My brother in Christ, are you about to argue that the decisions to continue with extractive capitalism was somehow made in an egalitarian, democratic way wherein these people had the power to stop it? That's going to be fascinating to read while simultaneously arguing that this has happened because of hierarchal stratification of power.

In all seriousness, I think it is also telling that you're willing to support the devaluing of an entire group of vulnerable (most boomers are not US Senators) people and also think that the negative ecological and climate impacts of capitalism are a problem only because it effects you. Many liberals will resort to ecofascism like what you've expressed because they are not actually concerned about human life, they are just angry that this system hasn't benefited them like it did past privileged groups. Even if there was some "sustainable" way that this system could exist, it would still do so through the destruction of indigenous relationalities to the land they exist on and the transformation of every environment around capitalist imperatives. It wouldn't be "fixed" just because you wouldn't have to worry about carbon emissions.

Also, "scientists?" You mean the ones that also produced disinformation and were complacent in the disarmament of academic institutions as sites of political disruption? Anyone who works at a university knows that STEM people are some of the most common traitors and collaborators, and that's actually something they chose to do and be. Boomers vaguely are far less responsible for climate change than the fucking engineers who designed the fucking machines to do it with, or the shills who publish counter-disinformation and erode public trust in those institutions. Why not say that "scientists" should pay for climate change because a substantial number of them have been invaluable in its facilitation? Would that seem a bit silly?