Everyone can be "impacted" by climate change? More hyperbolic language to make things seem worse than they are! 'Impact' suggests a violent collision. 'Affect' is much saner, realistic word. Everyone can be 'affected' by climate change - but in a very limited way, if at all.

I received a letter from AGL recently, trying to tell me how I would be "impacted" by some new gobbledygook politicians had thought up to hide the high cost of electricity. Will I be 'impacted' by a 240 volt zap of electricity, or just continue to be 'affected' by the power ripoff?

' Impacted' seems to be joining other overreaching words favoured by semi-literates: 'amazing' instead of OK; 'absolutely' instead of yes; 'going forward' instead of …. what, exactly?

Highly exaggerated language is often used to make things seem worse than they are, particularly when the claims of the communicator are dubious.

"So if climate change is the cause that we are going to be the most supportive of ……"?

Who says climate change is a 'cause' people are most 'supportive' of? Not the polls resulting from questioning of the people; climate change is very low on the list of things 'to do'. People are much more concerned about the economy, jobs and the general incompetence of politicians than something over which they have no control at all. Plus the other concerns mentioned by the author who, it seems, is taking too much notice of the media and activist cranks.

Other than climate change the other causes are many ones of which is unnecessary deaths by pollution. Like e.g., black lung disease associated with the mining of coal and also has close to the highest death toll per gigawatt, as a generator of power

The lowest is the green's hated/maligned and hugely misrepresented nuclear energy, which has a lower death rate per gigawatt than their more expensive and intermittent renewables, which has a higher death toll per gigawatt of generated electrical energy than a much more highly regulated nuclear energy industry!

Moreover, if coal or gas-fired power had to comply with the same rouge rads compliance of nuclear energy, they would both fail! Coal-fired power has a huge pollution history that has a record of enviroment contamination with things like carcinogenic cadmium, uranium, mercury, arsenic and sulphides among a range of pollutants. Not the least of which is the CO2 that these things continuously pump into a CO2 overloaded environment!

Fracked gas emanates radioactive radon gas when burnt!

Then there is the predilection on the part of developer compliant governments to stack and rack people in more and more confined and congested cities as things like congesting busting rapid rail go begging and for decades at the alter of maximised conies/developer profits!?

Then there's the unarguable case for electrifying the economy, to get the foot of the fossil fuel off of our economic throats!

One does not have to look very far for other causes!

Many of which would be solved and to our maximised economic benefit if we were first among equals to decarb our economy, even if that involves some sovereign risk to our politicians? And or, their covert business cronies?

Any other cogent reason for their patent reluctance to act on many related issues, simply beggars belief!

As Shakespeare might have noted, something stinks in the state of "Denmark!" And never ever able to be changed as long as the current crowd are reelected and retain control. And includes other conflicted political puppets on the other side of many an aisle!?
Alan B.

I think this article correctly identifies the problem of inconsistency, that is, people preaching about an issue, but enjoying lives which contradict their ideals. Solution? Not sure there is an easy one, except that we should try to live as ethically consistent as possible.