It's encouraging to get some politicians in congress that are more receptive to climate issues, but I have a nagging worry about the implications of this election, as far as climate stuff goes: It seems like a significant part of the election result was driven by anger over cost of living issues, especially gas prices.

Now, the reason the gas prices have been high is terrible, sure, I'm not in favor of bombing countries into submission- but as a general matter, we desperately need to transition away from oil, both for climate reasons and because it's a limited resource that will run low at some point. People do not often change their lifestyle without pressure, especially when they are not wealthy enough to buy more expensive things to make a statement without taking a hit to their comfort, so it is also important that the price of gasoline, and other fossil fuels, and ultimately other high impact aspects of our modern lifestyle that we desperately need to shift to more sustainable alternatives to (like high percentages of meat in diets, or large spread out housing separated by lawns, for example) increases to match the cost it truly exacts on us in the long run.

For someone following that lifestyle who wishes to avoid changing it, this would appear as a rise in the cost of fuel, food, housing, and cost of living in general, and while the reason for that cost increase might be different from the reasons for this one, it worries me that ultimately, things that need to happen to avert more serious problems down the road are likely to be fundamentally unpopular enough to be impossible to implement before disaster or resource scarcity forces the issue, with worse consequences than if it were done sooner.

Dont get me wrong, I do still think this this is a better election result than what we have now, but some of the reasons I keep seeing for why it happened concern me.