Thing is, Greenpeace started to work on green development in the eighties, along with several leftist faculty and think tanks. Now, thirty odd years later, liberals have a nice thirty year head start and the solutions we know will work are optimized in accordance with liberal values, that is higher taxes and a better live for everybody. If you don't like that, well you solve problems with the solutions you have, not with the solutions you want.

> and the solutions we know will work are optimized in accordance with liberal values

We don't know what will work. Liberal solutions like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Accords, probably won't: https://www.ecowatch.com/james-hansen-climate-change-2030724....

Yes, by itself these will not be enough. However, in Kyoto the international community agreed that there is a problem, in Paris the international community set (self imposed, not enough and non binding) targets for emissions. It will need several additional steps into the same direction to get a workable framework, and that will hopefully happen over the next decade. The (American) right will not like any of these steps, but they did not propose any alternative, it could have been possible to find market based solutions and respect national sovereignty more, or rely on the virtue of small communities etc., but these proposals were simply not developed.

> It's 30-40% of the population that opposes the token non-solutions that have been proposed by liberal governments.

The primary solution (emissions trading) is a conservative solution, not a liberal one. Reagan and Thatcher introduced the Montreal protocol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol) to limit CFC emissions. Bush senior introduced the Acid Rain Program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program) to limit sulfur emissions.

Aside from that, if the conservatives would like to propose a new solution then I and most other people are all ears, but all we seem to get is denial that the problem exists.

"Conservative" is a somewhat meaningless term in this context. On one hand, it's conservative to continue with business as usual and ignore potential problems until they become unavoidable. However, it would also be conservative to keep CO2 levels in the atmosphere at their current levels, instead of running a radical climate experiment in which they are pumped up to ever higher levels.

The point is that it's not some big Liberal conspiracy that the OP and many others believe. It's not even a liberal idea.