Back in early July Tom Nelson pointed out on X that “The EU Commission account, with 1.8 million followers, claims that ‘Europeans want strong climate action’ and gets FORTY likes in 10 hours.” As we ourselves argued in late July, there was a large hidden danger to climate alarmists in their apparent triumph in “capturing the commanding heights of our society” from academia to entertainment to politics to the media. Namely that they do not know what people outside their echo chamber are saying, let alone why, and assume the public is with them because people have been intimidated into silence, only to start erupting as their power bills skyrocket and, be it noted, emissions totally fail to decline.

In our observation of public discontent with soaring or abusive rhetoric coupled with dismal results, we discussed a piece in The Atlantic that argued that American courts won’t let Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency repeal Barack Obama’s rules about greenhouse gasses, thus bypassing the need to address the concerns of the increasingly restless public. But that’s the problem. There’s a world of difference between the EPA being legally able to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act and it being able to do so in ways that won’t cause the public to revolt. As there is between government of the people, by the people and for the people and government of the judges, by the judges and for the activists.

When it comes to sensible energy policy, consider this claim:

“We can move towards a sustainable energy-independent future if we harness all of America’s great natural resources. That means an all-of-the-above approach to developing America’s many energy resources, including wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas.”

Egad, some may cry. What MAGA maniac wrote that passage? Actually it’s a quotation, courtesy of Ruy Teixeira over at The Liberal Patriot, from… oh my… Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection platform. And probably one that a great many Americans would find reasonable today as, indeed, they did then.

It might well be a message that would resonate in other more zealot-captured jurisdictions as well.

For example, our cobwebbed in-box contains an item from Climate Cosmos via MSN that we had noted back in January, set aside for sober consideration and then um sort of forgot about. But it caught our eye because it concerned the “Top 10 Most Promising Climate Solutions”. And we were wondering how many might reasonably command support among moderates, because they could actually be done and without causing more harm than they allegedly prevented.

Without digressing into a defence of our organization or lack of it, we do note that it can be useful to look at items not in the heat of the moment but with some hindsight. As in ye olde days it was odd to close up a cottage in the fall, come back in the spring and start a fire with old newspaper whose stories had seemed so important then and now looked silly. A “newspaper”, kids, being this thing we used to get that had news on paper, see.

Anyway, the Climate Cosmos piece failed the test we are now applying. Not from excessive hysteria but from banality. For instance the top “Solution” was “Renewable Energy Expansion”. Gosh. Why didn’t someone think of that? Plus it said of this sparkling insight:

“Renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions if expanded adequately.”

Yes. And if grandma had wheels she’d be a trolley bus. (Google trolley bus, kids.) But the reason for rising public discontent is that trying to expand these things adequately has turned out significantly to increase power bills and grid unreliability while not reducing emissions.

Climate Cosmos drones on undaunted, from “Energy Efficiency Improvements” to “Electrification of Transportation” and name your cliché. Yes, including “Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)”. But the whole point here is that if they could walk that way, we wouldn’t have this “greenlash” we praised The Economist last week for trying personfully to face. Which probably includes opposition to “Plant-Based and Low-Carbon Diets” among a populace told there’d be no real sacrifices in moving to Net Zero only to have the government eat their hamburger.

Speaking of things we set aside, we also have “The 10 Best Ways to Combat Climate Change, According to Experts” from Global Citizen. And as you know, when experts say, we sneer. The subhed is “The solutions are in reach” and the piece is from 2017. So if they were, why have we not reached for them? Or worse, did we reach for them and find that straws do not keep you afloat?

Alas, yes. Their list started with “10/ Rooftop Solar — 24.6 Gigatons of CO2 Averted”. Then came “9/ Silvopasture — 31.19 Gigatons of CO2 Averted” which at least has the virtue of originality. Silvopasture apparently involving cows grazing among trees, “This ancient technique for raising livestock” that our ancestors abandoned way back as inefficient since the grass that cows depend on grows much better on open pastures. Then come solar farms, followed by family planning (“This isn’t about mandating limits on children. Instead, it’s about providing women with birth control and reproductive health options, which 225 million women in low-income countries say they want.”)

If you like mathiness, you’ll love “6/ Educating Girls — 59.6 Gigatons of CO2 Averted”. Not 59. Not 60. Not even 59.5. 59.6. Experts say.

Then they recommend “Tropical Forests”. OK. We’re in favour. And the Earth has tropical forests. Now what? Well, the usual. Don’t eat meat, do have hideous wind turbines everywhere, and in top spot “1/ Refrigerant Management — 89.74 Gigatons of CO2 Averted”. Yay. We’re saved.

Or not, because the big thing about this article, and you could find many like it, is how easy they made it sound. A decade ago. But it wasn’t easy, meaning the people promising us a painless transition were, again, either fools who didn’t understand the implications of their plans, rogues who weren’t leveling with us, or both. So now normal people are increasingly unwilling to make major sacrifices that won’t even reduce global emissions, let alone improve the weather if they did. And there are two paths forward.

On one, to which that Economist piece beckons, you acknowledge that people have reasons for doubting your smooth-tongued zealotry, that many things you said turned out to be untrue, and that you need more practical measures that achieve useful things at acceptable cost. On the other, to which that Atlantic piece beckons, you bypass those vulgar idiots in the public and ram through the failed plans of yesteryear and hope they don’t mind.

It shouldn’t be a hard choice. But we suspect it will be.