>Even within climate science, the models aren't as clear cut as we tell the public. If however we do believe the models (which is reasonable to do!) then things

>Even within climate science, the models aren't as clear cut as we tell the public. If however we do believe the models (which is reasonable to do!) then things are going to be so dire that we can't tell the public or they'll freak out. Buying an electric car or not flying isn't going to do anything - we need to be massively carbon negative to have any impact at all. You should assume the absolute worst climate predictions are a reasonable picture of the future. Climate models are broadly quadratic: CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere determines the rate of heat accumulation in the Earth's atmosphere, so we integrate CO2 emissions twice to get warming estimates. This is massively oversimplified, but suggestive. But progress is exponential. The long-term benefit of buying an electric car isn't that you emit less carbon dioxide. It's that market trends move towards emitting less carbon dioxide. More investment goes to battery development, less to oil extraction. (Some futurists argue that exponential progress can't last forever, but we only need a few decades.) For example, one of the major challenges in battery development is the reliance on cobalt. But currently, cobalt is too cheap to motivate serious development of alternatives like V2(PO4)3 or sulfur cathodes. Iron phosphate, a cheaper choice for grid batteries (where energy density is less critical), is likewise undercapitalized due to low demand from grid operators. Even with widespread nuclear power, grid storage is necessary to manage varying loads. This is why I'm dubious of the ascetic approaches like just avoiding meat or airplanes. We need new technology -- the kind that allows us to live well without carbon emissions. Heat pumps are a major (IMHO the biggest) open problem -- commercially available air-source models run only at intake temperatures above -20 C, and ground-source heat pumps might not work well when they're used at a high areal density. (Electric joule-heaters meanwhile consume so much electricity that we'd need to double electricity production in northern areas!) It's much easier to give up beef/dairy or airplanes than heating, but heating residences alone (in the US) generates more carbon emissions than both put together (home heating: ~440 Mt; airplanes: ~150 Mt; cattle: 190 M; industrial heating: ~500 Mt). I am a physicist, not an economist. I am not qualified to say what climate policy should be w.r.t. economic impacts. But if messaging were my job, I'd spend a lot more time discussing new technology R&D spending than villainizing the fuel industry. China's status as a leader in green tech is conspicuous, while we are busy watching teenagers yell at legislators. https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas-global-leadership-renewable-energy https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas-global-leadership-ren...