future beyond just one’s self. Unfortunately that influence campaign I was mentioning earlier did a good job of denying the issue, used bad science to deceive, delayed climate action, degraded efforts of those fighting against it, etc. However I do acknowledge the ability to care beyond just one’s self is, to a certain extent, a financial privilege.

Incentivizing having less children is also another long term approach to limit emissions as technology becomes more efficient. Though it seems this has already been accomplished unintentionally in many places.

I’ve gone on kind of a rant but my point is yes the necessary policy decisions are more severe today but it absolutely did not have to be this way. And that is important to keep in mind because that campaign is still actively at play today.