Art, I have not fully decided on climate change, as the conditions of the Feinman principles have not been met, in my opnion.
However, what I think we can all agree on, is that we have been living profligately, and unnecessarily so:
The amount of food wasted each year, particularly in the West.
The amount of single-use plastic, in which we are drowning.
The amount of waste in general - we are running out of landfill sites.
The amount of toxins introduced into the water systems and food chains.
The amount of built-in obsolescence in consumer products (think throw-away tools - my late father must be spinning in his grave; think throw-away “fashion” - my mother may be resurfacing out of hers in outrage).
The amount of BS being generated daily on news media of all descriptions, needing storage in expensive, energy-guzzling data centres.
The amount of unnecessary travel, on a whim. It used to be called “cruising” in the old days of gas-guzzlers. Now equally fatuous moving around is done in wide-bodied jets. Never mind the energy, carbon emissions, etc, think of all the viruses being spread gratuitously around the globe.
BTW, despite all these “freedoms”, depression is set to become the leading cause of morbidity in the next ten years, so apparently we are not the happier for them.
I would argue that, whether these and other activities contribute to global warming or not, they are legitimate targets for intervention in their own right. Any ecosystem has a maximum carrying capacity, and we must be fast approaching ours.
But I would automatically question the motives of any grandstanding politician on these matters, starting with one of yours of “dimpled chad” fame. Having said that, after questioning, I would accept that some are sincere.