The problem is that it is easier to tout slogans and simplistic solutions than it is to conduct a sober analysis. Economics considerations are important, you c

The problem is that it is easier to tout slogans and simplistic solutions than it is to conduct a sober analysis. Economics considerations are important, you can't just gloss over them. For example, just the other day, my dad was telling me of someone he knew who spent £25k on a heat pump. It makes for great feels, and you get to go to bed at night with the warm fuzzies, but there is no discussion of things like payback period. One doesn't need to be a genius to understand the concept of payback period, but even this simple analysis is overlooked. And things like payback and Return On Investment are important to determining whether something is viable. And it's by no means clear in my mind that these costly solutions and all the materials they involve are actually better environmentally than existing solutions. It's like when people propose something like hydroelectric schemes. From what I've been given to understand, these are proven to be viable. But whenever such a scheme is proposed, groups pop up saying that it will harm some ecosystem. Will it harm an ecosystem? Probably, yes. But every time anyone takes a dump their having a deleterious effect on the environment, so I am expecting a more nuanced argument than that. My point is not that I am advocating for against hydroelectric schemes per se. My point is that "how dare you" doesn't lead to intelligent decision-making.