There is a slightly more subtle point to be made here. Politics is too complicated to generalise, but here is the kernel of the idea for others to mull on.

In my view, the part of the government most mobilised to deal with climate change is likely to be aligned to the (hopefully small number of) political actors comfortable with the idea of people getting less energy/more expensive energy/no growth in available energy.

I don't want these people in the seat of power under any circumstances. They have views that are a direct threat to my comfort and standard of living. Cheap energy should always be a priority.

EDIT Just for reference, focusing only on electricity and ignoring the broader energy market, I have read that South Australia (where Elon Musk is building his big battery) is competitive for world's highest electricity prices. The German energiewende has driven them to top 2 or 3 in Europe for prices paid by consumers. France, who has some of the cheapest and cleanest electricity in the world, runs nuclear. Ironically, in Australia, the most pro-nuclear party is also the anti-climate-change party.

>Cheap energy should always be a priority.

Environmentalists agree with this statement. As an energy source, coal has a relatively low price sans regulations. However, the true cost is not captured by markets.

Burning coal causes smog, soot, acid rain, global warming, and toxic air emissions and produces ash, sludge, and other harmful pollutants as waste products, externalizing and diffusing the cost to society.

Your 'cheap energy price' strategy is like an apocryphal example of the tragedy of the commons

What about cheap energy that is known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm? Are they a direct threat to your standard of living? Because, you know, a lot of politicians against climate policies are aligned with these energy sources.

Unfortunately, you've fallen for factually incorrect propaganda.

On-shore wind is the cheapest source of energy at the moment. Which side of the political aisle is against that?

Coal is only cheap if you ignore all the costs borne by those affected by its pollution, which literally kills people in large numbers. Which side of the political aisle is keen to ignore these costs of energy and force people to continue paying them.

But, even if you ignore those externalities, it's still more xpensive than the alternatives. Shutting down coal plants could save electricity customers in the US up to 10 Billion dollars a year. Which side of the political aisle is trying to subside it further?

> They have views that are a direct threat to my comfort and standard of living. Cheap energy should always be a priority.

I'm seriously wondering if you're being sarcastic here.

As a South Australian who has read a lot about the energy price issues we're experiencing, there's a lot of history to the story.

The big Tesla battery is about 80% completed and is there to be essentially a UPS - it will bridge the gap between a sudden loss of 'normal' power supply and the bringing online of additional sources to make up for the emergency shortfall. Gas plants that have X turbines, but only Y are 'spinning' can fire up their remaining X-Y turbines and the battery will cover us until X-Y are online.

A large coal plant in Port Augusta was shut down because it was no longer economically viable to run. It was offered to the SA government for $1 (that's how commercially unviable it was, some people say the SA Govt should have purchased and run it - I disagree with these people).

Somewhat ironically, this gave more market power to the gas generators who, due to 15+ year-old electricity market rules (because our regulators had been asleep at the wheel) can game the market to make massive profits during the relatively infrequent times when alternative energy supplies aren't meeting demand.

It's these peaks of demand coinciding with low supply and the gaming of the old-rules market that's responsible for a good percentage of the high prices.

Another good percentage of the energy prices is also a regulatory issue where the owners of the 'poles and wires' were guaranteed a return on any spending they committed to infrastructure. SO they went wild and we've ended up with a gold-plated (not literally) infrastructure that's cost end-users thousands of dollars over the years, and has made the "networks" huge profits, despite it being over-engineered to the nth degree (see: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/july/1404136800/jes... - $45 billion Australia-wide on 'poles and wires')

Going way back, the SA government sold off its previously state-owned end-to-end power company, ETSA, to pay off a massive debt caused a huge government screw-up / scandal that bankrupted a local bank. Some say anbother part of the high power prices is due to privatisation, but this is murky territory, difficult to prove either way.

Nuclear takes too long to bring to market from scratch to be viable anymore.

"the only known option for countering it requires government (or world) regulation."

Disagree. The regulation is only neccesary, if the common people/companys don't acknowledge the problem.

And even then, I don't think regulation helps much. More likely the opposite. Because if it is just ordered from above, then many just get childish rebellish and do the opposite. This is in my opinion the main problem.

Conservative people also like unpolluted citys I believe (side effect of electric cars) - most of them just taken a anti position to the leftish-green-hippi-liberal pro-enviroment stand.

So if people wants it, then it will happen. But I believe, we are allready on a good way. It just takes time to change the core of our industry and transport ... it is a huge effort. And will it be too late? That depends. I don't think it will be the end of the world, if the polar bear goes distinct or the netherlands get flooded. And we are allready causing great distruction to nature and people are starving by the millions. And this might get worse, but it is all connected, as the global population numbers are still greatly increasing who all want more things. So I don't see how regulating things down in Europe or US can help with that on a global scale.

So we as humanity have big problems, yes, but climate change is only one of them. And the solution to most, in my opinion, is better technology which will supply humanity in a sustainable way. Once people are not hungry anymore and are educated and connected with the rest of the world, then they usually tend to think, before just making more babys - about wheter they really want to raise a child and into what world they want to raise that child ...

And back to the topic, if you don't tell the conservatives what to do and think, but just show them how it can be done differently, then they will change, too, I believe.

> My own opinion after talking with conservative friends and on the 'net is that if climate change is real, the only known option for countering it requires government (or world) regulation. It is hard for people to accept a problem if the only solution violates their strongly held political/moral beliefs.

It's unfortunate too, because I don't even think it necessarily requires government to solve it. There are real decisions individuals and companies can make (and have been making) on their own to improve things. (But some people deny or don't take the problem seriously, and therefore don't try to help out.)