That resonates with my impression too. The problem is that the two world views have a conflict in what are appropriate climate action policies. If you believe we should protect nature, that humanity is the bad thing, you want to ultimately remove humanity from some contexts (eg protected habitats), whereas if you believe that toxicity is the problem, you just want the toxicity out of /YOUR/ environment, and certainly don’t need to worry about protecting habitats.
Yes, this is exactly why climate is such a hard sell to conservatives. The carbon dioxide is not itself toxic (at least not for another century). I think the strongest conservative argument, and the one that I think has already taken root at the top, is the idea that famine is going to drive refugees across our borders (not to dissimilar to a fear of pollution). Of course, the response to that has been walls, not carbon regulation.
