Wait, what? LOL no.Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is "believed in" by this or that segment of this population or that population is irrelevant, the real issue is the response.
Given that climate projection models have substantially different outcome profiles 10, 20 and 50 years out - it is problematic to devise quantitative responses designed to reduce CO2 effects that will have predictable outcomes. Placing your attention on austerity is a flat out no go. Californians vote every year for gas taxes, "road diets", extra bike lanes etc., but 57% of car registrations are for SUVs. Austerity is not a sexy choice for wealthy people.
The chicken little Gretta ranting at no one that matters (the UN) after a carbon-fiber sailing yacht pleasure cruise is defocusing our attention from change effect mitigation.
Do you really want to screw Joe Blow commuter trying to get to work at his wage slave job by carbon taxing the manure out of his transportation expenses (the guy still has to work you idiots, and geography in other parts of the world is not equivalent to your dinky backwater island)?
Lobby for canceling insurance in floodplains. Lobby for canceling building permits and insurance along coastlines. Lobby for energy distribution infrastructure. Lobby for agricultural research, lobby for updated building codes that include better insulation - better storm tolerance - include passive heating and cooling etc. Positive responses people can get behind.
Jumping up and down screaming you Americans are rich, and everything is your fault, and you need to suffer because waaaa is less effective than an Open letter to FDEV.
Change the narrative. Go for what people can do, not what they can't do.