> there seems to be little introspection from those who propose sweeping policy change about the need to consider second-order effects on those whose lives and

> there seems to be little introspection from those who propose sweeping policy change about the need to consider second-order effects on those whose lives and livelihoods will be upturned I really encourage you to read more deeply on this, as I think you're painting climate advocates with the same broad brush you decry others for using. It is extremely common for climate people to insist that a just transition is the only transition worth making - which includes both gigantic structural changes around how we interact with the climate & also structural changes to society to change the material conditions of marginalized & adversely impacted groups. These recommendations are included in basically every climate change document produced by international efforts. The inclusion of these considerations is also routinely mocked by US conservatives. Lots of people think that "climate is about climate" and the inclusion of social safety net reforms or serious retraining is a bad-faith inclusion from the left who are just using climate change as a cudgel. If you're interested in a pretty up to date holistic (though to the left of many of the IPCC recs) take on climate recommendations, I would point you at the latest season of scene on radio[1]. It links together the chain of reasoning about why it is essential to address climate with other sources of marginalization and victimization. The understanding of "what climate change activists want" that you're taking about in your post is frequently brought up by people who would like to obstruct action. [1] http://www.sceneonradio.org/the-repair/ http://www.sceneonradio.org/the-repair/