It'd be much easier to stomach some level of 'necessary' cost towards ecologically re-structuring our society if people would stop pretending that that means you can simply maintain our current way of living but in a 'green' way.
For example, there is no genuinely ecological way to have our current car-based infrastructure, let alone expand it into other parts of the world, regardless of whether they're EVs or ICE.
We absolutely must wrangle with the fact that we need a society not premised on infinite growth. Anything else is inherently NOT ecological and makes any claims about things like extracting lithium for a 'green transition' nonsense.
This is the most important comment here. Everything we consider "wealth" is downstream of our ecobiological cocoon.
If one's reaction to this is "we can just develop artifical life support": suggestions that a well-functioning planetary ecology is not necessary had better come with a demonstrably viable alternative. We are nowhere close.
Even if we were, is there no value in the beings we share this planet with? Can we really justify their indiscriminate destruction? To what end?
For example, there is no genuinely ecological way to have our current car-based infrastructure, let alone expand it into other parts of the world, regardless of whether they're EVs or ICE.
We absolutely must wrangle with the fact that we need a society not premised on infinite growth. Anything else is inherently NOT ecological and makes any claims about things like extracting lithium for a 'green transition' nonsense.