Roger, social scientists, eg, culturalcognition.net , the successors to the Cultural Theory of Risk people, separate us into 4 cultures, or worldviews, based on hierarcy vs egalitarianism, and individualism vs communitarianism. We favor problems based on the distortion of the lens through which we see the world, we favor solutions based on that lens. Some of what we see is valid, although probably too simple. A lot of what we see is not.
When the question of climate change comes up, people often favor solutions they feel will solve other problems they have long thought important. And there are other important problems in the world. A lot. But at this point, International Energy Agency and others no longer believe it possible to keep temperature increase below 2°C by 2100. Assuming 2°C is a solution—150,000 died in 2000, according to WHO, from disease, landslides, floods, and starvation, and surely many more this year. Yet I hear you reject nuclear power, one of the larger solutions to climate change, because it's not good enough. You use arguments that I haven't seen in International Energy Agency and other high-level reports. A social scientist might ask, how do you test your thinking?
Scientists are challenged by Nature, their worldviews are always under attack. Many in the public trying to sort through the public argument often pay attention to whether arguments show awareness of other worldviews—do those who worry about climate change, for example, accept solutions different from those they favored before they ever began to worry about climate change? I have heard a number of people explicitly reject the seriousness of climate change beause so much of those worried about climate change also oppose nuclear power. (I explain that scientists are worried about climate change, and support nuclear power, but some insist on their right to make up their minds based on what the public thinks.)
I won't argue the economy because it's not an issue on which I am knowledgeable. I do alert people to the costs being higher than most people want to pay—economists will be correct or not in their assesment of the effect on the economy. I do alert people that one of the needs of policy is to interfere with our "follow our bliss" sense that we can do whatever we want whenever we want. I occasionally let people know that economic justice is necessary for the public to buy in. I talk and write about these because they are solutions to climate change, not because they are the solutions I favored before I heard of climate change, even if I did. (I am particularly reluctant to let go of following my bliss.)
I respond in this manner because I hear from your style of writing that you want to solve a large number of the world's problems. Similarly, I hear from others that we can't address climate change until we have addressed campaign finance reform, or child raising, or ... And so in my heart, and this is my problem, I wonder if these people wholeheartedly want to address climate change. If I hear it that way, there may be others.