The trouble is, liberals never say what it is exactly that they want the government/governments to do about it.
This is simply a lie, of course: Plenty of people of
every political persuasion can be found
vigorously voicing their opinions on any subject under the sun. The trouble is, they often have all kinds of different opinions... even when they are oh-so-subtly lumped into a binary categorization :lol:
Acknowledging that 'liberals' have a wide range of opinions would have been counter-productive in your mind, perhaps? Instead, it must be portrayed as some kind of horrible secret consequence they're not prepared to admit, even to themselves?
I suspect that is because actually addressing the problem in the manner necessary to reverse the temperature trend would require a level of state control that no one except the most rabid leftist would ever tolerate.
Overwhelmingly the most popular responses that I have encountered are primarily market-oriented approaches: Assign a value and regulate any potentially harmful, limiting or depreciating use of the atmosphere, just as potentially harmful, limiting or depreciating use of land or sea resources are valued and regulated. No-one is stupid enough to hand unlimited tracts of land over to anyone who wants them, are they? Well, now we're learning that the atmosphere isn't a limitless resource either.
Whether it's carbon taxation, revenue-neutral carbon taxation, cap and trade, contraction and convergence - or nationalist or internationalist approaches - pretty much
all the popular suggestions I have seen are centered primarily on
market responses to valuation of a resource, not government micro-management. But it seems that political short-termism and hyper-partisanship dictate that hackneyed caricature attacks on 'liberals' and 'leftists' take priority over mere science and reality. Even as far as political strategy goes that's a flawed approach in the long term, in my opinion, but I guess time will tell.
