Climate Change Policy in the West

For the longest time, I’ve been truly miffed by the policy proposals and behavior of climate change activists, and I’m genuinely interested in the take of persons of that orientation on WSO. I'm struggling to square climate change activists’ behavior and proposals with their rhetoric that climate change is an existential threat to humanity. I’m genuinely interested in the take of non-conservatives on this topic and am not interested in my conservative friends throwing shade.

Here are some examples of policies and behaviors of environmentalists that seem utterly counterproductive to the mission of fighting C02 emissions (this is a VERY shortlist, too).

1) The Green New Deal was filled with poison pills (policies that ensure its opposition by conservatives) as it proposed things like unionization, single-payer universal health care, increased affordable housing expenditure, absurdly massive spending, etc. It also completely opposed nuclear energy for reasons I just cannot understand. And used academic, left-wing rhetoric, such as talk of “indigenous peoples” and “communities of color” that ensured the red flags of conservatives go up.
2) Greta Thunberg, the lion of the anti-climate change movement, has talked recently about how this movement is bigger than the environment—it needs to include opposition to capitalism, colonialism, white racism, etc. 3) Germany, perhaps Europe’s greatest virtue signaler on climate change, is decommissioning its nuclear power plants while building a massive Russian oil pipeline. 4) New York State has banned the development of its state’s natural gas resources—natural gas is one of the core reasons that the U.S. is seeing progress on cutting its CO2 emissions as natural gas power plants replace coal-fired plants. 5) Tesla is happily building electric cars in China, which will be disproportionately run on China’s coal-fired power plants, which China keeps building year after year.
6) Opposition to nuclear for decades is actually beginning to slowly kill the American nuclear energy industry as it is dying a slow death from its inability to build due to lawsuits and regulations and waste storage opposition. 7) Fierce opposition by some to carbon capture.

I guess I don’t get it. If I thought climate change was an existential threat to life on Earth and I had to deal with “knuckle-dragging conservatives,” I’d try to offer policies to the Neanderthals that could get passed—much stricter environmental regulation in exchange for relaxed regulations in other areas. Heavy carbon taxes in exchange for, say, a 0% (or 5% or 10%) corporate income tax rate. Massive green energy infrastructure investment in exchange for entitlement reform. $15,000 electric car tax credit for EVs built in America and priced under $35,000 (for the Trump trade fans). Development of natural gas resources so long as the resource is used to replace coal. Instead, I see countless examples of hyper-partisan or anti-markets rhetoric or hyper-left-wing policy proposals that are dead on arrival.

And if I thought climate change was an existential threat, I wouldn’t be in opposition to natural gas or nuclear energy or to carbon capture. Opposing these things seems utterly counterproductive.

What am I missing? Climate change is an existential threat, so why the poison pill policies? Why not approach conservatives with palatable plans that they could happily support? Why the opposition to good environmental policies?