That comparison is a little hamfisted. How about:

Gary is a conservative. He doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change, nor does he believe humans are obligated to protect the environment. Accordingly, Gary drives a truck, consumes a standard American diet high in animal products, and has a large ecological footprint.

Cheryl is a progressive. She accepts the scientific consensus on climate change and believes we should preserve the environment. Despite her convictions, Cheryl doesn’t take action to reduce her own impact. She drives an SUV, consumes a standard American diet, and her footprint is comparable to Gary’s.

The end result is identical - inaction from both parties. Gary’s unsustainable lifestyle is at least ideologically consistent.

If you see a train coming toward you, and you don’t get out of the way, did you even believe the train was real? Does it matter? I’m not in the habit of quoting scripture but JC nailed it: “faith without works is dead.”

Climate acceptance without lifestyle changes is denialism.

The train is approaching.