Well, if we look at the simpler question of whether we should do anything at all, even in the U.S. we have about two-thirds who think that the federal government isn't doing enough to reduce the effects of climate change [1].
Two thirds falls short of what I would consider "consensus", but it is a solid majority. In a well-functioning democracy one would think that should be enough, but unfortunately our democracy is not particularly well-functioning which means that the backing of two thirds of the public isn't enough to get legislation passed.
To be fair, though, once you start talking specific proposals you'd get variable levels of public support. Cap and trade? Carbon tax? Biden's platform when running for president, if I remember correctly, was essentially all carrots and no sticks -- additional subsidies for EVs, federal funding for solar and wind, and so on. That's one way to get the public on board, though I personally think we ought to have a carbon tax too.
This is the rub. Nobody ever wants to discuss this part of it, they just want to focus on the "deniers" because they want an imaginary enemy to blame their failures on.
"Deniers" aren't standing in the way of this. Even in the countries with the highest levels of deniers, they are under 20% of the population. America it's about 13%, and the people who want to do more to combat climate change is 60-70%.
Far far less popular agenda gets shoved through all the time by politicians, it's never stopped them before. But somehow in this one instance, when politicians attempt to deal with what they call the greatest problem ever to face humanity, the arch-enemy "dumb redneck unemployed coal miner" has used their vast network of power and influence to put a stop to it. They couldn't stop their Robert E Lee statues from being torn down by unruly mobs, but they'll go toe to toe with the Bilderberg Group? Get real.
It's just so hilariously stupid I can't understand why people don't see through it. Utter rubbish. The failure rests 100% on the shoulders of the politicians, corporations, and international groups who have been claiming they will do something about it while clearly never having any intention to solve the problem.
And while we are on the subject of popular opinion, a huge amount of damage has been done by hypocrite politicians and elites. I don't care if the private jets they use to fly around the world and their huge electricity-guzzling mansions "don't emit much in the scheme of things", what people hate more than anything else is hypocrisy and unfairness. Particularly when the commoners are admonished if they claim their contribution or their country's contribution is insignificant in the scheme of things, because "everyone has to sacrifice because we're all in it together". I bet that 13% would be 5% and the 30% would be 10% if it wasn't for the entitled, wasteful, hypocritical and hateful behavior and rhetoric from these people -- our "betters" -- who have proclaimed themselves to be in charge of solving this problem.
And what we should be discussing is not stuck on the idiotic yes/no whether it's a problem and whether we should do something about it. That is done. The popular mandate for this has existed almost globally but certainly throughout the west for 20 years or more. What we should be talking about is having a real debate and ask difficult questions about the proposed solutions that are not well explained to the public.
We should ask why countries with high emissions intensity of production are getting concessions. That's an incentive to increase emissions of production. We should ask why talk about per-capita concessions have so much weight, when that is a good incentive for countries to increase populations and reduce living standards for their people.
Step 1 is figuring out how to meet the world's growing energy demands while reducing fossil fuel usage in the near future. Just stopping isn't a solution, because the world continues to need more energy. Investing in more clean energy, storage and new nuclear power plants along with carbon capture and other C02 mitigation strategies are a good first step.
The way you (as well as most people) frame this, means there is no solution. If the world can't refrain from using more and more energy, then the world is doomed.
If we want to slow down global warming, we need to stop burning fossil fuel right now.
Hoping for a technical breakthrough of infinite "free" energy that would not only allow us to consume more, but also to do efficient carbon capture, is magical thinking.
It may happen! But it most probably won't, and we should be preparing for when it doesn't. The fact that we don't, and we keep waiting for a miracle that would be just around the corner, is pathetic.
80% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels, so we can't just stop, or civilization comes to a halt and people starve and riot. There's 7.8 billion of us now.
That energy has to first be replaced by wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, electric transportation, etc.
If there were consensus on something so simple, it would already be done.
I think what you mean is that there's consensus on "Everyone else stop burning fossil fuels, and I'll get around to it as soon as it's convenient for me. By the way, no nuclear, it's scary. And make sure to keep my AC running, it gets stuffy here. And my current car needs gas, so buy me a Tesla instead. And my jet rides around the world don't count, because travel is a culturally enriching experience so it's exempt."
The focus on individual choices is flawed because industrial processes and infrastructure emit the most GHGs.
Regardless, there’s no laws of nature that say you shall burn fossil fuel to transport and cool your self. The issue is that if the machines that produce carbon were to be replaced with machines that do not emit, many institutions would find themselves with stranded assets that required large capital investments.
